International Negotiation
Volume 7, No. 2 2002
Ethical Issues in Conflict Resolution
Guest editors:
Bruce Barry
Vanderbilt University
Robert J. Robinson
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Ethics in Conflict Resolution: The Ties That Bind
BRUCE BARRY
Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203
USA (email: bruce.barry@vanderbilt.edu
)
ROBERT J. ROBINSON
College of Business, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, 2404 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI
96822 USA (email: robinson@cba.hawaii.edu
)
Abstract. Ethical dilemmas are inevitable in negotiation and other conflict resolution situations as parties seek to guard self-interest while reconciling competing interests.
There is a developing body of research on the psychology of ethics in conflict, but a relative dearth of scholarly attention to the wider field of ethics in conflict resolution. In this introductory essay, we describe and comment on the diversity of approaches and contexts featured in the articles that comprise this themed issue of International
Negotiation. We identify the ethical dimensions of relationships among disputing parties and interveners as a common thematic element that may represent a fruitful avenue for thinking about the distinctive role of ethics in the resolution of conflict.
Relational Frames and Their Ethical Implications in International Negotiation:
An Analysis Based on the Oslo II Negotiations
WILLIAM A. DONOHUE
Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-121,
USA, donohue@msu.edu
GREGORY D. HOOBLER
Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-121,
USA

Abstract. In a recent set of papers, Donohue and colleagues used Relational Order theory to describe the relational context that evolved during the first Oslo negotiations held in 1992-93. However, many relational shifts have developed between Palestinians and Israelis since Oslo. The question is have these shifts established a context that allows for the parties to bargain in good faith? Negotiations conducted to satisfy political agendas that are likely to fail because of stressed relationships between the parties make it difficult for parties to bargain in good faith. Relational Order Theory was used in the current article to better understand the relational context leading to the 1995 Oslo II accords and thus, the ethical sanction of the negotiations. Editorials and interviews from
Palestinian and Israeli leaders leading up to the negotiations were analyzed to determine the extent to which the relational context was more affiliation-oriented or more focused on power and domination. The results indicate that the relational context leading up to
Oslo II shifted dramatically over the course of several months as parties shaped their perspectives on the negotiations. However, the competition for power expressed by the exchanges suggested a less ethically defensible context for negotiations. The ethical implications of forcing negotiation in the face of a fairly aggressive relational context are discussed.
Moral Compromise: Owen and Holbrooke Mediating the Bosnia Conflict
ROBERT VAN ES
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Oudezijds
Achterburgwal 237, 1012 DL Amsterdam, The Netherlands (email: rvanes@pscw.uva.nl
)
Abstract. To analyze moral notions in conflict dynamics, several conceptions of negotiation, moral notions in conflict perspectives, and elements of moral compromise are examined. Together, these indicators provide a framework for analyzing the moral dimensions of the mediator’s role in complex negotiations. These ideas are illustrated through a discussion of the actions of two mediators in the Bosnia conflict during the
1990s. The analysis considers why these mediators were so different in their effectiveness and capacity to reach compromise. It also becomes clear when moral compromise is feasible.
Toward Ethically Grounded Conflict Interventions:
Reevaluating Challenges in the 21 st Century
LARISSA A. FAST
Conrad Grebel University College, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G6, Canada (email: lfast@uwaterloo.ca
)
REINA C. NEUFELDT
School of International Service, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20016 USA (email: reinan@erols.com
)

LISA SCHIRCH
Conflict Transformation Program, Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA
22802 USA (email: schirchl@emu.edu
)
Abstract. This article explores the dimensions of ethics and accountability among conflict interveners, proposing an ethical framework that builds upon human rights and moral development. The framework consists of three ethical principles: inherent worth and dignity of individuals; community-defined common good; and authentic relationships. To apply these principles, the authors identify two embedded circles of accountability, which derive from the central parties in an intervention: the intervener and the participant. Dividing these groups into “sending” and “receiving” communities, this article reviews dimensions of accountability within the process of intervention that are related to each of the ethical principles. In operationalizing these principles, the authors suggest possible ethical responses to the challenges of intervention.
In Different Tongues: Making Room for Cultural Differences in the Negotiated
Rulemaking Process
BRIAN D. POLKINGHORN
Salisbury University, Center for Conflict Resolution, 1100 Camden Avenue, Salisbury,
MD 21801 USA (email: bdpolkinghorn@salisbury.edu
)
JEANMARIE PINTO
Nova Southeastern University, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 USA
(email: pintoj@nova.edu
)
Abstract. This article explores the ethical impact of cultural recognition within the regulatory negotiation (reg-neg) process as it is currently being used by federal agencies in the United States. The authors use a blend of theory and practice to explore the ethical necessity, feasibility, and practicality of including cultural guidelines within the reg-neg process. Using the findings from extensive prior research on negotiated rulemaking at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a foundation, we illustrate the lessons learned from years of regulatory negotiations conducted by the pioneer of regneg. We then show how these lessons have been brought under an umbrella of “cultural recognition” within the consensus-based regulatory negotiation being used to improve relations between American Indian nations and the U.S. government. We discuss the ethical and practical implications of incorporating cultural sensitivity into the reg-neg process.
Lambs Among Lions?
The Impact of Ethical Ideology on Negotiation Behaviors and Outcomes
JOSEPH T. BANAS

Olin School of Business, Washington University at St. Louis, Campus Box 1133, One
Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130 USA
JUDI MCLEAN PARKS
Olin School of Business, Washington University at St. Louis, Campus Box 1133, One
Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130 USA
Abstract
. Relationships between individuals’ ethical orientations (classified on dimensions of idealism and relativism), their negotiation strategies, their views of ethically “marginal” tactics, and their outcomes in dyadic negotiation are examined.
Results indicate a relationship between ethical orientation and negotiation strategy.
Specifically, absolutists (high on idealism, low on relativism) tended to employ more assertive negotiation strategies than did those of other ethical orientations. Individuals in no one category of ethical ideology outperformed those in any other category in terms of integrativeness of agreements or outcomes. Absolutists viewed ethically questionable tactics as less acceptable, whereas subjectivists found them more acceptable. We found that individuals less accepting of questionable tactics (“lambs”), who negotiated against those more accepting of such tactics (“lions”), were able to achieve better outcomes and a greater percentage of joint outcomes.
Negotiating a Resolution to the Cyprus Problem: Is Potential European Union
Membership a Blessing or a Curse?
BIROL A. YESILADA
Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
USA (email: yesilada@pdx.edu)
AHMET SOZEN
Department of International Relations, University of Bahcesehir, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract. This article provides a game theoretic analysis of how the candidacy of
Cyprus for European Union (EU) membership presents an important challenge for both the Union’s eastern enlargement plans and current international efforts aimed at resolving the Cyprus problem. The conclusions indicate that the Cypriot conflict has entered a very delicate period in its protracted and troublesome history characterized by a deadlock game. Strong domestic and international factors have created the conditions for each side to follow a non-cooperative strategy aimed at unilateral victory rather than a compromise.
In this regard, the EU’s promise to the Greek Cypriots of membership in the Union, regardless of the settlement of the Cyprus problem, serves as a side payment that enforces non-cooperative strategy. Likewise, Turkey’s overwhelming military superiority in the region and its unconditional support for the Turkish Cypriots strengthens the Turkish side’s rigid position in the Cyprus negotiations. Under these circumstances, it is argued that an influential third party like the United States is needed to coordinate the efforts of the UN and EU to move the two parties away form a deadlock game. This effort requires

a package approach to the issues surrounding the Cyprus problem, the island’s membership in the EU, and EU-Turkey relations.