Suchergebnisse

The relationship between domestic and international conflict serves as the primary focus of this article. A research approach is used that is different from that found in most previous studies. We use the international system as the unit of analysis and employ a dynamic time series research orientation. We suggest and present empirical evidence supporting the idea that the change in magnitude of domestic conflict and the change in magnitude of international conflict are intimately related in a behavioral pattern that we call the global conflict process.

The dynamical behavior of domestic political hostility is modeled in terms of the interaction between hostile (challenger) and ruling (regime) groups. The conditions under which the conflict situation will either settle down in a steady state or evolve in time are derived for various forms of collective action costs. The model presented is a general framework for explaining the various outcomes of the repression/dissent nexus as special cases of the same fundamental process. We also obtain critical parameter values of discontent that bring about discontinuous jumps in the level of hostility.

Conflict-free Conflict Resolution (CFCR) is an emerging theory and practice of conflict resolution. Building upon traditions of innovation within the field of dispute resolution, as well as insights from a variety of disciplines including conflict studies, peace studies and developmental psychology, CFCR aims to be a unity-centered practice. Both the method and outcomes of CFCR are attempts to reflect the possibilities of helping to create conditions of unity between individuals and communities. The purpose of this article is primarily descriptive, aiming to give an initial overview of CFCR as a practice. This description is rooted in the initial applications of CFCR in a number of contexts. In this article, the theoretical underpinnings of the CFCR model are summarized, CFCR's connections with the contemporary conflict resolution scholarship are explored, and the three stages of CFCR are outlined.

This study explores group participants' bias toward reducing conflict in consensus ver sus majority decision styles. Recent research suggests that diminished disagreement seriously jeopardizes the quality of groups' final decisions. This study tests for conflict expectation differences between consensus and majority processes. A semantic differ ential questionnaire examines expectation ratings for consensus versus majority pro cesses. Results suggest that the participants expect climate in consensus process to be more agreeable and friendly than in majority process. Among subjects, MSWs showed greater confidence in consensus than in majority, but MBAs did not. In practice, both professions frequently engage in consensus group decision making. Implications of the findings suggest that consensus process might be governed by an "agreement norm" that has the potential to restrict disagreements needed to reach sound decisions.

Three sets of assumptions about elite and constituent relations prevail in approaches to conflict termination. The `Interest-based', `Identity-based', and `Timing' approaches offer important insights into conflict termination processes but differ in how they conceive of the locus and direction of domestic political power during conflict termination. Despite such important differences, these contending approaches have not been tested comparatively. In this paper, I introduce the Dynamic Group approach and test it against these current approaches. The Dynamic Group approach differs from these others in that it is grounded in the two-level perspective on negotiation. The Dynamic Group approach treats the domestic locus and direction of power as variable (1) across cases and (2) across conflict stages within a given case. Accommodating such variation introduces the concept of domestic ratification as an important determinant of the success or failure of conflict settlement attempts. The Dynamic Group approach offers greater generalizability than the current approaches. Specifically, I demonstrate (1) that whereas these three contending approaches apply only to cases in which elite's and constituent's interests are consonant, the Dynamic Group approach covers cases of elite and constituent interest dissonance, and (2) that whereas the three approaches apply to no more than two stages of conflict termination, the Dynamic Group approach comprehends differential effects of four distinct stages. I demonstrate that the Dynamic Group approach best accounts for conflict-stage effects in the 1973 and 1985 attempts to settle the Northern Ireland conflict.

Of the dozens of conflicts in the Third World which have occurred in the post-war era, few have been of greater duration and bloodshed or have attracted the attention of as many outside actors, including the superpowers, as Angola. It has only been since the mid-1980s that the conflict began moving towards eventual settlement, with the prospects for peace often seeming to depend largely on the attitudes of Cuba, South Africa, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Further affecting the overall environment was the state of East–West relations, the internal situation in Angola, and South Africa's occupation of Namibia. A short historical background will serve as prelude to an extensive examination of the dynamics which fuelled the war in Angola for such a long period of time.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a theory of measurement. When applied in decision‐making, it assists one to describe the general decision operation by decomposing a complex problem into a multi‐level hierarchic structure of objectives, criteria, subcriteria and alternatives. The AHP provides a fundamental scale of absolute magnitudes to represent judgments in the form of paired comparisons. A ratio scale of relative magnitudes expressed in priority units is then derived from each set of comparisons. An overall ratio scale of priorities is synthesized to obtain ranking of the alternatives. What is illustrated here is an application of the AHP to a retributive ongoing conflict in which the parties maximize both their benefits from and costs to the opponent. Using the AHP, benefit and cost hierarchies are constructed for the parties, four for each, involving actual and perceived benefits and costs of concessions. Similarly, a mediator must construct his own hierarchies to evaluate and propose changes in judgments and new concessions to improve an impasse in negotiation.