The Lawyer As Consensus Builder: Ethics For a New Practice

In this Article, I explore the roles of lawyers in alternative dispute resolution ( ADR ), including traditional roles in arbitration and new roles in mediation and facilitation. I also discuss how conventional ethics rules for lawyers fail to provide guidance and best practices for lawyers who serve in these new roles. State legislatures and professional associations, such as the American Arbitration Association ( AAA ), the Center for Public Resources Institute for Dispute Resolution ( CPR ), and the Association of Conflict Resolution, have adopted ethical codes for mediators and arbitrators. Select professional associations are also developing best practice guides for the provision of ADR services; however, the lack of clarity in the Model Rules is a serious problem. The failure of the Model Rules to recognize the role of lawyers in peacemaking, dispute prevention or resolution, and legal problem solving marks an absence in what is publicly recognized as among the most important roles a lawyer performs - that of a constructive lawyer. Furthermore, the Model Rules misrepresent the legal profession by assuming that representing clients in adversarial matters is the only role lawyers fulfill. Such an assumption fails to give adequate guidance to a lawyer who fulfills a broader, and perhaps, more significant role than that of a hired gun

The Historical Contingencies of Conflict Resolution

This article reviews the historical contingency of theory and practice in conflict engagement. World War II and the Cold War produced adversarial, distributive, competitive, and scarce resources conceptions of negotiation and conflict resolution, as evidenced by game theory and negotiation practice. More recent and more optimistic theory and practice has focused on party needs and interests and hopes for more party-tailored, contingent, flexible, participatory and more integrative and creative solutions for more than two disputants to a conflict. The current challenges of our present history are explored: continued conflict in both domestic and international settings, the challenge of “scaling up” conflict resolution theory and the problematics of developing universal theory in highly contextualized and diverse sets of conflict sites. The limits of “rationality” in conflict resolution is explored where feelings and ethical, religious and other values may be just as important in conflict engagement and handling

Does Nationality Influence Neutrality? The Ethical Standards and Expectations of International Mediators

This Comment examines how a mediator’s nationality can influence the mediating parties’ and communities’ perceptions of his neutrality and how cultural differences play a role in the ethical expectations of a cross-cultural mediator. Part I discusses the role of neutrality in cross-cultural mediation and how neutrality is required and interpreted by codified ethical standards for mediators in the United States and in several international organizations. Part II discusses the role of culture in mediation, how culture influences ethical expectations, and the case studies of George Mitchell, a mediator in Ireland and Israel-Palestine, and Lakhdar Brahimi, a mediator in Syria. Mitchell and Brahimi are examples of mediators who worked with cultures that had different ethical expectations of the mediator’s role than they were accustomed to in their respective cultures. They both resigned in frustration and experienced great difficulty and public ridicule during their terms. Part III analyzes Mitchell and Brahimi’s trials and failures in their mediations, and provides suggestions for mediators involved in cross-cultural mediations. Through this analysis this Comment clarifies the role of neutrality in mediation and how a mediator’s nationality influences how mediating parties and their communities perceive his neutrality

Evidence synthesis on the occurrence, causes, consequences, prevention and management of bullying and harassment behaviours to inform decision making in the NHS

Background Workplace bullying is a persistent problem in the NHS with negative implications for individuals, teams, and organisations. Bullying is a complex phenomenon and there is a lack of evidence on the best approaches to manage the problem. Aims Research questions What is known about the occurrence, causes, consequences and management of bullying and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace? Objectives Summarise the reported prevalence of workplace bullying and inappropriate behaviour. Summarise the empirical evidence on the causes and consequences of workplace bullying and inappropriate behaviour. Describe any theoretical explanations of the causes and consequences of workplace bullying and inappropriate behaviour. Synthesise evidence on the preventative and management interventions that address workplace bullying interventions and inappropriate behaviour. Methods To fulfil a realist synthesis approach the study was designed across four interrelated component parts: Part 1: A narrative review of the prevalence, causes and consequences of workplace bullying Part 2: A systematic literature search and realist review of workplace bullying interventions Part 3: Consultation with international bullying experts and practitioners Part 4: Identification of case studies and examples of good practic

Designing Integrated Conflict Management Systems: Guidelines for Practitioners and Decision Makers in Organizations

A committee of the ADR (alternative dispute resolution) in the Workplace Initiative of the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR) prepared this document for employers, managers, labor representatives, employees, civil and human rights organizations, and others who interact with organizations. In this document we explain why organizations should consider developing integrated conflict management systems to prevent and resolve conflict, and we provide practical guidelines for designing and implementing such systems. The principles identified in this document can also be used to manage external conflict with customers, clients, and the public. Indeed, we recommend that organizations focus simultaneously on preventing and managing both internal and external conflict. SPIDR recognizes that an integrated conflict management system will work only if designed with input from users and decision makers at all levels of the organization. Each system must be tailored to fit the organization\u27s needs, circumstances, and culture. In developing these systems, experimentation is both necessary and healthy. We hope that this document will provide guidance, encourage experimentation, and contribute to the evolving understanding of how best to design and implement these systems

Quantitative and Econometric Methodologies in the Study of Civil War

This chapter provides an overview of the quantitative study of civil war, focusing on the development of quantitative conflict studies, the basics of the quantitative method, the prominent sources of civil conflict data, and the strengths and weaknesses of using quantitative methods to analyse civil war

Online Dispute Resolution Through the Lens of Bargaining and Negotiation Theory: Toward an Integrated Model

[Excerpt] In this article we apply negotiation and bargaining theory to the analysis of online dispute resolution. Our principal objective is to develop testable hypotheses based on negotiation theory that can be used in ODR research. We have not conducted the research necessary to test the hypotheses we develop; however, in a later section of the article we suggest a possible methodology for doing so. There is a vast literature on negotiation and bargaining theory. For the purposes of this article, we realized at the outset that we could only use a small part of that literature in developing a model that might be suitable for empirical testing. We decided to use the behavioral theory of negotiation developed by Richard Walton and Robert McKersie, which was initially formulated in the 1960s. This theory has stood the test of time. Initially developed to explain union-management negotiations, it has proven useful in analyzing a wide variety of disputes and conflict situations. In constructing their theory, Walton and McKersie built on the contributions and work of many previous bargaining theorists including economists, sociologists, game theorists, and industrial relations scholars. In this article, we have incorporated a consideration of the foundations on which their theory was based. In the concluding section of the article we discuss briefly how other negotiation and bargaining theories might be applied to the analysis of ODR