Third Party Intervention (some useful concepts) from Beyondintractability.

org

*violent intervention
- Military intervention (Humanitarian intervention) - Since the close of the Cold War, military intervention for
humanitarian ends and conflict resolution has increased dramatically. This can include the use of troops in
traditionally unconventional ways such as disaster relief. Far more common and far more controversial is the use
of combat troops to help end the fighting in an intractable conflict, troops which typically stay on in a far more
active peacemaking capacity than tradition "blue helmet" peacekeepers did.

*non-violent intervention
- Peacekeeping - the second phase of the peace process that is distinct from long-term peacebuilding. According
to UN, peacekeeping is an effort to "monitor and observe peace processes that emerge in post-conflict situations
and assist ex-combatants to implement the peace agreements they have signed." This includes the deployment of
peacekeeping forces, collective security arrangements, and enforcement of ceasefire agreements.

- Peacemaking - According to the UN, peacemaking is "action to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially
through such peaceful means as those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations; Pacific
Settlement of Disputes." In this sense, peacemaking is the diplomatic effort intended to move a violent conflict
into nonviolent dialogue, where differences are settled through representative political institutions. The objective
of peacemaking is thus to end the violence between the contending parties. Methods used: negotiation,
mediation, arbitration
- Diplomacy - It is the practice of verbal discussion with the intent to influence, transmit a position or negotiate
on a given issue or situation for a mutually acceptable outcome.
- Track I diplomacy - The term "track-one diplomacy" refers to official governmental diplomacy, or "a technique
of state action, [which] is essentially a process whereby communications from one government go directly to the
decision-making apparatus of another". Thus, track-one diplomacy is conducted by official representatives of a
state or state-like authority and involves interaction with other state or state-like authorities: heads of state, state
department or ministry of foreign affairs officials, and other governmental departments and ministries.
- Track II diplomacy - The term "intermediary" refers to people who become involved "in the middle" of a
conflict. They are not disputants, but rather people who try to work with the disputants to resolve the conflict or
transform it to make it less destructive. Sometimes these intermediaries are official or "formal" intermediaries:
professional mediators, arbitrators, judges, or other official actors. But often they are informal, or unofficial
people who work outside official negotiation, mediation, or "Track I" processes.

- Negotiation - negotiation is a discussion between two or more disputants who are trying to work out a solution
to their problem. This interpersonal or inter-group process can occur at a personal level, as well as at a corporate
or international (diplomatic) level. Negotiations typically take place because the parties wish to create something
new that neither could do on his or her own, or to resolve a problem or dispute between them. The parties
acknowledge that there is some conflict of interest between them and think they can use some form of influence
to get a better deal, rather than simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them. They prefer to
search for agreement rather than fight openly, give in, or break off contact. When parties negotiate, they usually
expect give and take. While they have interlocking goals that they cannot accomplish independently, they usually
do not want or need exactly the same thing.
- Positional bargaining is a negotiation strategy that involves holding on to a fixed idea, or position, of what you
want and arguing for it and it alone, regardless of any underlying interests.
- Zero-sum, positive-sum, and negative-sum are all game theory terms that refer to the outcomes of a dispute or
negotiation. They refer to the actual amount of wealth (money, land, vacation time) -- measurable rewards -- that
each party receives.
- In a zero-sum situation, it is impossible for one party to advance its position without the other party suffering a
corresponding loss. If one side gets $1,000 more, that means the other side gets $1,000 less. The wins and losses
add up to zero. These situations typically arise in distributive bargaining cases where a "fixed pie" must be
divided between the parties.
- "Positive-sum" outcomes are those in which the sum of winnings and losses is greater than zero. This becomes
possible when the size of the pie is somehow enlarged so that there is more wealth to distribute between the
parties than there was originally, or some other way is devised so everyone gets what they want or need. This can
be done in a variety of ways. Or it might be done with integrative bargaining, where different interests are
negotiated to meet every sides' needs.
- The most difficult problems are negative-sum situations, where the pie is shrinking. In the end, the gains and
losses will all add up to less than zero. This means that the only way for a party to maintain its position is to take
something from another party, and even if everyone takes his or her share of the "losses," everyone still loses in
comparison to what they currently have or really need.
- Win-win, win-lose, and lose-lose are game theory terms that refer to the possible outcomes of a game or
dispute involving two sides, and more importantly, how each side perceives their outcome relative to their
standing before the game. For example, a "win" results when the outcome of a negotiation is better than
expected, a "loss" when the outcome is worse than expected.
- Win-win outcomes occur when each side of a dispute feels they have won. Since both sides benefit from such a
scenario, any resolutions to the conflict are likely to be accepted voluntarily. The process of integrative
bargaining aims to achieve, through cooperation, win-win outcomes.
- Integrative bargaining (also called "interest-based bargaining," "win-win bargaining") is a negotiation
strategy in which parties collaborate to find a "win-win" solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses on
developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants. Interests include the needs,
desires, concerns, and fears important to each side. They are the underlying reasons why people become
involved in a conflict. Integrative bargaining is important because it usually produces more satisfactory
outcomes for the parties involved than does positional bargaining. "Integrative refers to the potential for the
parties' interests to be [combined] in ways that create joint value or enlarge the pie." Potential for integration
only exists when there are multiple issues involved in the negotiation. This is because the parties must be able to
make trade-offs across issues in order for both sides to be satisfied with the outcome.
- Win-lose situations result when only one side perceives the outcome as positive. Thus, win-lose outcomes are
less likely to be accepted voluntarily. Distributive bargaining processes, based on a principle of competition
between participants, are more likely than integrative bargaining to end in win-lose outcomes--or they may result
in a situation where each side gets part of what he or she wanted, but not as much as they might have gotten if
they had used integrative bargaining.
- Distributive bargaining, also called "claiming value," "zero-sum," or "win-lose" bargaining, is a
competitive negotiation strategy that is used to decide how to distribute a fixed resource, such as money. The
parties assume that there is not enough to go around, and they cannot "expand the pie," so the more one side
gets, the less the other side gets. Distributive bargaining is important because there are some disputes that cannot
be solved in any other way -- they are inherently zero-sum. If the stakes are high, such conflicts can be very
resistant to resolution.
- Lose-lose means that all parties end up being worse off. In some lose-lose situations, all parties understand that
losses are unavoidable and that they will be evenly distributed. In such situations, lose-lose outcomes can be
preferable to win-lose outcomes because the distribution is at least considered to be fair.

- Mediation is a process in which a third-party neutral assists in resolving a dispute between two or more other
parties. It is a non-adversarial approach to conflict resolution. The role of the mediator is to facilitate
communication between the parties, assist them in focusing on the real issues of the dispute, and generate
options that meet the interests or needs of all relevant parties in an effort to resolve the conflict. Unlike
arbitration, where the intermediary listens to the arguments of both sides and makes a decision for the disputants,
a mediator assists the parties to develop a solution themselves. Although mediators sometimes provide ideas,
suggestions, or even formal proposals for settlement, the mediator is primarily a "process person," helping the
parties define the agenda, identify and reframe the issues, communicate more effectively, find areas of common
ground, negotiate fairly, and hopefully, reach an agreement. A successful mediation effort has an outcome that is
accepted and owned by the parties themselves. Mediation is widely used in all sorts of disputes, ranging from
divorces to civil lawsuits to very complex public policy problems to international conflicts.
- Arbitration is a method of resolving a dispute in which the disputants present their case to an impartial third
party, who then makes a decision for them which resolves the conflict.