Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future

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

Abstract

The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution is a methodology for the modeling and analysis of strategic conflicts. An historical overview of the graph model is presented, including the basic modeling and analysis components of the methodology, the decision support system GMCR II that is now used to apply it, and the recent initiatives that are currently in various stages of development. The capacity of this simple, flexible system to provide advice to decision-makers facing strategic conflicts is emphasized throughout, and illustrated using a real-life groundwater contamination dispute.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brams, S. J. (1994). Theory of Moves, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, L., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (1993). Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, L., K. W. Hipel, D. M. Kilgour, and X. Peng. (2003a). “A Decision Support System for Interactive Decision Making, Part 1: Model Formulation,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C 33(1), 42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, L., K. W. Hipel, D. M. Kilgour, and X. Peng. (2003b). “A Decision Support System for Interactive Decision Making, Part 2: Analysis and Output Interpretation,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C 33(1), 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. M. and K. W. Hipel. (1984). Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions. New York: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamouda, L., D. M. Kilgour, and K. W. Hipel. (2004a). “Strength of Preference in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Group Decision and Negotiation 13, 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamouda, L., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2004b). “Shellfish Conflict in Baynes Sound: A Strategic Perspective,” Environmental Management 34(4), 474–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipel, K.W. (2002). “Conflict Resolution,” Theme Overview Paper, in Conflict Resolution, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Oxford, UK: EOLSS Publishers, http://www.eolss.net.

  • Hipel, K. W., Fraser, N. M., and Cooper, A. F. (1990). “Conflict Analysis of the Trade in Services Dispute,” Information and Decision Technologies 16(4), 347–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hipel, K. W., D. M. Kilgour, L. Fang, and X. Peng. (1997). “The Decision Support System GMCR II in Environmental Conflict Management,” Applied Mathematics and Computation 83(2/3), 117–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipel, K. W., D. M. Kilgour, L. Fang, and X. Peng. (2001). “Strategic Decision Support for the Services Industry,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48(3), 358–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, N. (1971). Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behaviour. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, N. (1999). Confrontation Analysis: How to Win Operations Other Than War. Pentagon, Washington, DC: CCRP Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, A., Y. Zhang, P. S. S. Borges. (1998). “Fuzzy Prisoner's Dilemma,” Fuzzy Econ. Rev. 3(1), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgour, D. M., K. W. Hipel, and L. Fang (1987). “The Graph Model for Conflicts,” Automatica 23(1), 41-55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilgour, D. M., K. W. Hipel, L. Fang, and X. Peng. (1998). “Applying the Decision Support System GMCR II to Peace Operations,” in Analysis for and of the Resolution of Conflict (A. E. R. Woodcock and D. F. Davis, eds.) Cornwallis Park, NS: Canadian Peacekeeping Press, pp. 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgour, D. M., K. W. Hipel, L. Fang, and X. Peng. (2001). “Coalition Analysis in Group Decision Support,” Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2) 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, K. W., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., and Fang, L. (2004a). “Preference Uncertainty in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A 34(4), 507–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., F. Karray, K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2001). “Fuzzy Approaches to the Game of Chicken,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 9(4), 608–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, K. W., D. M. Kilgour, and K. W. Hipel. (2004b). “Status Quo Analysis of the Flathead River Conflict,” Water Resources Research 40, W05S03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, K. W., D. M. Kilgour, and K. W. Hipel. (2005). “Status Quo Analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 56(6), 699–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, K. W., K. W. Hipel, D. M. Kilgour, and D. J. Noakes. (2006). “Integrating Uncertain Preferences into Status Quo Analysis with Application to an Environmental Conflict,” Group Decision and Negotiation (this issue).

  • Noakes, D. J., L. Fang, K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2003). “An Examination of the Salmon Aquaculture Conflict in British Columbia using the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Fisheries Management and Ecology 10, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noakes, D. J., L. Fang, K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2006). “The Pacific Salmon Treaty: A Century of Debate and an Uncertain Future,” Group Decision and Negotiation (this issue).

  • Obeidi, A., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2002). “Canadian Bulk Water Exports: Analyzing the Sun Belt Conflict using the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 14(4), 145–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obeidi, A., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2005). “Perception and Emotion in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Waikoloa, HI, October 2005.

  • Obeidi, A., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2006). “The Role of Emotions in Envisioning Outcomes in Conflict Analysis,” Group Decision and Negotiation (this issue).

  • Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H., J. Richardson, and D. Metcalfe. (2002). Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, D.-Z., L. Fang, K. W. Hipel and D. M. Kilgour. (2005). “Policy Stable States in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Theory and Decision 57, 345–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5, Canada

    D. Marc Kilgour

  2. Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Keith W. Hipel

Authors
  1. D. Marc Kilgour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith W. Hipel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Marc Kilgour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W. The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future. Group Decis Negot 14, 441–460 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-9002-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-9002-x

Key words

Search

Navigation