This book draws on a wide range of practical examples to describe how conflicts within organisations are traditionally managed and the complementary conflict management methods that can be employed. Stephan Proksch clearly explains these innovative methods and their potential applications. The central focus is on mediation as an effective form of conflict resolution. Discussion and questioning techniques as conflict management tools are explained in simple and concise terms.
Annotation, Conflict Management is an easy-to-read and high-powered tool for understanding and managing conflict situations. Conflict can spiral out of control, but if you understand how the spiral works you may be able to prevent it from even beginning. In this book you will find many options for managing conflict, including: planning goal setting compromise mediation Expert communicator Baden Eunson also takes an in-depth look at negotiation skills. He offers a visual and fresh approach to the work of strategies and tactics, negotiation styles, the importance of listening and questioning skills, the reasons why the location of negotiation can affect its outcome, and why the phrase 'win-win' is not a cliché but a technique for success
The issue of armed conflict management was first mentioned in the inaugural issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution in 1957, when Quincy Wright wrote that the resolution of international conflict can be facilitated by national government efforts "to prevent tensions for arising and aggravating disputes […] among nations. Such resolution can also proceed through the application of appropriate methods of negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement […] and the coordination of measures to prevent aggression." However, there was remarkably little emphasis on studies of negotiation, mediation, or interstate bargaining before the mid-1970s. A more concerted focus on managing armed conflict began in the mid-1970s, and the 1990s and 2000s saw an explosion in the number of published quantitative studies on conflict management, driven in part by the significant growth in data collection projects on interstate conflict management. Over the past half-century, quantitative studies have identified the factors that promote the use and success of interstate conflict management. It should be noted that a lot of the usual suspect variables in the conflict literature, such as power parity, democracy, rivalry, and contiguity, appear in conflict management analyses as well. Yet the dialogue between these two literatures is often limited. On the other hand, conflict management courses typically organize themselves around the dependent variable, examining different forms of conflict management techniques (good offices, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, adjudication, etc.). Progress will be made on both fronts when we start thinking about these processes in a unified framework.
Existing IR studies have underlined how much International organizations’ strategies have evolved. The most obvious transformation is the increase of networked forms of conflict management arrangements such as simultaneous peace operations, ad-hoc coalitions, joint programs or joint opinions. These forms of interventions, characterized by the co-involvement of several types of actors challenge both realistic views of third parties’ cooperation in conflicts and methodological approaches of this phenomenon. In this paper, I propose to use the new Database on Inter-Organizational Relations in Conflicts (DIORc) in order to compare, with a social network perspective, the interplay between inter-governmental organizations in two conflicts. The aim of the paper is twofold: first, the network perspective is used to open the black box of multipartite intervention. Cooperation is designed as an affiliation network where ‘actors’ represent the IGO’s institutions (parliaments.) and ‘events’ are conflict management activities in which actors are involved. Secondly, this paper seeks to contribute to the understanding of cooperation in peace and conflicts. The contemporary conflict management doctrine is based on a comprehensive approach that includes two aspects: First, all the dimensions of a conflict should be addressed and second, institutional overlapping should be avoided through the division of labor between conflict managers. However, analysis of the level of coordination temper the comprehensive argument, suggesting that collaborative advantage rather linked to legitimacy than efficiency. Second, following Putman (2000)’s distinction between ‘bridging’ and ‘bonding’, this paper shows that transorganizational actions occur more frequently between homogeneous groups of institutions than across divers groups.