Nature, Dynamics, and Phases of Intractability (2005)

Kriesberg, Louis

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40751-7_4

Cited by 21 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…notes 1. The term 'intractable conflict' is used to describe conflicts that are violent, fought over goals viewed as existential, perceived as being 'zero-sum' and unsolvable, occupy a central position in the lives of the involved societies, require immense investments of material and psychological resources, and last for at least 25 years (Bar-Tal 1998Kriesberg 1993Kriesberg , 2005. 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routinization of the Israeli-Arab Conflict: The Perspective of Outsiders

Vered¹,

Bar‐Tal²

2014

Israel Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores features of the routinization of the Israeli-Arab conflict in everyday life in Israel. Specifically, it examines how foreign students view this aspect of the culture of conflict, compared to the point of view of Israeli students born into the day-to-day reality of a society that has been engaged in an intractable conflict for decades. Findings show that foreigners perceived and identified various conflict-related routines that have been absorbed into the social and physical spaces of daily life in Israel, becoming unnoticeable to Israelis. This was the case particularly with various images and symbols of the conflict that saturate both public and private spaces, conflict-related informal norms of behavior, and the central place that the conflict occupies in private interpersonal discourse. These results are discussed in relation to the functionalities of the routinization of the conflict and its implications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routinization of the Israeli-Arab Conflict: The Perspective of Outsiders

Vered¹,

Bar‐Tal²

2014

Israel Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A small percentage of the disputes we face, however, are highly complex, often embedded in foundations of past grievances as well as current concerns, and involve stakeholders operating at cross purposes – where the issues and disputants may change but the dynamics remain highly destructive and durable. These conflicts tend to cause considerable harm, resist multiple good‐faith attempts at resolution, and come to seem intractable (see Coleman ; Kriesberg ; Bar‐Tal ).…”

Section: A Framework For Conflict Intelligence and Systemic Wisdommentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict Intelligence and Systemic Wisdom: Meta‐Competencies for Engaging Conflict in a Complex, Dynamic World

Coleman¹

2018

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last one hundred years, conflict researchers have developed a host of theories about which competencies and skills are most conducive to the constructive management of conflict. Our standard models and methods for conflict resolution, however, are particularly challenged in the face of the world's increasing complexity, dynamism, and unpredictability. In this article, I describe a new framework for addressing these challenges. Based on insights from research in complexity science, psychology, and peace and conflict studies, this framework comprises two meta-competencies that help individuals resolve conflict and promote more constructive and peaceful relations in our rapidly changing world.

show abstract

“…The international community engages in these conflicts in an attempt to manage and ultimately resolve them out of concern that they might escalate into large‐scale violence and expand beyond their original geographic borders. In this enterprise, third parties face the daunting challenge of confronting key characteristics of this class of conflicts, which include persistence, goal incompatibility, incommensurability of issues, zero‐sum perceptions, and the psychological trauma of cumulative destructiveness (Crocker et al., ; Kriesberg, , ; Mitchell, ; Zartman, ). In this prevailing situation of “unripe” conflict, parties prefer the unilateral track over the bilateral track of negotiation.…”

Section: Analysis: Four Theoretical Lensesmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Formal Negotiations Fail: Strategic Negotiation, Ripeness Theory, and the Kerry Initiative

Ramsbotham

Schiff

2018

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study takes the failure of Secretary of State Kerry's efforts to mediate negotiations aimed at resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as a case study and asks what can be done in intractable cases where efforts at conflict resolution have failed. It suggests a move from conflict resolution to conflict engagement in these cases; this entails preparing the ground for formal negotiation within a wider and prior strategic negotiation (SN) framework. We outline a strategic negotiation (SN) approach that aims to supplement existing theoretical and practical approaches in cases that have yet to gain sufficient traction. This new perspective is grounded in the prenegotiation literature, but adds another layer by addressing the circumstances in which conflict parties are not even prepared to undertake the preliminary moves that prenegotiation requires. We suggest how an SN approach might be helpful as an extension and supplement to ripeness theory in the most difficult cases.

show abstract

Nature, Dynamics, and Phases of Intractability (2005)

Cited by 21 publications

References 9 publications

Routinization of the Israeli-Arab Conflict: The Perspective of Outsiders

Routinization of the Israeli-Arab Conflict: The Perspective of Outsiders

Conflict Intelligence and Systemic Wisdom: Meta‐Competencies for Engaging Conflict in a Complex, Dynamic World

When Formal Negotiations Fail: Strategic Negotiation, Ripeness Theory, and the Kerry Initiative

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About