A quick overview of the developing field of conflict resolution would draw attention to the sources from which it has arisen and its shared positions, arguments, and controversies. A strong impetus toward contributing to the solution of seemingly intractable and violent conflict situations, combined with a profound skepticism about the ability of ordinary social science to offer much in this area, has led many scholars to attempt to create a new interdisciplinary field in which an effective practice and a powerful theory would merge together. These scholars have tended to come particularly from social science disciplines such as international relations, peace research (itseLf closely related to history and sociology), and social psychology.The current state of conflict resolution theory and practice reflects the diverse backgrounds of those who have been drawn together to invent it. Not surprisingly, the impulse toward activism and the dissatisfaction with s~ndard social science have not in themselves comprised enough common ground to allow an uncontentious development of theory and practice. Some of the most important conceptual issues that trouble the field seem to be:(1) The special characteristics of "deep-rooted" conflict and thus the relationship of conflict resolution to conflict management (or settlement), particularly in the burgeoning Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement.(2) The idea of "empowerment,' which relates to the possibility and/or desirability, in the negotiating room, of excluding (or redressing) power differences among the parties to the conflict.The possibilities for "generic theory-," that is the discovery of theory productive of propositions valid across all levels of conflict--from marital discord to international war.