Conflict Resolution Evaluation –
Constructing a Disputant Guide for Formative Feedback

Margaret Keiley-Listermann
Georgia Gwinnett College

     Beginning with a theoretical model of complementary in conflict resolution (Fisher and Keashley 1990, 1991; Hopmann 1995; Bloomfield 1997, 1998), this study seeks to create a disputant guide that can be adapted to the needs of the participants.
     A model of complementary bridges the gap between settlement based approaches and resolution based approaches to conflict. By matching the nature of the conflict issue with the appropriate approach, practitioners can maximize the impact of a peace process (Hopmann 1995). Many scholars and practitioners might agree, especially with the success of the Action Evaluation program in Ohio (Rothman 1997a, 1997b). While reliability and effectiveness in a formative staging is quite important in this study as well, the author departs from the established approach of action evaluation in that the on-line database maintained by Action Evaluation exposes the disputant participant, who might already harbor concerns about the security of participating and revealing their negotiation strategy, to issues of electronic sensitivity and reliability.
     In turn, this paper advances the current literature by offering the mediator/intermediary with a scope of administration methodology that can be designed to meet the conflict needs of the disputants. This study refers to the mediator (and their support team) as a mediator/intermediary. In traditional North American models of conflict resolution, a mediator is likely to be employed. However, each conflict connotes different nuances and might, as in the case of Northern Ireland in the Belfast Agreement, never result in face to face negotiations. Thus, an intermediary might also benefit from the use of the disputant guide proposed in this study.
     Finally, the author proposes that a more detailed disputant guide, focusing on self-evaluation, can enable the disputants to clarify their underlying conflict issues in both a descriptive and prescriptive perspective.
Security
     The pursuit of conflict resolution necessitates that the mediator/intermediary establish a safe space for communication. Thus, he/she must address disputant concerns about confidentiality and trust due to technology security concerns. The current program operated under the direction of the ARIA Group in Ohio – Action Evaluation – solicits data from participants for future conflict analysis. Admittedly, there is a place for the Action Evaluation framework, but the author concurs with Mark Hoffman’s critique of the program (Hoffman 2002). Neither the stages (baseline, formative, and summative) nor the goals of Rothman’s methodological approach are disputed by this paper; however, Hoffman’s specific critique about the need for a more generalized approach and non-linear problem-solving approach (not implicitly Western) is the intent of this paper. By proposing a comprehensive framework for the disputant guide and allowing the mediator/intermediary to employ it in context-specific methods, this paper eliminates the summary analysis of the data submission. In fact, the disputants can opt to eliminate a written record of the guide’s administration entirely. Furthermore, the embrace of a mediator or intermediary and the administrator of the disputant guide can recognize the need for a non-Western approach to conflict transformation. Of particular concern is the consistent utilization of the North American mediation model of a neutral third party. In such cases where the reframing of the meditative perspective is necessary (in protracted conflicts or cultural identity conflicts, for example), an “intermediary” approach that links the disputants in a channel of communication can complicate conventional conflict resolution strategies. Accordingly, the administration of the disputant guide allows for the mediator/intermediary and the participants themselves to tailor the forms of participation to suit the conflict needs.
Methods of Administration
     The flexibility of the disputant guide allows for the mediator/intermediary to administer the feedback mechanism with specific attention to the dynamics of the negotiations and the preferences of the disputants. Emphasizing voluntary selection of disputant team disputants and the various forms of participation, the mediator/intermediary can maximize reflective analysis in the conflict resolution process. Formative evaluation offers the benefits of rapid feedback during the ongoing negotiations, documentation of what is and what is not working, and planning of the incorporation of feedback in order to tailor the conflict transformation to the needs of the disputants (Nan 2004). Table 1 displays several alternate methods (that the mediator/intermediary can select as the appropriate tool for the negotiations) of the formative evaluation embedded in the disputant guide.
See Table 1
     The four methods of administration proposed here within are interviews, dialogue with the disputants, worksheets, and focus groups. The selection of the methodology should reflect the needs of the conflict. For example, interviews without mediator notes gives the disputants the choice of whether the mediator/intermediary should be allowed to maintain notes of the proceedings demonstrates an emphatic concern about confidentiality. In contrast, individual interviews with the mediator/intermediary would be with a member of the disputant’s negotiation team. That individual would be selected by the delegation itself. A workshop style environment would include activities like brainstorming for common issues and interests under the direction of the mediator/intermediary. However, a briefing style environment engages the disputants in a one-on-one conversation where the mediator/intermediary is the active listener.
     Accordingly, each disputant (or negotiation team) involved in the conflict should meet separately with the mediator/intermediary. The practical concerns about confidentiality should be addressed by allowing the disputants to determine whether there should be a written record of the meeting in the possession of the mediator/intermediary. In an interview-style administration, the disputant guide should be administered as questions orally presented to the participants. In the dialogue-style method, the guide should be regarded as a list of talking points to facilitate the discussion. The worksheet format allows the disputants to articulate in a written response format; furthermore, the worksheet could then be discussed in a briefing or debriefing environment. Finally, the use of a focus group methodology would allow the mediator/intermediary to encourage more active pursuits of internal reflection in either a workshop or briefing environment.
Descriptive/Prescriptive
     Negotiation involves the careful articulation of positions, interests, and issues. Active and empathetic listening are additionally essential but must be complimented by a clear, precise evaluations of the conflict issues and conflict needs. The mediator/intermediary must facilitate or foster a safe space for open communication and may employ the disputant guide for the further articulation of the descriptive and prescriptive positions of the disputants. The feedback is self-evaluative, meaning that the disputants themselves are identifying their own positions, interests, and issues. Subjective evaluation shall build trust with the mediator/intermediary and, hopefully, reveal the underlying roots of the conflict.
     The descriptive phase of the proposed disputant guide recognizes the social psychological dimensions of the conflict. Focusing on the disputant’s internal assessment of their negotiation style, modes of communication, perceptions of the other disputants, preferred conflict outcomes, and preferred management methods, the disputant guide encourages an evaluation of perspective inherent in conflict. Figure 1 depicts the disputant guide and identifies the scope of formative evaluation of each category. Acknowledging the negotiation style and perspective from which the disputant comes will allow the participants to be invested in creating an empathetic listening environment (even if only on a bi-lateral relationship with the intermediary) and invest further in the interpersonal communicative space of the peace process.
     Bridging the descriptive phase of the disputant guide should be the identification, from the disputant’s perspective, of the actors, elements, and means involved in the conflict. Recognizing that this evaluation will reveal the first layer of hardened positions, the mediator/intermediary should periodically suggest a revision or update to this unit of the disputant guide. For the purpose of the disputant guide, the actors, elements, and means are defined as the following: the actors are the perceived people with an “interest” in the conflict; the elements are the circumstances surrounding the people with vested interests at that particular time; and the means are the scope of options that are open to be used to resolve (or reinforce, if the case may be) the conflict.
     The prescriptive phase of the disputant guide asks the disputant to identify the conflict issues and subsequently to identify them as either institutional or cultural. The result is that the cooperative, resolution based approach can be matched to cultural issues whereas institutional issues will need a structural, settlement based approach. In addition to practically identifying the positions, interests, and issues of the conflict (according to the disputant), this phase bolsters the prospects of mutual agreement on overlapping concerns among disputants and can be integrated formatively back into the negotiations. Furthermore, the mediator/intermediary can subtly direct the disputants to chronologically address conflict issues where there appears to be the most overlapping agreement first, thereby creating integral confidence-building measures into the communicative space of negotiation. Finally, the last part of the prescriptive phase of the disputant guide solicits the perceived embedded criteria in the conflict. Simply put, this allows the disputants to identify the mythistorical “baggage” permeating the conflict and gives the mediator/intermediary the parameters of areas of agreement with the appropriate context. Adjusting the mediation strategy to the context-specific criterion of the conflict will demonstrate that the mediator/intermediary is an active, empathetic listener and will build trust and vested interests in the process.
Addressing Concerns in Constructing the Disputant Guide
     In constructing a disputant evaluation guide for international negotiation, the author wanted to address several inherent concerns in the conflict resolution process. Among these concerns were the acknowledgement of subjectivity in the solicited feedback responses of the disputants, the possibility of non-participation due to heightened security questions, the dynamics of a protracted conflict, and the contextual importance of rhetoric and linguistic mythistory in the disputants’ feedback. Accordingly, the theoretical approach to constructing this conflict resolution tool strives to gain subjective feedback of the conflict transformation process to enrich the peace negotiations for (1) the mediator/intermediary who can utilize this tool for internal evaluation of the process and adjust their mediation approaches to suit the context-specific criterion of a conflict and for (2) the disputants themselves to self-evaluate their own positions and interests as well as other disputants.
     A disputant based evaluation of the conflict inherently reveals layers of subjective interpretation of the people, power, and perspectives involved. This subjectivity is precisely what the author believes is the essence of underlying issues embedded in the conflict. Cross-cultural communication concerns, such as non-verbal communication, historical imperatives, and negotiation styles themselves are contextual (LeBaron 2003). The mediator/intermediary, the disputants, and the resolution process itself can be enriched by identifying and acknowledging the conflict’s communication dynamics. In turn, by demonstrating that the perspective of the disputant is important, the mediator/intermediary builds trust with the disputants and confidence in the negotiation environment. Embracing the subjective nature of the disputant’s responses in the proposed guide can further expose the mediator/intermediary to the rhetoric of the conflict.
     Another issue involved in the implementation of a disputant guide is confidentiality and security. Concerns about the security of the negotiators and their positions dictates that the evaluation guides are tailored to the conflict by the mediator/intermediary. Confidentiality is imperative, and the mediator/intermediary might need to formally acknowledge this concern. The guide can even be used as tool for interview briefing/debriefing segments. Tailored to the scope of the conflict and its disputants, the guide can be offered with or without mediator/intermediary assigned notations, can be offered to any number of members of the disputant negotiating team, and can be broken into preliminary (pre-negotiations) and formative phases (mid-negotiations). The flexibility of the administration of the guide and the solicited feedback itself should be employed in a culturally-sensitive and context-specific manner.
     Another concern addressed by this paper is the complicated nature of how a mediator/intermediary must be aware of and sensitive to historical imperatives embedded in prolonged international conflicts. The disputant guide proposed in this study was developed within the context of the peace process in Northern Ireland, embodying the flavor of protracted (intractable) conflicts in the model itself (Bloomfield 1997, 1998; Keiley-Listermann 2003). The character of a protracted conflict demonstrates some of the richest failures in conflict resolution and yet also reveals the greatest benefits of conflict transformation (Bercovich 1996; LeBaron 2001; Zartman 1985, 1999). In such conflicts, the mutual stalemate might appear never-ending, the rhetoric might seem to be overstating negotiation positions, and the conventional approaches of positional bargaining might yield few results. In such cases, the disputant guide can facilitate a frank assessment of the identity roots of the conflict, expose stereotypical enemy images, manage interpersonal distrust, and foster empathetic listening. Whether through a mediator or an intermediary, a safe place for a channel of communication can be carved into the peace process through the utilization of a disputant guide.
     The utilization of reflexive repositioning aids in the transformation of conflict positions and issues. Using a self-evaluative format, the disputant guide can provide a cursory sense of the other disputants’ perspectives in conflict transformation and further reveal the cultural mythistory of the conflict itself. In this study, mythistory is used to convey the embedded conflict perspectives in the interpretation, in some cases revision, of history in the conflict. “A sense of the other” perspective, developed by the disputants themselves, can be incorporated into the meditative behavior as well. Cultural influences and embedded parameters of acceptability abound, but without a rhetorical decoding devise, the mediator/intermediary might be diagnostically disadvantaged in his/her approach. The mediator/intermediary must be able to adapt their language to the rhetoric and linguistic connotations to phrases. A perfunctory vocabulary appropriate for the conflict disputants and an appreciation for the mythistorical limits in that particular conflict demonstrates a concerted, mediation strategy – one that is likely to induce greater prospects for conflict resolution.
Conclusion
     The resolution of conflict, especially the protracted conflicts, can benefit from both theoretical discourse and practical tool development. It is the author’s hope that this study provides an intersection of theory and practical application. The development of the formative feedback contained in the self-evaluative disputant guide can compliment the existing tools for conflict resolution practitioners. Serving a dual benefit to both the mediator/intermediary and to the disputants themselves, the disputant guide was crafted to be culturally-sensitive, broad based, and adaptable to the conflict. A detailed guide with open-ended questioning solicits feedback about the disputants and the conflict issues from the very people with a vested interest in finding a resolution to the conflict. Building trust and confidence in the communicative space, the mediator/intermediary can aid in the transformation of positions by softening the hardened layers of positional bargaining approaches and matching the appropriate resolution or settlement means to the respective cultural or institutional issues. The model of theoretical complementary embedded in the practical tool of a disputant guide can yield a context-specific methodology for a mediation strategy and conflict resolution.
See Figure 1

Table 1. Methods of Administering the Disputant Guide

Figure 1. A Disputant Guide for Formative Evaluation in International Conflict
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The Descriptive Phase

Negotiation Style
What is your negotiation style?
Do you have a(n)…
              Integrative or interest-based bargaining, Distributive bargaining, Positional
              Bargaining, or Cooperative bargaining negotiation style?
* The mediator/intermediary can assess the style if parties are unable or unwilling to do so.
What are the cultural impacts on negotiation in this conflict?
Modes of Communication
Who is communicating over which element(s) of the conflict by what means (Bloomfield 1997, 205)?
Identify what disputant is communicating to whom and the form of communication as Discussion and debate, Indirect (mis) interpretation, Threats, Destruction (Fisher and Keashley 1990).
Perception of each Disputant
Who utilizes which perceptions and images of themselves, the conflict and each other in relation to which elements (Bloomfield 1997, 205)?
Identify the disputant and the image you have of them on each element, as well as the image you think they have of you?
Classify as Rigid and Simplified Negative Stereotypes, Good vs. Evil Dichotomy, or Benign and Accurate Images (Fisher and Keashley 1990).
Preferred Outcomes
Who envisions which possible outcomes over what means (Bloomfield 1997, 205)?
Identify the issue and the preferred resolution to each issue, according to your perspective and then according to the other disputants.
Preferred Management Methods
Who utilizes which means of conflict management over which means (Bloomfield 1997, 205)?
Identify the issue and the preferred management method for each issue, according to your perspective and then according to the other disputants.
Identify the Actors in the conflict
Identify the Elements of the conflict
Identify the Means used by each actor in the conflict

The Prescriptive Phase

Institutional Issues and Settlement proposals
Identify the conflict issues that you believe are institutional or structural in nature. Then individually propose a settlement for each issue that you believe addresses it.
Cultural Issues and Resolution proposals
Identify the conflict issues that you believe are cultural or identity based in nature. Then individually propose a resolution for each issue that you believe addresses it.
Embedded Criteria of the Conflict
Identify what makes this conflict different?
What is the historical context of any previous resolution attempts?
What are the linguistic or rhetoric qualities embedded in this conflict?
What other information do you believe the mediator/intermediary needs to be aware of to assist in this conflict?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arthur, Paul. “Some Thoughts on Transition: A Comparative View of the Peace Processes in South Africa and Northern
       Ireland.” Government and Opposition. Vol. 30 No. 13 (winter 1995): 48-59.
_____. “Peer Learning: Northern Ireland as a Case Study.” New York: Carnegie Commission for the Prevention of Deadly
       Conflict, 1999.
Azar, Edward. “The Theory of Protracted Social Conflict and the Challenge of Transforming Conflict Situations.” Monograph
       Series on World Affairs, Vol. 20 No.2 (1983): 81-99.
_____. The Management of Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Cases. Dartmouth: Aldershot Press, 1990.
Bercovich, Jacob. Social Conflicts and Third Parties: Strategies of Conflict Resolution. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984.
_____. “International Mediation: A Study of the Incidence, Strategies and Conditions of Successful Outcomes.” Co-operation
       and Conflict. Vol. 21 (1986): 155-168.
_____. Ed. Resolving international conflicts. London: Lynne Rienner, 1996.
Bloomfield, David. “Complementarity in conflict management theory: strategies of resolution and settlement in the Northern
       Ireland conflict.” Ph.D. diss, University of Bradford, 1994.
_____. “Towards Complementarity in Conflict Management: Resolution and Settlement in Northern Ireland.” Journal of
       Peace Research, vol. 32 no. 2 (1995): 151-164.
_____. Peacemaking Strategies in Northern Ireland. Houndmills, England: Macmillian Press Ltd., 1997.
_____. Political Dialogue in Northern Ireland. New York: St. Martin’s Press Inc., 1998.
Buckley, Anthony and Mary Catherine Kenney. Negotiating Identity. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1995.
Burton, John W. Conflict and communication: Controlled communication in international relations. London: Macmillan, 1969.
_____. Resolving deep-rooted conflict: a handbook. Landham, MD: University Press of America, 1987.
_____. Conflict: resolution and prevention. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
_____. “Conflict resolution as a political philosophy.”Interdisciplinary Peace Research, Vol.3 (1991): 62-72.
Burton, John W. and F. Dukes. Conflict practices in management, settlement and resolution. New York: St. Martin’s Press,
       1990.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Carbaugh, D. “Positioning as Display of Cultural Identity.” In Positioning Theory, eds. L. van Langenhove and Ron Harre.
       Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1999: 160-177.
Cunningham, William. “Theoretical Framework for Conflict Resolution in Conflict Theory and the Conflict in Northern Ireland.”
       M.A. thesis, University of Auckland, 1998.
de Landtsheer, Christ’l and Feldman, Ofer. Beyond Public Speech and Symbols:Explorations in the Rhetoric of Politicians
       and the Media. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.
Deutsch, M. and P.T. Coleman. The handbook of conflict resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Druckman, Daniel. “Prenegotiation experience and dyadic conflict resolution in a bargaining situation.”
       Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4 (1968): 367-383.
_____. ed. Negotiations: Social-psychological perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1977.
_____. “Content Analysis.” In International Negotiation, ed. Victor Kremenyuk. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
       Publishers Inc., 1991: 244-263.
_____. “The Situational Levers of Negotiating Flexibility.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 37 No. 2 (1993): 236-276.
Fisher, Ronald J. “The Problem-Solving Workshop in Conflict Resolution.” In Communication in International Politics, ed.
       R.L. Merritt. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972.
_____. “Third Party Consultation as a Method of Intergroup Conflict Resolution: A Review of Studies.”
       Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 27 no.2 (1983): 301-334.
_____. “Needs Theory, Social Identity and an Eclectic Model of Conflict.” In Conflict: Human Needs Theory, ed.
       John W. Burton. London: Macmillan Press, 1990.
_____. The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.
_____. Interactive conflict resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997.
Fisher, Ronald J. and Loraleigh Keashley. “Towards a Contingency Approach to Third Party Intervention in Regional Conflict:
       A Cyprus Illustration.” International Journal, Volume XLV (Spring 1990): 424-453.
_____. “The Potential Complementarity of Mediation and Consultation within a Contingency Model of Third Party Intervention.”
       Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 28 No. 1 (1991): 29-42.
Fitzduff, Mari. Approaches to community relations work. Belfast: Community Relations Council, 1994.
_____. “Beyond Violence – Conflict Resolution Processes in Northern Ireland.” M.A. thesis, The United Nations University
       Tokyo, 1996.
Hopmann, P. Terrence. “Two Paradigms of Negotiation: Bargaining and Problem Solving." in Annals, The Annals of the
       American Academy (AAPSS) Vol. 542, (November 1995): 24-47.
Initiative on Conflict Resolution and Ethnicity (INCORE). University of Ulster and the United Nations.
       http://incore.ulst.ac.uk.
Keiley-Listermann, Margaret. “Infinite Patience: The People, Power, and Perception of Sinn Fein in the Northern
       Ireland Peace Process.” Ph.D., University of Alabama, 2003.
Kelman Herbert C. “A behavioral science perspective on the study of war.” In R. Jessor (Ed.), Perspective on behavioral
       science: The Colorado Lectures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991.
_____. “Interactive Problem Solving: the Use and Limits of a Therapeutic Model for the Resolution of International Conflicts.”
       In The Psychodynamics of International Relationships Volume 2: Unofficial Diplomacy at Work, eds. Vamik Volkan et al.
       Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1991: 145-160.
_____.“Group processes in the resolution of international conflicts: Experiences from the Israeli-Palestinian case.” American
       Psychologist. Vol. 52 (1997): 212-220.
LeBaron, Michelle. Conflict and Culture: A Literature Review and Bibliography, Revised Edition. Victoria, British Columbia:
       University of Victoria Institute for Dispute Resolution, 2001.
_____. Bridging Cultural Conflicts: New Approaches for a Changing World. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers,
       2003.
Lederach, John Paul. Preparing for peace: conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press,
       1995.
_____. Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace,
       1997.
Mastenbrook, Willem F.G. “Development of Negotiation Skills.” In International Negotiation, ed. Victor Kremenyuk.
       San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers Inc., 1991: 379-399.
Mitchell, C. and M. Banks. Handbook of conflict resolution: The analytical problem solving approach. London:
       Pinter, 1996.
Nan, Susan. “Formative Evaluation.” www.beondintractability.org. 2004.
Pruitt, Dean G. Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
_____. “Strategy in Negotiation.” In International Negotiation, ed. Victor Kremenyuk. San Francisco, CA:
       Jossey-Bass Publishers Inc., 1991: 78-89.
Pruitt, Dean G. and P. J. Carnevale. Negotiation and social conflict. Florence, KY: Brooks/Cole, 1993.
Pruitt, Dean G. and Jeffrey Z. Rubin. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate & settlement.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986.
Rothman, Jay. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict: In Nations, Organizations and Communities. San Francisco, CA:
       Jossey Bass Publishers, 1997.
_____.”Action Evaluation and Conflict Resolution Training: Theory, Method and Case Study.” International Negotiation,
       vol.2, 1997: 451-470.
Shirlow, Peter and Mark McGovern. “Language, discourse and dialogue: Sinn Fein and the Irish peace process.”
       Political Geography, Vol. 17 (1998): 171-186.
Siegel, Jay. “Negotiations and Beyond – ADR Spectrum.” (lecture at the Institute for International Mediation and Conflict
       Resolution in The Hague, The Netherlands on 26 July 1999), author’s personal collection.
_____. “Lessons Learned.” (lecture at the Institute for International Mediation and Conflict Resolution in The Hague,
       The Netherlands on 28 July 1999), author’s personal collection.
Slim, Randa. “Skills and Techniques in Communicating and Negotiating Across Culture within the Framework of different
       tracks of diplomacy and intervention.” (lecture at the Institute for International Mediation and Conflict Resolution in
       The Hague, The Netherlands on 21 July 1999), author’s personal collection.
Slim, Randa and Harold H. Saunders. “Managing conflict in divided societies: Lessons from Tajikistan.” Negotiation Journal.
       Vol. 12 (1996): 31-46.
Stephan, W.G. “The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations.” In Group processes and intergroup relations, ed. Hendrick.
       Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987: 13-40.
Tajfel, Henri. Differentiation between Social Groups. London: Academic Press Inc., 1978.
_____. Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
_____. “Social psychology of intergroup relations.” Annual Review of Psychology, no. 33 (1982): 1-39.
Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner. “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.” In Psychology of Intergroup Relations,
       eds. S. Worchel and W. G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1986.
Yang, Honggang and Alvin Wolfe, eds. Anthropological Contributions to Conflict Resolution. Athens, GA: University of Georgia
       Press, 1996: 7-8.
Zartman, William and Maureen R. Berman. The Practical Negotiator. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982.
Zartman, William and Saadia Touval. International Mediation in Theory and Practice. Boulder: Westview Press, 1985.
Zartman, William. “The Structure of Negotiation.” In International Negotiation, ed. Victor Kremenyuk. San Francisco, CA:
       Jossey-Bass Publishers Inc., 1991: 65-77.
_____. “Preventative Diplomacy: Setting the Stage.” In Negotiating to Prevent Escalation and Violence. NY: Carnegie
       Commission for the Prevention of Deadly Conflict, 1999: 1-24.