Skip to main content
Log in

Arbitrage Possibilities in Conflict Situations

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues for a new theoretical methodology that delivers ‘best bet’ decision outcomes in contexts where issues are contested. Governed by the procedural parameters of such a Generalised Decision Assurance Methodology, a multi-criteria decision modelling approach is proposed that allows for the identification of arbitrage possibilities that emerge at the interface between conflicting sets of interests. Such possibilities are then exploited to secure a solution set that is maximally justifiable to both parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnes, B. “Power,” in Bellamy, R. (Ed.), (1993) Theories and Concepts of Politics; An Introduction. Manchester University Press, Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Reuck, J., O. Schmidenberg, and D. Klass. (1999). “A Reconceptualisation of Decision Conferencing: Towards a Command Methodology,” International Journal of Technology Management 17 (1/2), 195–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Reuck, J., O. Schmidenberg, and D. Klass. (2000a). “The Logic of a Command Methodology: Decision Conferencing Reconceptualized,” International Journal of Management and Decision Making 1 (1), 2–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Reuck, J., O. Schmidenberg, and D. Klass. (2000b). “Reflections on Group Support Systems Facilita-tion,” Proceedings of the Unpublished Paper Presented at the Strategic Decision Support Consortium, Perth.

  • De Reuck, J., O. Schmidenberg, and D. Klass. (2003). “General Decision Assurance Principles and Procedures for Strategic Planning,” International Journal of Management and Decision Making 3 (1).

  • Habermas, J. (1970). “Toward a Theory of Communicative Competence,” Inquiry 13, 371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests (translated by Jeremy Shapiro). Boston, Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action,Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society(translated by Thomas McCarthy). Boston, Beacon Press, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, M. (1987). The Cunning of Reason, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1994). “Essay 27 Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth,” in K. Haakonssen (Ed.), David Hume Political Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, E. (1986). “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals,” in E. Behler (Ed.), Emmanuel Kant: Philosophical Writings.New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, N. S. (1995). “What's Left of Marx?,” in S. K. White (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Reuck, J., Klass, D. & Schmidenberg, O. Arbitrage Possibilities in Conflict Situations. Group Decision and Negotiation 13, 437–448 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000045747.35080.b4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000045747.35080.b4

Navigation