International Media and Conflict Resolution: Making the Connection

For conflict resolution scholars, the idea of focusing on the media is a logical one. After all, the media is the primary method through which the public and political leadership perceive and understand conflicts at home and abroad. If we are working to better handle these conflicts, the way that these conflicts are explained and understood is a crucial part of that process. Do the media have a responsibility to report all sides, even if one side is “wrong”? Do the media share in responsibility for escalation of a conflict if the reporting is incendiary? (The conviction of certain media figures involved in the Rwandan genocide and the use of “Tokyo Rose” during World War II are only two stark examples of how media can be directly involved in conflict.) And what of the responsibility of conflict specialists—are those of us in the conflict resolution field ignoring the media at our peril? Many commentators on the media—from journalists to lawyers to conflict resolution scholars—have argued about the proper role of journalists and decried the common “if it bleeds, it leads” approach to reporting. Can journalists play a different role in informing the public, moderating the debate, creating understanding? In answering this question, we wanted to take a broader approach and bring a variety of disciplines and experiences to bear. So, we start this symposium with four different disciplinary looks at the linkage between media and conflict. We then spread across the world, with case studies from five different continents to illuminate the concepts while providing important insight into the actual functions performed by the media. The case studies we include also raise interesting points on the types of media. As media have evolved from newspapers to three primary television stations to cable news to the Internet, we also need to understand how that evolution has impacted the reporting on conflict

Carrie Menkel-Meadow: Dispute Resolution in a Feminist Voice

The presence of women in the law has changed the law’s substance, practice, and process. Carrie Menkel-Meadow, whose scholarship centers on this theme, is one such revolutionary woman. Professor Menkel-Meadow, who I am proud to call my colleague, co-author, and friend (hereinafter referred to as Carrie), began her career in 1977 with a series of simple questions that sparked a breathtaking body of work. Carrie probed the depth of male domination in the realm of law and wondered what changes female representation might engender. In particular, she focused her inquiry on the value orientation each respective gender might bring to the law: To what extent are the legal institutions we deal with male-dominated, both in the values they reflect and the manner or means used to express those values? To what extent might the expression of feminine or female values, principles and qualities both in the ends desired and the means used to express those ends alter our legal institutions? How does the increased participation of women in these legal institutions move us toward or away from the realization of feminine values in the law? Over 40 years, Carrie elaborated on these questions to develop a thorough and wide-ranging feminist jurisprudence. This Essay attempts to do justice to her work. Part II recapitulates her account of the feminization of the law: the way that feminine values affect the substance of the law; the way that we practice and learn law; and the process of law, especially in the area of Carrie’s other love—dispute resolution. In particular, Carrie used a key narrative to illustrate competing approaches to problem-solving. Spurred by Carol Gilligan’s reanalysis of psychology studies, Carrie dove into the moral dilemmas used in psychology and recast the story of Amy and Jake (where they wrestle over the dilemma of whether to steal drugs to save a life) as a lesson in problem-solving. Throughout her writings, Carrie advocated for a feminine ethic of care to have equal footing with the more traditional (masculine) ethic of justice that has been hallowed in law. Part III of this Essay uses a different narrative from Carrie’s scholarship to illustrate the application of the feminization of the law. In the case of Ziba—a hypothetical mediation between an underage bride and her controlling husband, Ahmed—we see how Carrie’s own passions for feminism and dispute resolution collide in the mediation process she typically champions. Ultimately, Carrie’s treatment of the case puts into practice the ethic of care developed within her feminist jurisprudence

Aspirations in Negotiation

In most negotiation courses, students are taught to consider their alternatives to reaching a negotiated agreement, identify their BATNA, and determine their bottom line. Yet, many courses fail to provide equal attention to the related but distinct notion of aspirations, that is, negotiator goals that exceed the bottom line. The topic of aspirations is, no doubt, addressed indirectly in negotiation courses that stress the importance of understanding interests and setting priorities, but the critical link between these concepts and setting specific goals is often missing. This brief essay attempts to rectify this omission by discussing the importance of aspirations in bargaining, how negotiators should determine their aspirations, and why negotiators often fail to follow this approach. First, this essay discusses why aspirations should be set and should be optimistic. Studies show that negotiators with higher goals accomplish more. This is based on a number of factors including how hard people negotiate, how patient negotiators are, and how negotiators view a fair settlement, among others. Second, this essay outlines how to set these aspirations based on objective criteria, and why aspirations must be justifiable. Justifiable aspirations are more persuasive and also help to keep negotiators from making the mistake of unrealistic aspirations that cause them to walk away from good agreements. Third, this essay examines why aspirations should be specific. Finally, this essay examines why negotiators fail to set specific goals because they want to avoid disappointment or lack information. In the end, while there are some risks of disappointment and unrealized settlements involved in setting optimistic goals, studies demonstrate that setting specific, optimistic and justifiable aspirations result in negotiations that accomplish more of what the negotiator wants. The role of aspirations and their importance to successful negotiations should become part of the universal concepts taught in every negotiation class