Abstract
The eclectic “field” of conflict resolution is characterized by a constant interplay between practice and theory (to say nothing about varying interpretations of what practice and theory actually are or should be). The author raises a number of questions about how to develop and test theory; the significant role of context in theory generation; and a variety of themes or issues that can be explored to provide scholarly synthesis as well as guidance for the practitioner, in both domestic and international conflict situations.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Elster, J. 1995. Strategic uses of argument. In Barriers to conflict resolution, edited by K. Arrow et al. New York: W.W. Norton.
Ignatieff, M. 1993. Blood and belonging: Journeys into the new nationalism. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Malley, R. and H. Agha. 2001. Camp David: The tragedy of errors. New York Review of Books 48 (8 August 2001): 59-65.
Menkel-Meadow, C. 2000. When winning isn't everything: The Lawyer as problem solver. Hofstra Law Review 28: 905-923.
—. 2001a. Negotiating with lawyers, men and things: The contextual approach still matters. Negotiation Journal 17: 257-293.
—. 2001b. And now a word about secular humanism: Spirituality, and the practice of justice and conflict resolution. Fordham Urban Law Journal 28: 1073-1087.
Mitchell, G. J. 1999. Making peace. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Menkel-Meadow, C. Correspondences and Comparisons in International and Domestic Conflict Resolution. Negotiation Journal 18, 363–369 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021058307590
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021058307590