ABSTRACT
The practice of interactive conflict resolution (ICR) in the forms of dialogue, conflict analysis, and problemsolving between representatives of adversaries is a social innovation of relatively recent origin (Fisher 1997). Historically, a determination by a higher authority and the threat or use of force have been the predominant methods of dealing with intense differences, especially competition over scarce resources among individuals, groups, or nations. At the same time, the intervention of a trusted mediator has a long and pervasive history in assisting conflicting parties to achieve a settlement through negotiation (Mitchell and Webb 1988; Moore 2003). Similarly, third parties who serve simply a communication function, as in good offices or conciliation, have been a part of many societies and cultures. In the latter part of the twentieth century, the development of the field of conflict resolution as an outgrowth of Western social science brought forward conflict analysis and problemsolving as methods of addressing intense and destructive conflicts. In line with the ethos of democratic functioning and an emphasis on human relations, ICR challenges the parties to voluntarily deal with their differences in a respectful and cooperative manner, working toward outcomes that are mutually beneficial and self-sustaining over the longer term. In order to institute such processes and accomplish such outcomes, the assistance of a trusted and skilled intermediary is often required, especially when the conflict has escalated to a high level of intensity and intractability with significant costs and injuries to the parties.
