Justice in Negotiations and Conflict Resolution

  • Rudolf SchuesslerEmail author
Part of the Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies book series (RCS)


It is widely recognized that justice matters for negotiation and conflict resolution. However, the pluralism of moral opinions and concepts of justice also introduces new fields of conflict. Rudolf Schuessler shows that considerations of procedural justice and meta-justice generally fail to offer a safe way out of this impasse, because they too are subject to a pluralism of approaches. It follows that justice in negotiations and conflict resolution needs itself to be negotiated. The guiding view of justice for a process of negotiation is to be established by negotiation in this process. This puts particular emphasis on the responsibility and conflict-mitigating attitudes of the negotiating parties and on norms of mutual respect that support a shared quest for mutually acceptable views on justice.


Rudolf Schuessler Justice Negotiation Conflict resolution Responsibility 


  1. Albin, Cecilia. 2001. Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bovens, Luc. 2011. A Lockean Defense of Grandfathering Emission Rights. In The Ethics of Global Climate Change, ed. Denis Arnold, 124–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christensen, David. 2009. Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy. Philosophy Compass 5: 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Donnelly, Jack. 2008. The Ethics of Realism. In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, ed. Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal, 150–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dorszynski, Julius. 1948. Catholic Teaching about the Morality of Falsehood. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ferguson, Niall. 2015. Kissinger. The Idealist 1923–1986. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, Jürgen. 1988. Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  8. Lange, Andreas, Andreas Löschel, Carsten Vogt, and Andreas Ziegler. 2010. On the Self-Interested Use of Equity in International Climate Negotiations. European Economic Review 54: 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. MacMillan, Margaret. 2002. Paris 1919. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  10. McMahon, Christopher. 2009. Reasonable Disagreement: A Theory of Political Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, and Michael Wheeler (eds.). 2004. What’s Fair: Ethics for Negotiators. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Rawls, John. 1987. The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roemer, John. 1996. Theories of Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Schroeder, Paul. 1999. The Transformation of European Politics 1763–1848. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Schuessler, Rudolf. 2011. Climate Justice: A Question of Historic Responsibility? Journal of Global Ethics 7: 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2013. Kants ethisches Lügenverbot—der Sonderfall der Lüge aus Furcht. Philosophisches Jahrbuch 120: 82–100.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2014. Practical Ethics. In The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, vol. 1, revised edition, ed. Robert Pasnau, 517–535. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2015. Equal Per Capita Emissions Defended. Discussion Paper.
  19. Siemann, Wolfram. 2016. Metternich. Munich: C.H. Beck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thompson, Leigh. 2001. The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Thomson, William. 1994. Cooperative Models of Bargaining. In Handbook of Game Theory, vol. 2, ed. Robert Aumann and Sergiu Hart, 1237–1284. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  22. Zagorin, Perez. 1990. Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations