Negotiating Complex Conflicts
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Author | Cecilia Albin |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12693 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
Negotiating Complex Conflicts
Cecilia Albin
Uppsala University
Abstract
Opposing notions of justice held by parties frequently contribute to the complexity of conflict and its resolution. Yet the impli-
cations of this reality remain poorly explored in scholarship and often little recognized in policy approaches. This chapter
delineates different causes behind and roots of opposing justice notions in conflicts situations. A range of means available to
tackle them are then developed. So called integrative strategies of negotiation and conflict resolution are put forward as most
promising if certain preparatory steps, involving a third party and trust building among other matters, are taken.
Principles
Complex conflicts have turned into a widespread and dan-
gerous phenomenon, as shown throughout this volume.
These are conflicts, often long-lasting, which persistently
defy attempts at resolution. They are highly intense, and
typically violent and destructive. They have many causes. At
the core, in addition to or beneath material interests, are
often deep rooted values including about justice. They tend
to be linked to identity and survival issues, which parties
see as absolute and too costly to compromise upon. These
core concerns tend to color the entire conflict, so that dis-
putes over land and other material resources assume great
symbolic meaning and become seen as nonnegotiable.
How are such complex conflicts best tackled? This article
addresses this question, with a focus on complex conflicts
involving opposing notions of justice. ‘Opposing notions’
refer to the endorsement of different principles, or to con-
flicting interpretations of how the same justice principle is
to be applied and implemented. It may also involve some
party adhering to a justice principle, while its counterpart
endorses criteria other than justice as the proper basis for
determining the case at hand.
Empirical social science research is generally remarkable
in its underestimate of the role played by justice considera-
tions in human conflict and behavior, given their actual
importance (Welch, 2014). An exception is negotiation
research, which has demonstrated a number of positive
effects. Adherence to justice principles by parties enhances
the likelihood of arriving at an agreement (Albin and Druck-
man, 2016), the legitimacy and acceptability of the negoti-
ated outcome (Albin, 2001, 2008), and its durability
(Druckman and Albin, 2011). Endorsement of forward look-
ing justice principles boosts agreement in a study of wide
ranging negotiation cases, while backward looking ones
have the opposite effect (Zartman and Kremenyuk, 2005). In
a study of civil war negotiations, parties’endorsement of
the principle of equality only contributes to more durable
agreements (Albin and Druckman, 2012). However, as fur-
ther discussed below, the common situation in which
parties hold opposing justice notions, and ways of overcom-
ing it, remains largely unexplored. This is a significant gap,
for divergent views of justice very often contribute to the
complexity of conflict and its resolution.
Where do complex justice conflicts come from?
Why do parties to complex conflicts so often endorse con-
flicting justice notions? While still a poorly explored topic,
some reasons can be derived from existing knowledge and
practice.
Different beliefs and interests
Notions of justice are embedded in broader belief systems
and ethics. When the latter diverge among parties, the for-
mer easily clash. But a party’s justice notion is also naturally
influenced by its own circumstances and typically overlaps
to some extent with its own interests. The extent to which
self-interest can legitimately be included in a serious claim
to justice is debated extensively in the academic literature,
with notions ranging from the idea that justice must be
defined separately from self-interest (Rawls, 1971) to the
notion that justice is entirely self-serving and legitimately so
(Gauthier, 1986).
A close observation of negotiation practice gives a much
more nuanced and appropriate picture: A party’s own vital
interests and concerns will influence what it regards as just
and legitimate (and vice versa), what principle it will
endorse, and how it will interpret and seek to implement it.
In other words, genuine justice notions and notions of vital
interests are interlinked and cannot be analyzed separately
(M€
uller, 2013). Moreover, parties’endorsement of justice
principles may be more self-interested in the early phases of
negotiating than in the latter ones, when often conflicting
principles need to be tackled and reconciled if an agree-
ment is to be possible (Albin, 2001).
There is thus very little empirical evidence to suggest that
parties will adhere to justice principles which entail sacri-
ficing vital interests –not only because of lost gains, but
Global Policy (2019) 10:Suppl.2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12693 ©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue Supplement 2 . June 2019 55
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial