Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2234 |
Resumo: | This article focuses on the dilemmas and trade-offs that third parties face when mediating violent political conflicts. Should they ignore human rights violations because pushing the issue could jeopardize relationships with political actors who grant access for humanitarian aid? Will bringing moderates and hardliners together help the peace process or radicalize moderate actors? What should dialogue facilitators do when the act of identifying non-mainstream groups to be included into dialogue increases division and polarization? The activity of peacemaking is inherently characterized by such process and strategy dilemmas where two equally compulsory imperatives seem not to be attainable at the same time. The article proposes a framework to break out of either-or thinking in these situations. We argue that: 1) making oneself aware of how a decision is perceived, and 2) systematically exploring a set of different strategies for creating new unexpected options helps to ease these decisions and avoid rotten compromises. The model reworks and combines existing problem-solving strategies to create a new explorative option generation approach to peacemaking dilemmas and trade-offs. Some of these strategies, such as sequencing and incrementalization, are already well-established in peacemaking. Others, such as compartmentalization and utilization, are rather unconsciously used. All identified strategies, however, are not yet systematically employed to manage third parties’ own dilemmas and trade-offs. Under the suggested framework, these strategies can act in complement to synthesize creativity and strategic thinking with surprising ease. Using examples from the authors’ peacemaking activities and observations in Myanmar, Thailand, and Ukraine, the article demonstrates the real-world benefits of the framework in terms of decision assessment and optional thinking. |
id |
RCAP_88dc33cfb0ddded7959470f4cef358af |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2234 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisionsdecision-making; human rights; mediation; peacemaking; peace processThis article focuses on the dilemmas and trade-offs that third parties face when mediating violent political conflicts. Should they ignore human rights violations because pushing the issue could jeopardize relationships with political actors who grant access for humanitarian aid? Will bringing moderates and hardliners together help the peace process or radicalize moderate actors? What should dialogue facilitators do when the act of identifying non-mainstream groups to be included into dialogue increases division and polarization? The activity of peacemaking is inherently characterized by such process and strategy dilemmas where two equally compulsory imperatives seem not to be attainable at the same time. The article proposes a framework to break out of either-or thinking in these situations. We argue that: 1) making oneself aware of how a decision is perceived, and 2) systematically exploring a set of different strategies for creating new unexpected options helps to ease these decisions and avoid rotten compromises. The model reworks and combines existing problem-solving strategies to create a new explorative option generation approach to peacemaking dilemmas and trade-offs. Some of these strategies, such as sequencing and incrementalization, are already well-established in peacemaking. Others, such as compartmentalization and utilization, are rather unconsciously used. All identified strategies, however, are not yet systematically employed to manage third parties’ own dilemmas and trade-offs. Under the suggested framework, these strategies can act in complement to synthesize creativity and strategic thinking with surprising ease. Using examples from the authors’ peacemaking activities and observations in Myanmar, Thailand, and Ukraine, the article demonstrates the real-world benefits of the framework in terms of decision assessment and optional thinking.Cogitatio2019-11-25info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2234oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2234Politics and Governance; Vol 7, No 4 (2019): Trade-Offs in the Political Realm: How Important Are Trade-Offs in Politics?; 331-3422183-2463reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2234https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2234https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2234/2234https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/2234/677https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/2234/678Copyright (c) 2019 Anne Isabel Kraus, Owen Frazer, Lars Kirchhoff, Tatiana Kyselova, Simon J. A. Mason, Julia Palmiano Federerhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKraus, Anne IsabelFrazer, OwenKirchhoff, LarsKyselova, TatianaMason, Simon J. A.Palmiano Federer, Julia2022-12-22T15:15:35Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2234Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:22:10.340078Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions |
title |
Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions |
spellingShingle |
Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions Kraus, Anne Isabel decision-making; human rights; mediation; peacemaking; peace process |
title_short |
Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions |
title_full |
Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions |
title_fullStr |
Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions |
title_full_unstemmed |
Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions |
title_sort |
Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions |
author |
Kraus, Anne Isabel |
author_facet |
Kraus, Anne Isabel Frazer, Owen Kirchhoff, Lars Kyselova, Tatiana Mason, Simon J. A. Palmiano Federer, Julia |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Frazer, Owen Kirchhoff, Lars Kyselova, Tatiana Mason, Simon J. A. Palmiano Federer, Julia |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Kraus, Anne Isabel Frazer, Owen Kirchhoff, Lars Kyselova, Tatiana Mason, Simon J. A. Palmiano Federer, Julia |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
decision-making; human rights; mediation; peacemaking; peace process |
topic |
decision-making; human rights; mediation; peacemaking; peace process |
description |
This article focuses on the dilemmas and trade-offs that third parties face when mediating violent political conflicts. Should they ignore human rights violations because pushing the issue could jeopardize relationships with political actors who grant access for humanitarian aid? Will bringing moderates and hardliners together help the peace process or radicalize moderate actors? What should dialogue facilitators do when the act of identifying non-mainstream groups to be included into dialogue increases division and polarization? The activity of peacemaking is inherently characterized by such process and strategy dilemmas where two equally compulsory imperatives seem not to be attainable at the same time. The article proposes a framework to break out of either-or thinking in these situations. We argue that: 1) making oneself aware of how a decision is perceived, and 2) systematically exploring a set of different strategies for creating new unexpected options helps to ease these decisions and avoid rotten compromises. The model reworks and combines existing problem-solving strategies to create a new explorative option generation approach to peacemaking dilemmas and trade-offs. Some of these strategies, such as sequencing and incrementalization, are already well-established in peacemaking. Others, such as compartmentalization and utilization, are rather unconsciously used. All identified strategies, however, are not yet systematically employed to manage third parties’ own dilemmas and trade-offs. Under the suggested framework, these strategies can act in complement to synthesize creativity and strategic thinking with surprising ease. Using examples from the authors’ peacemaking activities and observations in Myanmar, Thailand, and Ukraine, the article demonstrates the real-world benefits of the framework in terms of decision assessment and optional thinking. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-11-25 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2234 oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2234 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2234 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2234 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2234 https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2234 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2234/2234 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/2234/677 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/downloadSuppFile/2234/678 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Politics and Governance; Vol 7, No 4 (2019): Trade-Offs in the Political Realm: How Important Are Trade-Offs in Politics?; 331-342 2183-2463 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130667428085760 |