Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
188 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Realistic group conflict theory |
previous school of conflict resolution - a very rational interaction between people - hostilities arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources |
|
missing info of Realistic group conflict theory |
realistic group conflict theory doesn't take into account other factors that could cause conflict i.e: sides don't trust each other sides hate each other the conflict cannot be resolved in a realistic way |
|
Relative depravation theory |
one side belives they are deprived of what they should rightfully have - everything is relative to how you perceive it. |
|
basic psychological needs theory (Maslows) |
people aren't fighting for physical or material things but for psychological needs of security,equality, identity, feeling of confidence. recognition and respect. - these basic needs cannot be negotiated away |
|
in group and out group |
the group you and the other group |
|
intractable conflict |
total violant protracted conflict - unsolvable and sero sum in nature. - requires extensive investment from all aspects of society. |
|
Scapegoat |
establishment of a conflict with an outside rival to end an internal conflict. |
|
minimal inter-group situation ( UK + USSR = unite against Nazi Germany) |
potential for conflict between a divided group that can be solved by creating a super-goal or common enemy for both groups - |
|
Zero-Sum Game |
A situation in which one person's gain is equivalent to another's loss - |
|
Win-Win game |
the perception that both sides have won
|
|
two level game ( |
balance between managing and resolving the in-group conflict and dealing with the out-group conflict as well |
|
social identity theory |
people want to have a positive self-image and define themselves as both individuals and part of the the in-group - what the group is about inflences my self image. done by comparing in group to other group |
|
who do we compare ourselves to in the "social identity theory" |
people in the in-group compare themselves to other groups that will make the in-group look better. the comparisson must be a justifiable one - a college student cant compare himself to a kid in kindergarden. |
|
what do you do when the comparison of the "social identity theory" |
1. leave your group 2. change the group that is being compared to 3. change the group from within for the better. 4. change the content of comparison. |
|
Ethos of Conflict |
a society in conflict shares with one another the central beliefs that provide a guide for a society that shows the shared state of mind and aspirations for the future:
|
|
8 aspects of ethos of conflict |
1. Justification of own goals 2. delegitimization of the opponent 3. self-victimhood 4. positive self-image 5. social belief about security 6. patriotism 7. unity 8. perception of the in-group as peace oriented |
|
functions of the Socio-psychological infrastructure |
it helps society involved in conflict meet chalenges like stress deprived needs and withstanding the enemy |
|
elements of socio-psychological infrastructure |
1. illuminates the conflict 2. justificaiton of in group behaviour 3. differentiation between in-group and out-group 4. preparedness 5. motivation for unity and mobilization |
|
1. illuminates the conflict |
society seeks a meaningful understanding of the situation - in order to have an organized and coherent perspective of the world |
|
2. justification of in group behaviour |
justifies otherwise morally unacceptable behaviour - enabling the in-group to harm and even commit attrocities against the out-group |
|
3. differentiation between in and out group |
in-group's superiority over the out-group: attributing blame for the conflict on the out group. out-group is delegitimized as evil while glorfying the victims of the in-group |
|
4. preparedness |
society is alert and ready for threats and violence and is ready for difficulty of life during conflict - Psychological preparedness, coping mechanisms + low expectations |
|
motivation for unity and mobilization |
focusing on the goals and delegitimizing the out-group |
|
importance and role of group narrative |
gives a story that explains who the (in-group) is and what they have in common. conflicts require a lot of time, energy and resources - it requires a organized story to match all levels of the group - it needs to be encouraging, Easy, black and white - it renforces ethos of conflict |
|
construction of conflict supporting narratives |
methods used to achieve simplified and distorted group narratives: 1. reliance on supportive sources 2. magnification of supportive themes 3. marginization of contradictory infomration 4. biased interpretations 5. omission of contradictory contents 6. omission of contradictory contents 7. using of framing language
|
|
1. reliance on supportive sources |
disregarding and minimization of sources that contradict the themes of the in-group |
|
2. magnification of supportive themes |
exaguration of: justness of goals, delegitimization of out-group patriatsim new information that supports one of these three themes is brought to front line. |
|
3. marginalization of contradictory information |
hiding or minimization of exposure of information that contradicts the themes of the narrative |
|
4. biased interpretations: |
events will be rpesented in manner that supports the themes of the narrative |
|
5. fabrications of supportive contents |
information that does not have actual evidence will be used to create stories that promote major themes |
|
6. omission of contradictory content |
suppresion of content that contradicts the themes |
|
7 using framing language |
using specific language dictating the way people will perceive reality |
|
Collective amnesia |
groups in conflicts suppress evidece that contradicts it's narrative - and would shatter the justness of the goals in the conflict/undermine the moral image of the group |
|
mirror image bias |
assumption that the other side thinks the same way that we do. |
|
homogeneity bias |
view of the out-group as uniform - all the people are the same and believe the same thing - all palestinaians are hamas |
|
tendency to see gaps between the groups as much bigger |
belief that in-group and out-group are much more different than what they really are - these imaginary gaps are enlarged during times of conflict |
|
attribution errors |
the difference in how we attribute qualities to ourselves compared to others - in-group looks at behavior in a positive light while when the out-group does the same thing they look at it in the negative light |
|
fundamental attribution error |
when in-group does something good it is because of good nature when in-group does something bad it is because of circumstance when out-group does something good it is because of circumstance when out-group does something bad it is because of bad nature. |
|
hostile media effect |
information from a third party is percieved as subjective and contradicting the in-group narrative |
|
biased assimilation |
each side interprets information as something that confirms their narrative (position). each side will interpret the same info differently. |
|
double standard |
The tendency to think that when we do something it is alright but when the other party does it is considered wrong. |
|
stereotype |
instinctive process of giving attributes and perceptions that are connected to a category that we make and attribute to people and groups - can be positive or negative. |
|
acceptance confirmation process |
evaluating information in a way that will strengthen narrative |
|
false consciousness |
the stronger group tells the weaker group that they are weaker and the weaker group begins to believe this situation. this is done through 1. education and socialization 2. Rationalism - the weaker state convinces itself that the situation is like the stronger group says it and can not be changed 3. role of gatekeeper- leadership of weaker group want to keep the status-quo as they keep the power. |
|
culture of conflict |
brought about by the prolonged experience of life in a intractable conflict - determines what people find valuable, how to behave, how to wage dispute: made up of 4 aspects 1. extensive sharing 2. wide application 3. apperance in the educaiton system 4. expression in cultural products
|
|
extensive sharing |
establishment of group emotions emotions are shared via families, teachers and all agents of socialization |
|
wide application |
When the conflict plays a role in all aspects of life and is always present in some form. |
|
apperance in the education system |
The conflict starts to appear in the education system (text books, teachers) that's how new generation is exposed to ethos of conflict |
|
expression in cultural products |
The conflict is expressed in things such as books, TV etc. |
|
conflict prevention |
The process of stopping a conflict before it even starts. almost never works - we are actually trying to prevent the conflict from escalating (conflict management) |
|
institutional conflict prevention |
Power sharing and assimilation through institutions and hereby creating limits of activity. |
|
federalism/confederation |
the federal government gives loca/regional power or autonomy to specific groups - minority groups may not have representation in the federal level but they have minority autonomy on local level - maintain culture langauge and identity |
|
problem with federalism/confederation system |
dividing up territory and empowering separate groups may just create even larger gaps between groups |
|
consociationalism/confessionalism (switzerland) |
groups recieve proportional representation in the government - ensures different factions in society that are in conflict to have an avenue to express themselves |
|
problem with consociationalism/confessionalism (switzerland) |
building a government structure on the fact that groups are in conflict - while trying to prevent future conflict between the groups - permanently entrenching this structure of government |
|
Ad-Hoc conflict prevention |
relates to the steps right after the conflict became violent |
|
a priori conflict prevention |
steps right before the conflict became violent |
|
types of conflict prevention |
measures taken to keep low-level or long-term disputes from escalating - 1. structural conflict prevention - done from within the system and llong before escalations. 2. immediate intervention: right before escalation |
|
Peace-Keeping |
international civil and military operation aimed to reduce the cause of conflict among belligerents - employees a diverse spectrum of objectives to encourage peace. |
|
structural conflict prevention |
aims not only to reduce violence but addresses its root causes and the environment that produced it |
|
conflict management |
effort to descalize the conflict not to prevent/bring it to an end all togethor. |
|
controlled violence |
fighting is a given in a conflict - the aim of leadership is to prevent confrontations that escalate, reducing mutual defensive measures that create security dilemmas and finding bases for cooperation |
|
deterence |
taking actions that convince the other state not to act 1. people and states are rational actors 2. outsiders can influnece the choices and decisions of another group 3. the other side understands what you're saying in the way you intend it to mean |
|
unilateralism |
one sided action to reduce the conflict - as the in-group don't feel that they have a partner to resolve the conflict |
|
unilateralism and disengagement |
several types of territorial disengagements: 1. dispute is between two parties with no border and there is a unilateral disengagement (redrawl of forces) without an agreement the conflict will end (vietnam) 2. this is not the case with parties that share borders (israel and Gaza) |
|
when and how do conflicts end |
1. both sides come to an agreement/ceasefire 2. one party achieves military vicotry 3. both parties are given external incentives to cease the conflict |
|
Ripeness |
readiness to conduct negotiations two things have to happen 1. mutually-hurting stalemate - both sides need to realize they cant win 2. both sides need to have the perception that no way out + there is a partner to work with |
|
Ending conflict in peaceful ways |
1. direct negotiations 2. mediation 3. arbitration
|
|
third party intervention |
used when the parties to the conflict can't resolve it on their own. they intervene in disputes not only to appease or end a conflict but to support one side or try to win both sides over (get something out of it) |
|
binding vs. non binding procedures |
arbitration is considered binding it can however be none binding if their decision cannot be imposed on the parties and the arbitrator remains totally removed from the settlement process |
|
motivations for mediators to get involved |
1. economic 2. ideological 3. strengthening rleations with one or multiple parties 4. expanding influnece into the region 5. denying another third party to get involved 6. fears that not intervening means the conflict will become something that harms them 7. fears that not intervening will escalate the conflict and draw others into it. 8. want to ensure the outcome of the conflict will be specifically good for them |
|
parties motivation for mediation |
1. dont trust the other side and believe a third party will be objective 2. perhaps by having a third party present the can reach an agreement that's better for them 3. the professionalism and expertise the third party may bring to the table 4. the third party can act as a scapegoat - to blame for the concessions. 5. a third party may guarantee the outcome of the negotiations and ensure the parties stick to the agreement |
|
role of neutrality in mediations |
mediator's neutrality is not the most important aspect (none existant) of the third party. what is really important is the party's ability to deliver and make things happen. |
|
activities in the work of mediators |
1. communication - conveys messages from each party 2. formulation - gives suggestions to the agreement 3. manipulation - actually can remove and add stuff to the agreement (incentives and threats) |
|
factors that affect which strategy the third party uses |
1. previous relationship with the parties and between the parties 2. objectives of the mediation (for the third party) 3. intensity of the conflict (more intense conflict higher involvement) |
|
negotiations by representatives |
representatives tend to be more conententous than a person representing himself - they believe that the people they are representing favour contentous behaviour |
|
intermediaries |
group representatives act as the intermediaries between the representatives of the other group and their own group, conveying messages and advocate their side to the other side. |
|
measuring success of mediation |
objective - if violence is reduced, an agreement has been reached. subjective: if participants can say that they're satisfied with the process |
|
Narcotic effect |
when sides become totally dependent on the third party and can't do anything without them. |
|
chilling effect |
when the presence of a third party causes the side to present more extreme positions (as he is on their side) |
|
international adjudication |
a method of international dispute settlement that involves the referall of the dispute to an impartial third-party tribunal - BINDING DECISION |
|
arbitration and litigation |
when two sides have a third party, usually a judge settle a specific dispute. decision is binding. the parties agree ahead of time that any decision made is the decision that stands |
|
courts |
a tribunal presided over by a judger or judges. parties to a conflict will often refer to a court to settle disputes the ruling of court is binding |
|
biases of courts |
althought courts were costructed to be objective, in many cases they aren't. often judges have subjective opinions that can be depedent on sociatal norms - even more extreme in countries with juries |
|
international courts |
these exist to settle international disputes, though countries rearely go to international courts |
|
ICJ |
international court with 15 judges from 15 countries. the court only settles disputes when both sides have accepted its role - NO APPEALS |
|
agreed arbitraton |
the arbitrator decides upon an outcome based on what they believe is fair. very flexible can be from within or out of the proposals of the parties to the conflict. |
|
final offer arbitartion |
each party must give a final offer and the arbitrator must choose from the two or more proposals. - encourages the parties to make a fair proposal since the arbitrator wont choose it otherwise. |
|
double final offer arbitration |
each party hands in two potential final offers - arbitrator chooses winning side and losing party chooses from the two proposals of the winner . |
|
mediation - arbitration |
arbitrator begins as mediator and if that fails he becomes arbitrator and forces a resolution on the parties to the conflict |
|
arbitration - medation |
third party makes a decision and puts it in an envelope. if mediation fails then envelope is opened and the conflict is resolved according to the arbitration. |
|
international arbitration |
method used to resolve disputes arising from international commercial agreements and other international relations/agreements. enables parties to resolve their disputes without formalities of formal legal systems. (IT STILL IS BINDING) |
|
Pre-negotiations |
steps taken to make sure that parties to a conflict come to the negotiations table: 1. building bridges between both sides. 2. preconditions before negotiations (ceasefire/mutual acknowledgements) 3. identifying the problem 4. setting an agenda 5. choosing the representatives 6. deciding on third party and his roles 7. setting dates and locations and other logistics |
|
Negotiations |
direct communication between the parties to the conflict aiming to reach an agreement that will settle the conflict. |
|
BATNA |
best alternative to negotiating agreement - course of action that will be taken by a party if the current negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached/ A party should generally not accept a worse resolution than its BATNA |
|
positions vs. interests |
interests - what you really want from negotiations positions - what you declare as important when talking to the other side. positions are usually tougher than actual interests in many negotiations the negotiator forgets the interest and only focuses on the positions making it hard to come to an agreement |
|
red lines |
the point beyond which a person/group is not prepared to negotiate |
|
negotiation about negotiation |
a large part of negotiations are not about the actual negotiation or deal, but about how the process itself will be |
|
leaders in conflict |
leaders must help the society cope with the conflict psychologically - represent the narrative - explaining the conflict to the people and maintaining unity |
|
leaders in negotiation |
leaders will decide where negotiations will go, sometimes they have to change the perspective of the constituents if up until now they said there is no partner but want to try negotiations they have to change the entire constituents opinion |
|
leaders in agreement in peace |
leaders must enforce the agreement and publicly support it. even if during the negotiation process they where not for it but now they have to support it. |
|
conservative leaders |
tend to maintain the existing political institutions and policies |
|
reformist leaders |
promote moderate changes in institutiosn and policies |
|
revolutionary leaders |
strive for FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES in existing institutions and policies. |
|
Ideological leader |
specific goals and solutions for every problem - less flexible than other leaders - harder to negotiate with |
|
strategic leaders |
have goals and solutions - take into account political timing and consider if it is possible to implement their goals |
|
Pragmatic leaders |
leaders who don't have only a single agenda but do what they think the constituency want - easy to negotiate with as they are not ideologically rigid or committed. |
|
questions and ethical dilemmas of reaching an |
There can be a few ethical dilemmas regarding the |
|
Tactical barriers to agreements |
two main barriers to reaching an |
|
secrecy or deception |
tendency of negotiators to negotiate in secrecy because they do want the other side to know what their real red lines are (out of an effort to maxamize potential benifits of negotiations ) |
|
hardball tactics and intransigence |
both sides are not willing to compromise over things they theoretically could compromise on. sides make it hard to find a point of agreement - stalemate - no agreement or bad blood |
|
psychological barriers to reaching agreements |
not the actual disagreements but factors that inhibit progress in the achievement of peace 1. equality or justice-seeking barrier 2. biased assimilation 3. certainty effect 4. reactive devaluation 5. judgemental or optimistic overconfidence 6. group-think 7. cognitive dissonance 8. prisoner's dilemma |
|
equality or justice-seeking (desire for equality) barrier |
a party to the resolution wont want to sign the agreement if they feel that agreement as unfair and liening towards the other side - not always the best policy because - your better off with something unfair than nothing unless it is past the BATNA |
|
biased assimilation |
tendency of each side to interpret information as something that confirms their position. |
|
certainty effect |
the tendency to request something that would be a 100% sure thing rather than accepting something that's likely to be certain (100% peace) we wont reach an agreement because we are unwilling to budge on the 100% certainty thing. |
|
loss aversion |
decision makers tend to |
|
reactive devaluation |
tendency to assess an offer based on who made it rather than the offer itself. a final resolution can may be reached via negotiations almost identical to the original offer but prefered as the in-group took part in making it. |
|
judgemental or optimistic overconfidence |
we are optimistic that our requests will be accepted as we believe our positions are moderate and correct. |
|
group think |
a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect outcome. group members minimize interntal conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints |
|
cognitive dissonance |
mental distress experienced by individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs or is confronted by contradictory information at the same time. |
|
prisoners dilemma |
You don’t trust the other side, and therefore you |
|
institutional and structural barriers to reaching an agreement |
barriers that reflect that fact that conflicts involve individuals and interest groups other than the principal actors. 1. agent problem 2. restriction of channels of info or communication multiple interest groups |
|
agent problem |
the person representing you in the negotiations doesn't necessarily have the same interests as you |
|
restriction of channels of info or communicaiton |
Sometimes there is a restriction of information channels between the parties by not being able to communicate with each other |
|
Multiple interest group |
The more parties that are involved,the more difficult it is to reach an agreement |
|
Mediator's role in overcoming barriers |
a third party can help a situation of stuck negotiations and bring both parties to an agreement |
|
three rules for conflict resolution |
1. seperation of people and problem/ interest from positions 2. variety of solutions 3. objective criterias |
|
rule 1: conflict negotiations differentiation between people and problem, interests and positions |
one of the basic rules for overcoming obstacles is conflict negotiations. first you must alleviate tensions by seperating the people from the problem and focusing on interests rather than positions. |
|
rule 2 negotations: examination of variety of options |
another rule to overcome conflicts is negotiations - try to find as many options as possible + view situations as two sides sitting togethor against the problem rather than each side against the other |
|
rule 3 importance of objective criteria |
rely on more objectives measures when thinking about the conflict. each side thinks about things differently it's important to be able to apply objective measures where possible |
|
back-channel negotiations |
negotiations that are done by official representattives but carried out in secret - dont take public response into account |
|
track one negotiations |
negotiations between official representatives of the parties to the conflict usually people like heads of state, rebel leaders, foreign ministers BINDING and Public AGREEMENTS |
|
Track two negotations |
Not official representatives of parties to the conflict (academics, journalists, ex soldiers) people with influence but don't have formal power more flexible as they don't represent the sides and can think more outside the box outcome - what is said in these negotiations doesn't represent what society really thinks/ no funding for negotations |
|
track three negotiations |
grassroots, individuals or private groups: meet to try and reach an understanding between the groups - no influence what so ever in public sector - just a bridge between the people. |
|
track 1.5 negotiations |
mix between track 1 and track 2 - none official negotiations between officials (back-channel negotiations) enalbes them to speak off the record and come up with new ideas. interest rather than principles |
|
globalization and its influence on conflicts |
viewed as an obstacle because it means 1.an increase in outsiders intervening in the politics of different countries 2. growth of media influences the enhancement of violence 3. decreases the power of sovereign state in an exchange to increasing power of NGOS and MNCs |
|
advantages of Globalization |
1. media can have positive affect: social media allows people to come togethor and discuss and act upon something they oppose 2. NGOs and MNCs can offer positive hanges as well |
|
role of NGOs |
1. to influence education positvely 2. fund negotiations |
|
role of MNCs |
MNCs can advance different regions and countries economically |
|
outline/ basic principles of agreement |
2 stages to signing agreement 1. sides sign a broad outline on how to end the conflict 2. sides write the actual agreement - negotation over how to write the final agreement |
|
writing an agreement |
7 things that need to be in every peace agreement 1. reaching agreement about how to solve all issues in the conflict. 2. agreeing on timeline of implementation 3. establishment of joint institutions monitor or implement aspects of the treaty 4. making sure the infrastructure, resources, money are availabe for the treaty to be implemented. 5. establishing a mechanism for managing ongoing dispute - groups inside each group will disagree to the agreement and systems need to be established to cool things down 6. deciding if we need a third party and who it will be 7. establishing a mechanism that monitors proper implementation of the plan |
|
peace treaty |
the finale stage in mediation process - if agreement is accepted by the wider public of all parties there is a high chance that it will go through.
|
|
components of peace treaty |
1. essential component: what is the agreement about and what does it change in comparison ot the previous situation. 2. procedural component: how are things going to be changed. 3. organization component: who is going to do what in the agreement |
|
cold peace |
an agreement signed that ends the conflict - no true reconcilation or peace - leaves conditions for societies to erupt in conflict again
|
|
stable peace |
a situation in which the probability of war is so small that it does not really enter into calculations of any people involved. reconciliations is necessary. |
|
conflict vs. peace repertiore |
each person has a socio-political emotional toolbox that helps them through conflict. one of essential struggles of societies in conflict is how to reconstruct this toolbox from one of war to one of peace |
|
culture of peace |
requires a context of peace and an ethos of peace. a gradual and long process that requires a complete cessation of violence. establishing mechanism for resolving disagreements, constructing massive social education. - building cooperative relations. |
|
ethos of peace |
the achievement of reconciliation requires changes in at least 5 themes of societal beliefs that were formed during the conflict: 1. societal beliefs about the groups goals 2. societal beliefs about the rival group 3. societal beliefs about the relationship with the other group 4. societal beliefs about the history of the conflict 5. societal beliefs about peace. |
|
1. societal beliefs about the groups goals in ethos of peace |
change the beliefs in the justness of the goals that led to the outbreak and maintenance of the conflict. new beliefs must present new goals that allow compromise and peaceful resolution |
|
2. societal beliefs about the rival group |
it is important to legitimize and personalize the members of the adversary |
|
3. societal beliefs about the relationship with the other group |
new beliefs must emphasize the importane of cooperation and friendly relationships. zero sum replaced by win-win perception |
|
societal beliefs about the history of the conflict |
a need for a change in the collective memories that were dominating the societes during the conflict. revise the narratives into an understanding of the past that is in synch with the other group. |
|
transitional justice
|
kinds of transitions a society goes through during reconciliation process. judicial and none judicial measures implemented by states in order to address their legacy of human rights violations. 1. criminal prosecutions 2. truth commisions 3. reparation programs the focus of which is giving all sides the confidence of the new system. |
|
restore justice |
an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims rather than abstract legal principles or punishing the offenders. the state does not seek restitution for itself but the individual or community is seen as the victim. victims take active role in the process - offenders are encourage to take responsibility for their actions. - healing the wounds and fostering dialogue between the victims and offenders |
|
truth commisions |
focus on telling the story and giving victtims a public opportunity to examine the past and tell their stories to share their side of what happened in the conflict. aimed to change the dialogue within society and create a new collective memory + build nation together to build a new common future |
|
TRC SA 1996 |
restorative justice body established after the end of apartheid in SA that held public hearings on human rights abuses. - viewed as a crucial component of the transition to an open and free democracy. |
|
critique of TRC |
TRC failed to achieve true reconciliation between white and black community. many black South Africans were outraged by the lack of justice and that the perpetrators of the crimes were not punished through this process |
|
Reconciliation |
process that deals with the deep psychological issues of the conflict's narrative. it's focused on changing the perspectives and the way that both sides view each other. |
|
importance of reconciliation |
1. agreements are signed between leaders and elites and not regulat people - neccessary for both sides to accept the agreement 2. fear that without this process, the agreement wont survive - without an effort to understand the other side the stereotypes and supporting narratives of the conflict will still exist 3. there will always be exterimsts who will attempt to continue the conflict |
|
tools for reconciliation |
1. compensations - perps dont only acknowledge wrong doings but also pay for them 2. shared writing of history: 3. mass media 4. joint projects 5. tourism 6. cultural exchanges 7. education |
|
compensation in reconciliation |
1. compensations - perps dont only acknowledge wrong doings but also pay for them |
|
shared writing of history in reconciliation |
the aim is for future generations to learn history through shared narrative for both sides. |
|
Mass Media in reconciliation |
media is used to change the mind of the people. if the attitude change is implemented in the media, it will influence the public. |
|
joint projects - economic peace in reconciliation |
work together on projects that are not conflict oriented - only way to see the other side as equal |
|
tourism in reconciliation |
if you go to the other side's land, you can see that they are not much different from you. becoming a tourist = economically investing in the country. |
|
cultural exchange in reconciliation |
sharing each other's culture: translating songs or books |
|
Education in reconciliation |
two ways to change the way the story is told: 1. directly: learning about the conflict but in a different light: teach the facts + narrative of the other side as well. dont delegimitize the other side. 2. indirectly: try to educate the children through values that promote tolerance, peace, and acceptance - without directly discussing the conflict. |
|
Justice |
one of the difficulties of reconciliation is that every side sees justice differently. some argue that justice is irrelevant - just sign the agreement and be done with it. scholars disagree about definition: measured by objective criteria or perception of the sides should justice be done before or after peace is achieved. |
|
forgiveness and apology: |
two approaches: 1. forgiveness is not something you can ask for. reconciliation is a way to create it. - look for things like justice and truth instead. 2. simply ask for an apology. sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness after time has passed (generation change). the new generations feel less attached to the events of the past and it's easier for them to apologize |
|
3 types of apology |
1. expression of contrition: expression of regret, authentic will to fix things that were done - rare type of apology as it is a genuine apology that confesses guilt 2. formal apology: usually more technical, in order to restore relations, its not authentic but its still important 3. Non-Apology: completely technical process in which the sides agree on the words that will be in the apology. |
|
cultural aspects of apoogy |
apologies are percieved differently from culture to culture. there is no single universally valid paradigm of apology |
|
reparations |
the obligation of perpetrators to address the damages it caused to the victims: 1. compensation 2. restitution 3. rehabilitation 4. satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition |
|
compensation |
the most commonly known form of reparations, which is payment for any form of damage done to the victims. |
|
restitution |
restoring the victim to the situation that would've existed if the crime dident happen (regaining citizenship, returning homes, returning old job). |
|
Rehabilitation |
Mental and Psychological care as well as legal a social services |
|
satisfaction and gurantees of non-repetition |
individual and collective actions like revealing the truth, public acknowledgement of the facts, acceptance of responsibility, prosecution of he perpetrators, activities aimed at remembrance and education and prevention of similar crimes |
|
group meetings |
idea is to take different groups in society and make them meet - making the relationship between the groups become personal, the groups should be defined as equal in status and work togethor toward a common goal. 4 models for inter-group contact 1. coexisting model 2. joint project model 3. confrontation model 4. narrative model |
|
1 coexisting group meeting model |
based on emphasizing interpersonal similarities and what is common to both of them. underlying idea is to support notions of togetherness and cooperation. problem with this model is it avoids touching the real issues of the conflict. continues the status quo |
|
2. joint project meeting model |
make two groups work together on a project, which shows them they can cooperate on something more significant than just talking. focus is not on the conflict, but looking at the future rather than the past. |
|
3. confrontation model |
two sides confront the problematic issues face on. make each side play the other side and live their side of the conflict. problem - it can make people more extreme and stronger believers of the narrative |
|
4. narrative model |
effort to combine all other models - you don't need to confront the other group - but both sides can learn from one another. different conflict reach different stages. |
|
ADR and mediation alternative dispute resolution |
an approach to resolving conflicts that does not involve litigation and seeks an outcome that is at least minimally satisfactory to all of the parties - mediation is one kind of ADR. |
|
Domestic vs. International Conflict. |
usually reconciliation processes are more relevant and acceptable in domestic conflicts. two different societies do not necessarily want to know or to understand one another and their narrative. in domestic conflicts both sides often speak the same language or have similar cultures - usually just want to live peacefully with one another. |
|
new wars |
fought both by state and non-state actors: use identity politics as a reason to fight rather than ideology; sides attempt to achieve political rather than physical control of the other population through fear and terror. no longer financed only through state but through other predatory means that seek the continuation of violence |
|
old wars |
conventional warfare between states in which the aim is to inflict maximum violence - clear distinction between internal and external, civilian and combatants, economic and political. |
|
spoilers |
parties that seek to disrupt the peace process because they feel that a peaceful settlement of dispute will threaten their interests, power and reputation. |
|
2 types of spoilers |
1. inside spoilers - parties that are included in peace negotiations. 2. outside spoilers: those who are exluced from the peace negotiations |
|
three categories of spoilers |
1. total spoilers ( ideological spoilers) - can only be satisfied by achieving total power and exclusive recognition of authority. non negtionable demands and oppose all compromise 2. limited spoilers (strategic spoilers) - limited goals - demands can usually be met by adjusting the peace process so that it better reflects their interests. 3.greedy spoilers (pragmatic spoilers) - more opportunistic; their demands will change depending on the conditions on the ground and a calculation of risk and costs. |