Abstract
This chapter provides an overview of the ways in which the Center for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM) at the University of Maryland, College park has made wide use of ARIA in several continents, in transforming conflict both across and within borders. Practitioners Edy Kaufman and John Davies discuss their extensive use of ARIA in Innovative Problem-Solving Workshops (IPSW) around the world. The CICDM application of ARIA is presented through three unique types of conflict case studies: Israel/Palestine, Peru/Ecuador, and Lesotho.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We use this term “Holy Land” as a neutral term acceptable to both parties covering territories claimed by both.
- 2.
As Rothman writes in his 1997 book, disputants may be able to explain the external attributes of their conflict and the suffering it has caused them, but they are often hard pressed to verbalize the conflict’s inner meaning. As he writes, it is uncommon for disputants to try to do so since other forms of explanation are simpler, and blame is likely more familiar, rhetorically appealing and, in the short term, psychologically comforting. ARIA helps make this deeper discussion possible.
- 3.
As can be seen in the ARIA diagram in Chap. 1 of this volume, Rothman’s original terminology inductively describes the dynamic input of an ARIA process (e.g., Adversarial framing) while the newer terminology deductively suggests its dynamic output (e.g., Antagonism).
References
Azar, E. (1990). The management of protracted social conflict: Theory and cases. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Azar, E. (2003). Protracted social conflicts and second track diplomacy. In J. Davies & E. Kaufman (Eds.), Second track/citizens diplomacy: Concepts and techniques for conflict transformation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Azar, E., & Burton, J. (Eds.). (1986). International conflict resolution: Theory and practice: Lebanon a case example. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Baskin, G. (2011, October 19). My part in the prisoner exchange deal. Jerusalem Post.
Beach, H., Hamner, J., Hewitt, J., Kaufman, E., Kurki, A., Oppenheimer, J., & Wolf, A. (2000). Transboundary freshwater dispute resolution: Theory, practice and annotated references. New York: United Nations University Press.
Davies, J., & Kaufman, E. (Eds.). (2003). Second track/citizens’ diplomacy: Concepts and techniques for conflict transformation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Davies, J., Fekade, W., Hoohlo, M., Kaufman, E., & Shale, M. (2009). Partners in peacebuilding in Lesotho. In C. Zelizer and R. Rubinstein (Eds.) Peacebuilding in practice: Reflections from the field. Sterling: Kumarian.
De Bono, E. (2009). Lateral thinking. New York: Viking.
Fisher, R. (2005). Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking. Boston: Lexington.
Hewitt, J., Wilkenfeld, J., Gurr, T. R., & Heldt, B. (Eds.). (2011). Peace and conflict 2012. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Kaufman, E., & Sosnowski, S. (2005). The Peru-Ecuador peace process: The contribution of track-two diplomacy. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking. Oxford: Lexington.
Kaufman, E., Salem, W., & Verhoeven, J. (Eds.). (2006). Bridging the divide: Peacebuilding in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Kelman, H. (2003). Interactive solving problem as a tool for second track diplomacy. In J. Davies & E. Kaufman (Eds.), Second track/citizens’ diplomacy: Concepts and techniques for conflict transformation (pp. 81–106). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kuttab, J., & Kaufman, E. (1998). An exchange on dialogue. Journal of Palestine Studies, 17(2).
Mitchell, C. (1981). Peacemaking and the consultant’s role. New York: Nichols.
Montville, J., & Davidson, W. (1981). Foreign policy according to Freud. Foreign Policy, 45, 145–157.
Nan, S. A. (2005). Track one-and-a-half diplomacy: Contributions to Georgian-South Ossetian peacemaking. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking. Lanham: Lexington.
Nan, S. A., Druckman, D., & El Horr, J. (2009). Unofficial international conflict resolution: Is there a track 1 ½? Are there best practices? Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 27(1), 65–82.
Pruitt, D., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Rothman, J. (1988). A guide to Arab-Jewish peacemaking organizations in Israel. Jerusalem: New Israel Fund.
Rothman, J. (1989). Supplementing tradition: A theoretical and practical typology for international conflict management. Negotiation Journal, 5, 265–277.
Rothman, J. (1992). From confrontation to cooperation: Resolving ethnic and regional conflict. Newbury Park: Sage.
Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations, and communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Volkan, V. (1988). The need to have enemies and allies: From clinical practice to international relationships. Northvale: Jason Aronson.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaufman, E., Davies, J., Patel, H. (2012). Experimenting with ARIA Globally: Best Practices and Lessons Learned. In: Rothman, J. (eds) From Identity-Based Conflict to Identity-Based Cooperation. Peace Psychology Book Series. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3679-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3679-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-3678-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3679-9
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)