The SAGE

Handbook of
Conflict Resolution

Edited by
Jacob Bercovitch,
Victor Kremenyuk,
and I William Zartman
Chapters © Sage Publications

Introduction, Conclusion and Editorial Arrangement ©

Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk and I William Zartman 2009

All Chapters © Sage Publications 2009

First published 2009

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or

private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may
be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any
means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the
terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency.
Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be
sent to the publishers.

SAGE Publications Ltd

1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP

SAGE Publications Inc.

2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320

SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road
New Delhi 110 044

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd

33 Pekin Street #02-01
Far East Square
Singapore 048763

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008921082

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-4129-2192-3

Typeset by CEPHA Imaging Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India

Printed in Great Britain by Cromwell Press Ltd.
Printed on paper from sustainable resources
 Contents

Author Biographies x

Acknowledgements xix

INTRODUCTION: The Nature of Conflict and Conflict Resolution 1

Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk, and I. William Zartman

PART I: HISTORY AND METHODS OF STUDY 13

1. The Evolution of Conflict Resolution 15

Louis Kriesberg

2. Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution 33

Christer Jönsson and Karin Aggestam

3. Conflict Resolution in the International System: A Quantitative Approach 52

J. David Singer and Shahryar Minhas

4. Case Studies and Conflict Resolution 72

Jack S. Levy

5. Game Theory as an Approach to Conflict Resolution 86

Rudolf Avenhaus

6. Experimental Research on Social Conflict 102

Dean G. Pruitt

7. Doing Conflict Research Through a Multi-Method Lens 119

Daniel Druckman

8. Problem-Solving Approaches 143

Tamra Pearson d’Estrée

9. Constructivism and Conflict Resolution 172

Richard Jackson

PART II: ISSUES AND SOURCES OF CONFLICT 191

10. Territory as a Source of Conflict and a Road to Peace 193

John A. Vasquez and Brandon Valeriano
viii CONTENTS

11. Economic and Resource Causes of Conflicts 210

Philippe Le Billon

12. Resolving Ecological Conflicts: Typical and Special Circumstances 225

Gunnar Sjöstedt

13. Ethnicity, Negotiation, and Conflict Management 246

Donald Rothchild

14. Ethno-Religious Conflicts: Exploring the Role of Religion in Conflict Resolution 264
S. Ayse Kadayifci-Orellana

PART III: METHODS OF MANAGING CONFLICT 285

15. Conflict Prevention: Theory in Pursuit of Policy and Practice 287

Michael S. Lund

16. Conflict Resolution and Negotiation 322

I. William Zartman

17. Mediation and Conflict Resolution 340

Jacob Bercovitch

18. The Settlement of International Disputes by Legal Means – Arbitration and

Judicial Settlement 358
Franz Cede

19. Dialogue as a Process for Transforming Relationships 376

Harold H. Saunders

20. NGOs and Conflict Resolution 392

Andrea Bartoli

21. United Nations Mediation Experience: Practical Lessons for Conflict Resolution 413
Connie Peck

PART IV: CURRENT FEATURES AND DILEMMAS IN THE STUDY OF

CONFLICT RESOLUTION 435

22. Terrorism and Conflict Resolution 437

William A. Donohue

23. Media and Conflict Resolution 455

Eytan Gilboa

24. Democracy and Conflict Resolution 475

David Kinsella and David L. Rousseau

25. Why Mediation Matters: Ending Intractable Conflicts 492

Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall
 CONTENTS ix

26. Culture and Conflict Resolution 506

Guy Olivier Faure

27. Peacekeeping and Beyond 525

Paul F. Diehl

28. Reconciliation as a Peace-Building Process: Scope and Limits 543

Valerie Rosoux

29. Assessing Outcomes: Conflict Management and the Durability of Peace 564
Scott Sigmund Gartner and Molly M. Melin

30. Peace vs. Justice – and Beyond 580

Cecilia Albin

31. The Spread of Civil War 595

Kristian Skrede Gleditsch

32. Conflict Resolution and Human Rights: The State of the Art 613
Eileen F. Babbitt

33. Resolution of Military Conflicts and Confrontations (Force and Arms Control) 630
Victor Kremenyuk

34. Training and Education 645

Paul Meerts

Conclusion: Emerging Problems in Theory and Practice 669

Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk, and I. William Zartman

Index 675
 30
Peace vs. Justice – and
Beyond
Cecilia Albin

How justice relates to conflict resolution and conflict, that must be addressed if peace is to
peace has become intensively debated by both result and endure (e.g. Burton, 1990). Here
scholars and practitioners. Is there a conflict the peace vs. justice dichotomy is rejected
or tension between justice and peace and, if as false and misleading, for the two values
so, when? Which of the two values should go hand in hand (Lederach, 1995; see also
be prioritized, if and when both cannot be Galtung, 1969). The international community
pursued or achieved? Although commonly is at times portrayed as too narrowly focused
phrased the “peace vs. justice” question, it on containing conflict in and stabilizing
encompasses in fact a range of approaches, particular trouble areas, without working
some of which do not regard the two values to reduce global inequities on which peace
as being in conflict. Thus, “peace vs. justice” ultimately depends (Tschirgi, 2005).
has become an umbrella term for a debate with The reality of war, high-profile justice
many different answers: to seek peace with issues and the pressing need for policy
justice (no peace without justice), peace first guidance have brought the debate into the
and justice later (justice follows from peace), international limelight. How justice relates
justice first and peace later (peace follows to peace and conflict resolution, what these
from justice), and so on. values mean and which is to be prioritized
Traditionally, conflict managers have have been or remain controversial policy
sought “pragmatically” to end violence and issues in conflicts around the world –
achieve peace. In this, there has been little among them Rwanda, South Africa, Israel-
concern about norms such as justice, although Palestine, Cambodia, Guatemala, El Salvador,
once peace is established it may well bring Bosnia-Herzegovina and Northern Ireland.
justice as well. Another set of approaches The many societies emerging from civil
have regarded justice as a basic human need war and repressive rule have underscored
and injustice as a common root cause of that, in the task to build peace in the
 PEACE VS. JUSTICE – AND BEYOND 581

shadow of past gross human rights violations, contexts in order to get clearer on how they
moral principles stand side by side with affect each other. In other words, it depends
political imperatives and strategic concerns. largely on the contextual details. Overall, the
The recent literature on “transitional justice” two values are not quite as contradictory as
often portrays this as a dilemma requiring they are often portrayed to be.
difficult trade-offs between ethical standards One factor stressed here is the impor-
and political strategy. For example, punishing tance of stages and timing in examining
severe justice violations may alienate actors how justice relates to peace. The chapter
who are also needed in building peace. Yet examines three stages of the peace-making
peace without justice may fail to gain public process: the stages in which parties move
support and legitimacy and thus fall apart (e.g. from conflict to dialogue (pre-negotiation),
Biggar, 2003). While taking on the peace vs. and from negotiation to agreement, and
justice question with new intensity, research the post-agreement and post-conflict phases
on post-conflict societies presents different of securing a durable peace. Each stage
conclusions on how the two values relate to of the conflict resolution process raises its
each other and are to be balanced even when own issues and principles of justice which
drawing on the same conflict cases. Crucial as affect peace-making differently. We need to
the question is in that context, it is only one of pay close attention to these particularities
several in which it arises. and variations, in order to learn how to
best handle the peace-justice relationship.
Moreover, the stages obviously affect each
THE CORE ARGUMENTS other and make it difficult to understand the
fate of justice and peace within the confines
This chapter engages with the peace vs. justice of a single phase. For example, how justice
debate, particularly as found in the research issues were handled in the negotiation process
literature to date, and relates it to conflict (say, a process experienced as unjust) will
resolution in particular. In so doing, the aim affect the prospects of consolidating peace
is to take the debate further in several ways. subsequently. If parties while negotiating
Its framing of the key problem as being arrive at a shared view of what justice means
one monolithic value standing against the and requires, this will enhance the chances of
other is often misleading and simplistic. In reaching an agreement.
many situations, particularly in a longer-term Another contextual factor is the particular
perspective, the issue is not whether peace or justice issues and concepts involved. Some
justice is to be chosen or prioritized, for both questions of justice are far more easily
are clearly needed in some sense for conflict addressed and acted upon in a peace process
resolution and a durable settlement. The core than others. Put differently, some principles
questions are instead: What kind of justice and or aspects of justice relax or even remove the
what kind of peace should be promoted (what tension with peace while others increase it.
steps should be taken)? How are the pursuits Moreover, if parties hold compatible notions
of these two values (the steps) best timed, of justice, or are able to reconcile conflicting
sequenced and combined over time-that is, principles, this will obviously pave the way
what kind of justice is to (can) be furthered in better for peace than if they do not. A third
what stage of the process of conflict resolution contextual factor is the relations between
and peace-building? parties, in particular the distribution of power
The work on addressing these questions is between them. It will often influence (but
started in this chapter, with the development not alone determine) how far justice is taken
of some founding arguments. One is that into account, and whose claims are most
the pursuit of justice does not categorically heard. A common reason for the break-
either undermine or promote peace. It can do, down of peace negotiations, for example,
and does, both. We need to examine specific is discrepancy between the most compelling
582 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

justice principles and the distribution of power is a classic pointing to both commonalities
(Zartman et al., 1996): Justice argues for and differences with realist theory. Here order,
something which the prevailing (im-)balance maintained by a balance of power between
of power resists or does not permit. The states, is generally the most fundamental
balance of forces among former opponents value to be prioritized when required over
has shown to influence how far justice, in both justice and peace. Issues of justice
the sense of accountability for past human which threaten order are best left closed.
rights violations, is compatible with peace in But order, whenever possible, should serve
soceities emerging from civil war (Sriram, justice: normative principles help to govern
2004). A fourth factor is the time-frame inter-state relations.
used: Peace—for example, in the sense of The terms “peace” and “justice” refer
an urgency to cease hostilities – may require to and imply widely different matters in
compromise on justice in the short term, but the research literature. “Peace” is minimally
not in a long-term perspective. freedom from overt violence and war, but
Of course, the peace vs. justice question is to this is often added different requirements
not new. Nor are the debates and controversies (including, in some instances, the achieve-
over it. They have deep roots, and many ment of justice in some sense). What “justice”
current arguments now put forward pick up entails and requires in turn, particularly
on older traditions. The proponents of various in an international or global context, is
“peace projects” in the 17th and 18th centuries diffuse or disputed. In this chapter, “peace”
clearly associated the avoidance of war and refers broadly to both processes of resolv-
international order with important aspects of ing conflict and promoting or maintaining
justice – such as the rule of law and its peace (e.g. negotiation, conflict prevention,
impartial application to all states, and collec- peace building), and outcomes (e.g. peace
tive decision-making within a federation of agreements, durable peace). “Justice” refers
states from which nations would derive their to general standards for allocating collective
rights (see Jacob, 1974). Most well-known benefits, opportunities and burdens which
among these is Immanuel Kant’s proposal may take many forms (Albin, 1993). Different
of 1795 for a “league of peace”, which types of justice concepts and principles (e.g.
would be able to secure perpetual peace. procedural vs. substantial, internal vs. external
This normative-legal tradition as an answer and impartial) which are commonly held
to the problems of international anarchy and and used are discussed, along with their
war was reflected in the later design of implications for peace.1
the League of Nations and its successor,
the United Nations. But both institutions set
it off against another – that of entrusting FROM CONFLICT TO DIALOGUE
major powers and a balance of power system
with preserving peace and order. Classical This initial phase of the conflict resolution
realist theory of international relations, at process involves two basic steps. First, parties
its heyday in the 1950s and 1960s, often explore and decide individually and jointly
ignores the subject of international justice whether to attempt to resolve their conflict by
altogether (see Brown, 1997). Alternatively, peaceful means, which in most cases means
it overtly rejects that peace, defined as the by negotiation. Secondly, they work to reach
absence of force, is dependent upon justice in agreement on how the negotiations are to be
any meaningful sense: “Nothing substantive conducted, for example, participants and any
is said about the nature of the justice third parties, agenda issues, and venue. What
which presumably forms the indispensable justice issues arise then in this phase, and
concomitant of peace” (Osgood & Tucker, how do they affect the chances to get peace
1967, p. 221). In international political theory, negotiations underway and to a successful
Henley Bull’s The Anarchical Society (1977) conclusion? This is the least researched phase
 PEACE VS. JUSTICE – AND BEYOND 583

when it comes to justice and the peace vs. (Albin, 2001). Who gets a seat at the
justice question: these issues are not addressed bargaining table and on what terms obviously
in major work on pre-negotiation (Gross influences what issues and interests are
Stein, 1989; Zartman & Berman, 1982). subsequently taken into account. A general
On the first step, most conflicts involve notion of fairness is that participation should
justice issues of some kind. But there is be as representative and protective as possible
enormous variation in terms of how amenable of all key parties and interests involved.
they are, and are seen to be, to peace- How this principle is best operationalized in
making. Earlier research demonstrates that practice, however, is rarely straightforward
justice is capable of triggering war (Welch, and sometimes controversial. The increase
1993), as well as the onset of negotiations. in intra-state conflicts and global problems
Justice issues linked to fundamental needs, means that government representatives of
values, rights or interests tend to be seen as states are no longer considered the sole
exclusive (zero-sum) and non-negotiable, or actors. In the areas of human rights and
at least very painful and costly to compromise the environment, for example, this has often
upon. Whether this makes peace-making meant complementary involvement by non-
impossible or just difficult depends partly on governmental organizations in a variety of
how the conflict is approached. Basically, ad hoc roles. Agenda-setting raises justice
parties must come to regard their justice and fairness issues for similar reasons. Each
issues-their interpretation and the application party naturally seeks to steer this activity
of justice-as negotiable and negotiation as in a way which takes good care of its own
a desirable option. Unofficial dialogues and interests. In the end, a reasonably balanced
problem-solving workshops with people out- agenda usually has to be created, however,
side government are discussed extensively which includes and ranks issues with respect
in the literature as a necessary and effective for all parties’ important concerns. Finally,
means to address various deep-rooted needs, unless they already have an obvious home,
which includes justice, and prepare for formal the forum and rules for the talks need to be
negotiations (e.g. Kelman, 2000; Saunders, established. Here, fairness is often associated
2001). Also at play here is how far the with a neutral forum and site (or alternation
parties need cooperation as a means to get the between partisan ones) and prior agreement
justice issues addressed, or need to reach an on modes of decision-making and other rules
agreement at all. If both or all parties regard of the game.
negotiation as the only reasonable hope to How prominent or controversial justice
reduce injustice, this obviously facilitates. If is in this preparatory stage varies widely.
only one party is dependent upon negotiation Some conflicts fall within areas where for
to restore justice for itself, or even to survive one reason or another it will not be an
in any form, this creates an inequality which issue: negotiations may already be ongoing
makes justice difficult to combine with peace- and well established and accepted in form
making. Negotiations may well get underway and format, or there may be widely held
but justice, at least for or as defined by norms and expectations governing the justice
the most dependent party, will suffer. By issues. Many multilateral talks on trade,
contrast, justice issues connected to more the environment and arms proliferation have
peripheral interests lend themselves well to become institutionalized over the decades and
negotiation. are of this kind. Other conflicts fall outside of
The second step – deciding on how established tracks and the parties will need
the negotiations are to be conducted – to work out an agreement on how, over what
raises a whole set of different justice and and by whom the talks are to be conducted.
fairness issues. They usually concern three In sum, for justice to have a positive effect
matters: participating parties, agenda-setting, on peace-making in this stage, any important
and forum and rules for the negotiations justice issues need to be resolved and usually
584 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

with considerations of representativeness and or is representative of all parties to the

balance. Otherwise, formal negotiations may conflict and their interests. It also means
never get underway or if they do, any resulting that all participating parties have a chance
agreement may suffer later when it comes to to put forward their cases and be heard, and
implementation and compliance. their interests are considered seriously. Fair
play means that the agreed or understood
rules of the game are actually followed,
FROM NEGOTIATION TO AGREEMENT and not broken or altered for individual
gain. In addition, parties must be able to
This phase concerns the interaction between accept and reject proposals freely so that
parties as they work to reach an agreement. It any agreement reached is voluntary. Coercive
begins with the opening of official talks; pro- or imposed agreements may fail during the
ceeds through bargaining, problem-solving implementation phase, among other problems
and concession-making; and ends with an (e.g. Hampson, 1996).
agreement of some kind or/and disagreement The procedures concern the mechanisms
(failure). The agreement may be procedural used to arrive at an agreement, which may be
(e.g. to continue negotiations at a later stage), explicit and specifically agreed (e.g. voting,
or substantial (e.g. a text setting out the terms single negotiating texts, divide-and-choose)
for settling the conflict). or more diffuse and implicit (e.g. recipro-
Most of the research literature on negoti- cation of concessions). Unlike other ethical
ation, particularly in international contexts, aspects, the negotiation process, reciprocity—
still either ignores or rejects the roles played that is, mutual responsiveness to each other’s
by justice. Those studies which have been concessions—has been studied extensively
done on the subject tend to deal with isolated by psychologists, sociologists and political
aspects, for example, the role of reciprocity in scientists (see e.g. Parks & Komorita, 1998;
concession-making for reaching a successful Welch Larson, 1998). In the negotiation
outcome. More comprehensive work on the literature, it is widely recognized as both
peace vs. justice question in this phase, an ethical and an instrumental norm needed
further discussed below, is limited and the to move the process forward and reach an
agreed conclusions are very few. It is here agreement. It is a fairness concept which
argued that justice and fairness play important influences whether and how far negotiators
roles in this phase, and this can either concede and accept a particular proposal. At
undermine or promote peace depending on the times, it is more or less equalized with process
circumstances. Furthermore, the justice and fairness or justice (e.g. Zartman et al., 1996).
fairness issues which arise and affect peace- By contrast, major philosophers and theories
making concern two basic matters. One is of justice respond differently: reciprocity is at
process fairness: how parties relate to and treat once endorsed as a major principle of justice
each other while negotiating, or the relational (Gauthier, 1986), accepted under certain
and process aspects of how an agreement or conditions (Rawls, 1971), or rejected outright
other outcome is reached. The other concerns (Barry, 1995). Numerous academic studies on
outcome fairness or justice: what principles or negotiation have over the years distinguished,
notions of justice, if any, are to guide the terms conceptualized and labelled different patterns
of an agreement. of reciprocity. They include equal concessions
and equal sacrifices; tit-for-tat or matching;
responsiveness to trend; and comparative
Process fairness
responsiveness, meaning that each party
On the first matter, the specific ethical issues makes concessions based on a comparison of
which often arise concern fair hearing, fair its own and the other’s tendencies to concede
play and fair procedures (Albin, 2001). Fair (Druckman & Bonoma, 1976). Comparative
hearing means that the process includes responsiveness was found to be the most
 PEACE VS. JUSTICE – AND BEYOND 585

practiced pattern of concession-making in reciprocated, they may adopt more compet-

a study covering six different international itive tactics or withdraw from the process
negotiations (Druckman & Harris, 1990). altogether. Diffuse reciprocity appears to be
What is thus portrayed is a quite specific what is mostly expected. When practiced,
kind of reciprocity, whereby one party’s it will facilitate peace-making, particularly
concession (its size and kind) is determined between unequal parties. There is not enough
by the other’s previous concession or series of systematic empirical evidence collected to
concessions. Moreover, among various condi- demonstrate whether the fairness of the
tions, rough power equality is seen as required negotiation process also affects the long-term
for or favors reciprocity in concession-making durability of agreements. It remains to be
of this kind (e.g. Zartman, 1991). Although investigated whether judgments of the process
much remains to be learnt, this does not quite (unless it is ongoing) remain important over
correspond to reality. Most major negotia- time, or fade so that other factors, including
tions of international significance today are possibly other fairness aspects such as the
between parties whose relations are rather terms of the agreement, explain long-term
marked by inequalities of various kinds: in durability.
military capacity; political, diplomatic, and
economic status and leverage; in responsility
Principles of outcome justice and
for the problems under negotiations; and in
peace-making
resources and ability to contribute to or bear
burdens resulting from a solution. Reciprocity Achieving justice is rarely the sole or even
remains a vitally important fairness concept primary objective of international negotiators.
and praxis. But what is mostly seen as fair Yet what justice or fairness principles should
and practiced is instead “diffuse reciprocity”, guide in the terms of an agreement is an
whereby the emphasis is on crafting an issue which always arises, more or less
agreement based on a reasonably balanced explicitly. The reasons are several. A nego-
exchange of concessions. What is judged tiated agreement involves benefits and costs
to be “reasonable” and “balanced” is not which must be allocated between parties
simply a comparison of the various parties’ in a reasonably balanced way. A single
respective concessions and contributions. At distributive principle seldom emerges on its
least as important to take into account appears own as the obvious one to use in complex
to be each party’s relevant circumstances international contexts: several principles—
which may concern resources, entitlements and several interpretations of them—tend
and responsibility with regard to what is to be applicable. Each principle leads to a
under negotiation. Each party is expected different mix of benefits and burdens for
to reciprocate “enough” in view of both parties, giving them different biases towards
how far other parties have moved and its the range of possible allocation criteria.
own capacity to afford concessions (Albin, There are two related aspects to the question
2001). of whether notions of outcome justice promote
In sum, various aspects of process fairness or undermine peace. The first concerns the
go very well with peace-making and indeed particular concepts involved, which may be
promote it: a negotiation process perceived more or less easily combined with making
as fair will enhance the likelihood of an peace. The second, discussed in the next
agreement being reached and implemented. section, concerns the compatibility of the
The same arrangements may be accepted justice notions held by parties. Starting with
or rejected, depending on how parties feel the concepts involved, three distinguishable
about the process which produced them. The types are internal, external and impartial cri-
absence of fair hearing or fair play may teria (Albin, 2001). The internal (contextual)
well derail it. Similarly, if negotiators judge approach is mostly procedural: it gives the
that their concessions are not sufficiently concerned parties and the negotiation process
586 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

the task of defining the substantial meaning with a limited number of possible appli-
of justice or fairness within that process. Just cations, which constrain what justice can
agreements are based on terms which the par- reasonably entail. Recent research addresses
ties themselves have formulated and agreed to directly and in-depth how the peace versus
honor (Zartman, 1995; Zartman et al., 1996). justice question is handled in the process
These may or may not also draw on external and outcome of negotiations. Here, “forward-
principles of justice. But in the end parties looking” principles of justice are usefully
choose for themselves. There are no particular distinguished from “backward-looking” ones
independent requirements that the process (Zartman & Kremenyuk, 2005). Forward-
or the agreement must fulfill, other than to looking notions are positive-sum and future-
deliver mutual gains to parties as rational oriented: they turn their back on the past, and
benefit-seeking actors (Gauthier, 1986). seek justice through and within the establish-
Impartial criteria, rooted in the philo- ment of new cooperative relations based on
sophical literature, denote another procedural mutual interests between parties. Backward-
notion of justice: they indicate conditions looking notions are zero-sum and seek justice
which a process and an agreement must retrospectively for past wrongdoings, rights
fulfill in order to be taken to be just and and entitlements, for example, issues of
fair. While starting assumptions and specific accountability, compensation, reparations and
requirements vary between approaches, they punishment for earlier crimes.
all place constraints on the pursuit of narrow Whether pursuing justice promotes or
self-interests and the use (abuse) of power undermines peace thus depends in part on the
and coercion. In John Rawls’renowned theory particular concepts and principles involved.
of “justice as fairness”, parties, because of The contextual approach, by leaving the task
their selfishness, must define the substance of defining justice solely in the hands of the
of justice without knowing the effect on negotiating parties, is most easily combined
their own interests and position (Rawls, 1958, with peace-making. The mere fact that some-
1971). In Brian Barry’s theory of justice as thing has been negotiated and agreed is the
impartiality, by contrast, parties are motivated major, and sometimes a sufficient, indication
to be able to justify their behavior on grounds that it is just. The impartial approach specifies
which others can accept as balanced and requirements, and sometimes assumes moti-
reasonable. Justice is what is agreed freely by vations to behave justly, which best match
parties, who are roughly equal in capacity to negotiations between roughly equal parties.
reject or veto a proposal. What is just elicits Negotiations between sharply unequal parties
voluntary consent without the use of threats or will not necessarily be entirely devoid of
rewards, and is also acceptable from a more impartial justice, but they will rarely satisfy
general detached viewpoint (Barry, 1995). all the conditions commonly associated with
External criteria here refer to well- this approach.3 In this situation, pursuing
recognized substantive principles of justice, “perfect justice” is indeed likely to make
whose general content is independent of agreement, or even negotiation, impossible.
particular contexts. A number of these are The impact of external substantive criteria
extensively discussed in the research litera- on peace processes will vary widely with
ture, and often reflected in actual international the choice of particular principles and with
negotiations, for example, the principles the circumstances. An agreement based on
of equality, proportionality, compensatory equality may be hard to achieve when
justice and need (Albin, 2001; Deutsch, the parties are not equal to begin with.
1975; Pruitt, 1981).2 What principles are Compensatory justice requires identifying and
most relevant for a specific problem and motivating parties to provide a remedy for
how they are to be interpreted need to be some inflicted harm. As for forward-looking
decided and agreed in negotiations. But each vs. backward-looking notions, the former by
principle nonetheless has a basic meaning definition are more easily combined with
 PEACE VS. JUSTICE – AND BEYOND 587

peace-making (when endorsed by parties). cases, justice will take on a different role and
The latter supposedly prevent agreement from affect the process and the outcome differently.
being reached or from being durable, as Here again, it is impossible to argue generally
well as the achievement of justice. Based on that justice either promotes or undermines
wide-ranging case study research, Zartman peace.
concludes: “The record is striking. When First, notions of outcome justice can play
parties base their position on a repetition of an instrumental role in negotiation and other
their past grievances, their past legalities, and peace-making efforts as external referents.
their demands for reparations and punishment, This applies to situations in which the
negotiation is, in fact, war: an attempt to parties from the outset endorse the same or
eliminate the other party by other means, similar notions of a just solution. They have
not the search for a solution” (Zartman & been extensively observed in the research
Kremenyuk, 2005, p. 291). literature, which refers to such shared notions
While some factors have been discussed as “focal points” which emerge as obvious
in the social-psychological and negotiation and desirable to all parties (Schelling, 1960).
literatures (Albin, 1992; Zartman et al., 1996), They serve to coordinate expectations, guide
research to date is far from mapping out the exchange of concessions, and decrease
fully what steers international negotiations competitive behavior (Bartos, 1974; Deutsch,
in their choice of justice principle to apply. 1973). They thereby reduce the risks of
The most striking and often neglected reality disagreements and stalemates, and increase
in this regard, however, is that a single the likelihood of a timely and durable
principle is rarely chosen: negotiators instead agreement being reached. Outcome fairness
balance and combine different types of cri- can certainly assume this facilitating role
teria (Young, 1994). Particularly in complex in international negotiations. The absence of
international cases, internal, impartial and great power inequalities is then important:
external principles are frequently invoked parties are more likely to have similar notions
to weigh all the pertinent factors when of justice when they are roughly equal in
forging an agreement. A single standard can relevant sources of power. In arms control
rarely capture the wide range of aspects negotiations during the Cold War, the USA
to take into account. Examples of crite- and the Soviet Union as the sole nuclear
ria which are often combined are mutual powers were much directed by the expectation
gain, proportionality and voluntary consent of agreements based on equality, such as
(absence of coercion). This has been found equal ceilings or freezes and equal percentage
to serve both justice and peace: parties tend reductions in existing arms arsenals.
to regard the inclusion and balancing of This role of justice as an external referent is
different principles as an important element no longer the predominant one in negotiations
of justice in itself, and it certainly facilitates of international significance. The existence of
agreement in complex international talks a shared notion at the start of the process
(Albin, 2001). has become unusual in these, whether, for
instance, large-scale multilateral talks over
global problems or internal negotiations to
The multiple roles of outcome
end civil war. A major reason is that the
justice in peace-making
parties are typically marked by differences in
The second aspect of whether notions of resources, cultural norms, power and so on,
outcome justice promote or undermine peace and these shape their outlook on justice. Thus,
concerns the compatibility (or not) of the the existence of divergent or even conflicting
notions held by parties. These notions may notions of justice at the outset is by far the most
be the same or similar, they may be different common situation. These instead become part
but reconcilable, and they may be very far of the dispute itself, and of any negotiations
apart and irreconcilable. In each of these which get underway. What then happens to
588 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

justice and the prospects for peace has been broader and longer-term imperative of durable
studied and discussed in recent work. Clearly, peace is discussed.
irreconcilable ideas of justice are disruptive:
they can lead to violence and war and, if
After the agreement: justice in
dialogue is not rejected entirely, to deadlock
implementation and compliance
and breakdown in negotiations.
When parties with conflicting ideas of Recent research highlights the importance of
justice still attempt to reach an agreement, continued negotiations after an agreement has
one of four routes is commonly chosen (Albin, been signed, to secure implementation and
2001). First, parties can agree to redefine the compliance (Spector & Zartman, 2003; Victor
problem and craft an agreement based on et al., 1998). This often determines whether an
other considerations than justice. Secondly, agreement on paper will remain just that, or
they may agree on a procedure to settle actually result in an effective outcome. While
their differences over the substance of a some further negotiation is always needed
solution (e.g. arbitration). Thirdly, they may after signature, international agreements in
base an agreement mostly on one party’s some areas (e.g. the global environment)
understanding of justice (e.g. that of the appear to be particularly at risk of being
more powerful). Finally, as is often the case, stillborn. Very little research has, however,
parties may opt to balance and combine concerned itself with the role of justice and
several principles which take account of their the peace vs. justice question in this phase.
conflicting notions. This is a way of moving But important justice issues do arise in matters
in the negotiation process from initially of implementation and compliance. Among
opposing concepts of justice, to a shared them is the internationally well-established
composite notion of what is just in a particular principle (legal and moral) concerning the
situation. When this succeeds, it increases obligation to honor and comply with freely
satisfaction with the outcome and probably negotiated agreements. These issues are, as
also the chances of a durable settlement. reality demonstrates, perfectly capable of
Research on the relationship between the destroying entire peace agreements and peace
handling of justice issues in the negotiation processes.
process or in its outcome, and the durability First of all, one or more parties may not
of international agreements, is new and has proceed with ratifying and implementing an
not yet yielded many definite conclusions. agreement they have signed, or may delay
A project led by Daniel Druckman and doing so for a long time. There may be
this author has so far provided evidence that many reasons, more or less under their
incorporating principles of distributive justice control. Complex legal or technical questions
into the terms of peace agreements contributes regarding ratification and enforcement may
to their durability. have to be resolved both within and between
countries. Implementation may involve too
great costs for some countries, for which
FROM AGREEMENT TO DURABLE the agreement itself does not provide cover.
PEACE Domestic stakeholders, for example, in busi-
ness or industry, may see their interests
So far, the discussion has concerned how the damaged by what has been agreed and may
peace vs. justice question plays out in moving be strong enough to build barriers. Resistence
from conflict to dialogue and from negotiation to compromise on sovereign rights or lack
to an agreement. It will now turn to the ques- of a sense of urgency are other reasons for
tion of justice and the longer-term durability agreements not being implemented (Susskind,
of agreements and peace. First, the post- 1994). Secondly, even if implemented, an
agreement tasks of securing implementation agreement may be undermined with time
and compliance are considered. Next, the by violations and failures to comply with
 PEACE VS. JUSTICE – AND BEYOND 589

obligations under it. Here lack of enforcement peace? Will attempts to redress past injustices
mechanisms and penalities, and insufficient promote or tear asunder the creation of a
incentives to comply, usually play a role. new peaceful (democratic) society? This is the
Sometimes states can avoid compliance and context in which the peace vs. justice question
the costs it entails, and yet benefit from has so far been most intensively debated,
the agreement in much the same way as both in scholarship and policy-making. It has
complying parties. With such free-riding, given rise to a large research literature, by
the costs are pushed over on other parties now sharply divided over how to answer it.
while the gains are retained. It is particularly And it has made human rights activists collide
tempting and therefore rampant when it with conflict managers over proper strategy in
comes to global public goods (e.g. a strong efforts to end devastating internal wars around
weapons non-proliferation regime, the global the world (see Parlevliet, 2002). The apparent
climate), the benefits of which are universally divisions result partly from focus on different
accessible and indivisible and cannot be aspects of justice and peace, and different
denied to particular parties (Albin, 2003). time frames: behind the same labels, people
Thirdly, parties which have by choice or talk in fact about different things which are
not stood outside of the negotiation of the not necessarily contradictory. But there are
agreement may also choose to free-ride, or be also genuine differences in the importance
capable of undermining it in other ways. and priority attached to aspects of justice and
In all these cases, the legitimacy of the peace, which remain unresolved.
agreement will suffer. Powerful charges of “Transitional justice” here refers to the
injustice arise when parties do not honor norms and instruments on the basis of which
agreements which they themselves have a society or new government, in transition
formulated and signed. In fact, they may be from armed conflict and/or authoritarian rule,
far more disruptive than feelings of injustice addresses past injustices committed in war
regarding the terms of the agreement itself. or by the previous regime. At times, the
There are many international examples of this; term refers also to measures to prevent
among them, the negotiations between Israel further atrocities and secure justice in the
and the PLO since 1993 and negotiations future; for example, through a new justice
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, system (Call, 2004). It is about principles
particularly since 1995. How far things can, of justice, as well as the means used to
and should, go before the agreement collapses act upon them. Depending on the context
depends on the circumstances, including costs and the choice of the new government,
of withdrawal for individual parties and the transitional justice can entail a range of
value of their alternatives. In one view of approaches (Elster, 2004): legal (e.g. the
justice, the obligation to comply remains restoration of the rule of law), political,
as long as the agreement is effective in economic, administrative, psychological (e.g.
serving its goals-and enough other parties also reconciliation – see Rosoux’s contribution to
comply to make this possible (Barry, 1989). this volume), or a combination of these. The
Whatever the particulars, justice in matters general goals of transitional justice are durable
of implementation and compliance generally peace and/or stable democratic government.
serves peace, while negligence of it or outright Often societies are in transition from both
injustices will undermine peace. armed conflict and autocracy, and regard
democratization as a pillar of a new peaceful
order. No consensus exists, however, on a
After the war: transitional justice
more specific set of goals or criteria which
and peace
transitional justice should fulfill to be deemed
How can societies emerging from civil successful and completed. Also discussed is
war and/or repressive rule deal with past whether this kind of justice, in principle
injustices, and still move toward durable and practice, reflects a political-pragmatic
590 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

compromise on “real” justice in times of principles and instruments of transitionary

transition rather than its own type of justice. justice may in practice work against each
Most debated is the question of what other, for example those of retributive and
principle (and interpretation of it), and what restorative justice. Offenders must participate
instrument of transitional justice should be in various processes of restorative justice,
chosen under what conditions.4 Different but are of course unlikely to do so if at
proposals are made in the literature, corre- the same time tried and punished in the
sponding to the diversity of situations and name of retributive justice (see Kauffman,
approaches contained within the thinking and 2005). Another set of findings suggest that
practice of transitional justice (e.g. Graybill mechanisms such as trials and international
& Lanegran, 2004; Kritz, 1995; O’Connor & tribunals do not really promote reconciliation
Rausch, 2007). Two fundamental principles (Stover & Weinstein, 2004). The most relevant
are retributive justice and restorative justice. discussion here is exactly over the peace vs.
The former holds that those responsible for justice question: what aspects of transitional
past injustices (e.g. war crimes, human rights justice are considered possible and prudent to
violations) should be held accountable and pursue given political realities and the politics
be punished. The focus is on the offenders of peace-making and peace-building. There
and committed wrongdoings. The associated are essentially three overlapping answers
instruments are mostly legal, such as criminal given in the research literature to date.
trials in international or national courts and One proposed answer is that peace comes
tribunals, and reform of the existing national first and must be prioritized: it can be or
judicial system. Restorative justice is about is best built without justice at least for an
healing the wounds of and compensating initial period of time. Peace—for example,
the victims, and restoring relationships and the end of violence and internal conflict—is
reconciling communities involving former the basis for the success of other pursuits,
enemies. It involves measures such as truth and a precondition for achieving justice
commissions and truth telling, reparations subsequently. Attempting to address justice
and compensation, and acts of apology and issues first or together with peace issues is
forgiveness. One study distinguishes five politically unrealistic and dangerous, and will
types of approaches to transitional justice, lead to neither justice nor peace. Justice must
drawing on wide-ranging case examples of follow after peace—or else it will undermine
democratization processes: criminal justice, the achievement and durability of both peace
historical justice, reparatory justice, admin- and justice. Proponents of this approach stress
istrative justice and constitutional justice the need for pragmatism, particularly in war-
(Teitel, 2000). In another study, focus is torn societies marked by political volatility
also on criminal justice, but with a different and institutional weaknesses. In this context,
emphasis on vindication of the victim rather attempting to punish those responsible for
than punishment of the guilty (Biggar, 2001). gross human rights violations, for example,
Yet another holds that the restoration of justice may only lead to further crimes. One study
after war must involve three elements: (re-) holds that “a norm-governed political order
distributive justice, as a means to address must be based on a political bargain among
causes of conflict; legal justice, as a means contending groups … on striking politi-
to deal with symptoms of conflict; and cally expedient bargains that create effective
rectificatory (roughly retributive) justice, as political coalitions to contain the power of
a way to handle the consequences of conflict potential perpetrators of abuses …Amnesty—
(Mani, 2002, 2005). or simply ignoring past abuses—may be
Of course, the debate is not only about a necessary tool … Once such deals are
the principles and meaning of transitional struck, institutions based on the rule of law
justice. Most of all, it is about strategy. become more feasible” (Snyder & Vinjamuri,
One discussion is about how different 2003/04, p. 6). In arguing for pragmatism
 PEACE VS. JUSTICE – AND BEYOND 591

and the “logic of consequences”, it examines inequalities as a cause of conflict (Mani,

the use and result of three approaches to the 2002).
pursuit of justice and peace in 32 cases of civil The third answer regards certain aspects of
wars from 1989 to 2003. Other research points justice as compatible with peace. These are
out that the absence of provisions for justice, often labelled “forward-looking” in seeking
such as human rights, in a peace agreement justice not retrospectively, but within future
does not inhibit their inclusion or role in arrangements and institutions (Snyder &
subsequent laws (Putnam, 2002). Vinjamuri, 2003/04; Zartman & Kremenyuk,
The second basic answer to the peace vs. 2005). Conversely, the pursuit of backward-
justice question in post-war societies starts looking notions of justice focusing on rectify-
off from a different premise. Both justice and ing past wrongdoings are seen as detrimental
peace need to be pursued from the outset. to peace-building. Of course, the three
While tensions between the two goals are different approaches here outlined overlap.
recognized, choosing one over the other is For example, while in the first approach,
not an option: peace cannot be restored or justice is subordinated to or even eliminated
built and will not endure unless demands by political constraints and calculations to a
for justice are addressed (Mani, 2002, 2005). certain stage, it is not seen as dispensable
Current policies are typically short term and in the long run: without justice, including
centered upon ending or containing violence, the institutionalization of the rule of law
at the expense of issues essential to lasting and democracy, peace will not endure (e.g.
peace such as the underlying causes of Hampson, 1996). Thus, peace and justice are
conflict (Tschirgi, 2005). Whether justice not even here, in the final analysis, opposing.
is the foundation from or through which The question is instead about timing and
peace follows varies, but clearly the two sequencing – when and how far each goal is
values are interlinked and not opposing. This best pursued so as to eventually fulfill both,
becomes particularly clear when examining given political circumstances.
the long-term requirements of durable peace
and stability, for example, in the legal justice
area. In countries emerging from civil war, CONCLUSION
peace is impossible without the establishment
and implementation of the rule of law. That This chapter has examined how justice relates
involves a range of principles, institutions to peace and peace-making, in different stages
and processes concerned with various aspects of the conflict resolution process. The research
of justice and accountability which, in one literature to date mostly examines the peace
view, are most effective if established and vs. justice dilemma within a single stage,
implemented domestically by the concerned and often frames the problem as being one
countries themselves (Kritz, 2001). One study monolithic value standing against the other.
highlights, with reference to the work of the Much of the literature is specifically on post-
International Criminal Tribunal for the former conflict (transitional) societies faced with
Yugoslavia, how criminal justice contributes past injustices while attempting to build a
to durable peace by punishing inhumane or durable peace. It has been argued here that
unjust actions and deterring further atrocities the contextual details are decisive for how
(Akhavan, 1998). Another examines how the two values relate to each other, and
and when justice can be reconciled with that it is impossible to say categorically that
peace through various instruments, mostly justice either undermines or promotes peace.
associated with retributive and restorative It can do and does both, depending on the
justice (Biggar, 2001). Noting that most circumstances. Among the major factors are
countries concerned are impoverished, yet the phase of peace-making involved, the time-
another adds the importance of instruments of frame (short- or long-term), the particular
distributive justice to address socio-economic concepts of justice at play and whether these
592 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

are shared by parties, and the prevailing 2 For a review of the literature on external principles
balance of forces between parties. of justice, see Albin (1992), pp. 41ff.
In many situations, particularly in a longer- 3 This is well discussed in Barry (1995).
A particularly illustrative example is the Israel-PLO
term perspective, the issue is not whether interim talks from 1993 and onwards (see Albin,
peace or justice is to be chosen or prioritized 2001).
for both are clearly needed in some sense. The 4 A comprehensive discussion of mechanisms
core questions are instead: what kind of justice available to achieve accountability for past human
and what kind of peace should be promoted rights violations is found in Bassiouni (2002). On the
use of reparations for historical injustices, see Torpey
(what steps should be taken)? How are the (2003).
pursuits of these two values (the steps) best
timed, sequenced and combined over time—
that is, what kind of justice is to (can) be REFERENCES
furthered in what stage of the process of
conflict resolution and peace-building? Akhavan, Payam. 1998. “Justice in the Hague, Peace
Behind the “peace vs. justice” label thus in the Former Yugoslavia? A Commentary on the
lurks a web of different relationships and United Nations War Crimes Tribunal”, Human Rights
interactions between the two values. Many Quarterly, 20, 4: 737–816.
of these are still little researched and poorly Albin, Cecilia. 1992. “Fairness Issues in Negotiation:
understood. How far conflict resolvers should Structure, Process, Procedures and Outcome”.
seek to achieve justice depends partly on Working Paper 92–88, December. Laxenburg,
what is politically wise and possible, but also Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis.
on what is beneficial for long-term peace.
Albin, Cecilia. 1993. “The Role of Fairness in
The roles of justice in bringing parties into
Negotiation”, Negotiation Journal, 9, 3: 223–244.
dialogue, and in peace processes and the terms Albin, Cecilia. 2001. Justice and Fairness in International
of agreements, have been examined here. Yet Negotiation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
we still possess relatively little systematic Press.
knowledge about, for instance, the importance Albin, Cecilia. 2003. “Negotiating International Coop-
of justice for durable peace in the long term. eration: Global Public Goods and Fairness”, Review
Other questions concern in what sense and of International Studies, 29, 3: 365–385.
how both justice and peace are best promoted Allan, Pierre and Alexis Keller, eds. 2006. What is a Just
over time, rather than whether both are needed Peace? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
or which is to be prioritized. For example, Barry, Brian. 1989. “Can States be Moral?”. In Brian
Barry, Democracy, Power and Justice. Essays in
there are many instruments of transitional
Political Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
justice. What makes a leader choose one
Barry, Brian. 1995. Justice as Impartiality. Oxford:
instrument over another, and what instrument Clarendon Press.
should she choose if stable peace is a prime Bartos, Otomar. 1974. Process and Outcome of
concern? The actual effects and consequences Negotiations. New York: Columbia University Press.
in the field of the use of different mechanisms Bassiouni, M. Cherif, ed. 2002. Post-Conflict Justice.
need to be better examined. These and other Ardsley, New York: Transnational Publishers.
questions point perhaps foremost to the need Biggar, Nigel. 2003. “Making Peace or Doing Justice:
for more empirical investigations, to fill Must We Choose?”. In Nigel Biggar, ed., Burying
the gaps and put to test propositions and the Past. Making Peace and Doing Justice after Civil
assumptions found in both scholarship and Conflict. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
policy.
Brown, Chris. 1997. “Review Article: Theories of
International Justice”, British Journal of Political
Science, 27, 2: 273–297.
NOTES Bull, Henley. 1977. The Anarchical Society. A Study of
Order in World Politics. London: MacMillan Press.
1 For a discussion of the concept of “just peace”, Burton, John. 1990. Conflict Resolution and Prevention.
see e.g. Allan & Keller (2006). New York: St Martins Press.
 PEACE VS. JUSTICE – AND BEYOND 593

Call, Charles. 2004. “Is Transitional Justice Really Lederach, John Paul. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict
Just?”, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 11, 1: Transformation Across Cultures. Syracuse, New York:
101–113. Syracuse University Press.
Deutsch, Morton. 1973. The Resolution of Conflict: Mani, Rama. 2002. Beyond Retribution: Seeking
Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven: Justice in the Shadows of War. Cambridge: Polity
Yale University Press. Press.
Deutsch, Morton. 1975. “Equity, Equality, and Need: Mani, Rama. 2005. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the
What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Aftermath of Violent Conflict”, Development, 48, 3:
Basis of Distributive Justice?”, Journal of Social Issues, 25–34.
31, 3: 137–150. O’Connor, Vivienne and Colette Rausch, eds. 2007.
Druckman, Daniel and Thomas V. Bonoma. 1976. Model Codes for Post-Conflict Criminal Justice.
“Determinants of Bargaining Behavior in a Bilateral Volume I: Model Criminal Code. Washington, DC:
Monopoly Situation II: Opponent’s Concession Rate United States Institute of Peace Press.
and Similarity”, Behavioral Science, 21: 252–262. Osgood, Robert and Robert Tucker. 1967. Force, Order
Druckman, Daniel and Richard Harris. 1990. “Alter- and Justice. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins
native Models of Responsiveness in International Press.
Negotiation”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34, 2: Parks, Craig and Samuel Komorita. 1998. “Reciprocity
234–251. Research and Its Implications for the Negotiation
Elster, Jon. 2004. Closing the Books: Transitional Justice Process”, International Negotiation, 3, 2: 151–169.
in Historical Perspective. New York: Cambridge Parlevliet, Michelle. 2002. “Bridging the Divide:
University Press. Exploring the Relationship Between Human Rights
Galtung, Johan. 1969. “Violence, Peace, and Peace and Conflict Management”, Track Two, 11, 1:
Research”, Journal of Peace Research, 6, 3: 167–191. 8–43.
Gauthier, David. 1986. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Pruitt, Dean. 1981. Negotiation Behavior. New York:
Clarendon Press. Academic Press.
Graybill, Lynn and Kimberly Lanegran. 2004. “Truth, Putnam, Tonya. 2002. “Human rights and sustainable
Justice, and Reconciliation in Africa: Issues and peace”. In Stephen John Stedman, Donald Rothchild
Cases”, African Studies Quarterly, 8, 1 (electronic and Elizabeth Cousens, eds., Ending Civil Wars:
journal). The Implementation of Peace Agreements. Boulder,
Gross Stein, Janice, ed. 1989. Getting to the Table: The Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Processes of International Prenegotiation. Baltimore, Rawls, John. 1958. “Justice as Fairness”, Philosophical
MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Review, 67: 164–94.
Hampson, Fen Osler. 1996. Nurturing Peace: Why Peace Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge,
Settlements Succeed or Fail. Washington, DC: The Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
United States Institute of Peace Press. Saunders, Harold H. 2001. A Public Peace Process:
Jacob, M.C., ed. 1974. Peace Projects of the Eighteenth Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic
Century. New York: Garland. Conflicts. New York: Palgrave.
Kauffman, Craig. 2005. “Transitional Justice in Schelling, Thomas. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict.
Guatemala: Linking the Past and the Future”. Paper Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
prepared for the International Studies Association Snyder, Jack and Leslie Vinjamuri. 2003/04. “Trials and
South Conference, Miami, Florida, 3–5 November Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of
2005. International Justice”, International Security, 28, 3:
Kelman, Herbert. 2000. ”The Role of the Scholar- 5–44.
Practitioner in International Conflict Resolution”, Spector, Bertram and I. William Zartman, eds. 2003.
International Studies Perspectives, 1, 3: 273–287. Getting it Done: Postagreement Negotiation and
Kritz, Neil, ed. 1995. Transitional Justice. Volumes I-III. International Regimes. Washington, DC: United
Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace States Institute of Peace.
Press. Sriram, Chandra Lekha. 2004. Confronting Past Human
Kritz, Neil. 2001. “The Rule of Law in the Postconflict Rights Violations: Justice vs. Peace in Times of
Phase: Building a Stable Peace”. In Chester Crocker, Transition. New York: Frank Cass.
Fen Olser Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds., Turbulent Stover, Eric and Harvey Weinstein, eds. 2004. My
Peace: The Challenges of Managing International Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the
Conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Aftermath of Ethnic Cleansing. New York: Cambridge
Peace Press. University Press.
594 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Susskind, Lawrence. 1994. Environmental Diplomacy, Young, Peyton. 1994. Equity: In Theory and Practice.
Negotiating More Effective Global Agreements. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Zartman, I. William. 1991. “The Structure of Nego-
Teitel, Ruti. 2000. Transitional Justice. New York: Oxford tiation”. In Victor Kremenyuk, ed., International
University Press. Negotiation: Analysis, Approaches, Issues. San
Torpey, John, ed. 2003. Politics and the Past: On Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Repairing Historical Injustices. Lanham, Maryland: Zartman, I. William. 1995. “The Role of Justice in
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Global Security Negotiations”, American Behavioral
Tschirgi, Necla. 2005. “Peacebuilding through Global Scientist, 38, 6: 889–903.
Peace and Justice”, Development, 48, 3: 50–56. Zartman, I. William and Maureen Berman. 1982. The
Victor, David, Kal Raustiala and Eugene Skolnikoff, eds. Practical Negotiator. New Haven and London: Yale
1998. The Implementation and Effectiveness of Inter- University Press.
national Environmental Commitments. Laxenburg, Zartman, I. William, Daniel Druckman, Lloyd Jensen,
Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Dean G. Pruilt, and H. Peyton Young, 1996.
Analysis. “Negotiation as a Search for Justice”, International
Welch, David. 1993. Justice and the Genesis of War. Negotiation, 1, 1: 79–98.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zartman, I. William and Victor Kremenyuk. 2005. Peace
Welch Larson, Deborah. 1998. “Exchange and Reci- versus Justice: Negotiating Forward- and Backward-
procity in International Negotiations”, International Looking Outcomes. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &
Negotiation, 3, 2: 121–138. Littlefield Publishers.