ABSTRACT
The field of conflict resolution emerged in the post-World War II period as part of an effort to imagine and establish an international order not dominated by the old “realities” of imperialism and aggressive nationalism. From the outset, however, its theory and practice reflected an implicit ambiguity about the relationship of conflict resolution concepts and techniques to existing structures of coercive power. Would the new discipline function, in effect, as an adjunct to power-based institutions, attempt to moderate their use of force in the same way, say, that mediation and other techniques of “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR) sought to ameliorate existing judicial systems? Or would it attempt to create alternatives to such institutions – systems of thought and action intended to render obsolete not only war but coercive diplomacy and power-political decisionmaking as well?
