This article explores the methods by which practitioners have traditionally approached international conflicts. Approaches focusing on the resources or the interests of the parties can be appropriate methods of resolution in conflicts where resources and interests are the only issues at stake. However, conflicts raging today often contain issues of identity. These identity-based, ethnopolitical conflicts are often resistant to traditional resource-and interest-based resolution methods. This article suggests a different approach, one that emphasizes needs, and in particular identities, of conflicting parties. We suggest that such a focus is essential in working towards resolution in many of the deeply rooted conflicts in today's world. We explore the ARIA model of conflict engagement as a mechanism for a systematic approach to interactive conflict resolution that specifically deals with the complex issues of identity. We also offer a preliminary evaluation of interactive conflict resolution as a general approach in varied international conflict situations. The question of interactive conflict resolution effectiveness is explored using Licklider's data for civil war termination and Bercovitch's data for international conflict mediation. * The authors would like to thank Fred Pearson for his encouragement and suggestions.

P aulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, published in 1970, has become a foundational text of critical pedagogy. Th is movement, in which teaching and learning are collaborative activities of discovery and liberation, is defi ned by another of its founders, Henry Giroux, as an "educational movement, guided by passion and principle, to help students develop consciousness of freedom, recognize authoritarian tendencies, and connect knowledge to power and the ability to take constructive action" (2010, B15-B16). Th is is relevant for confl ict resolution education in particular since it "aims to empower students to exercise their own self-determination

This article discusses the use of action‐evaluation in conflict resolution assessment as a way to unite theory and practice, helping all stakeholders articulate and reach their goals. A systematic plan for evaluation can both satisfy evaluative requirements and also significantly enhance program effectiveness. Action‐evaluation, as defined here, is designed to facilitate and merge effective program design, implementation, and monitoring with evaluation. It is supported by user‐friendly research tools, including a computer‐based and interactive goal definition process intended to help project organizers, facilitators, participants, and sometimes funders interactively define their shared goals in order to better achieve them.

No abstract

No abstract