PACS 2500
Introduction to
Peace and Conflict Studies
Guy Burgess
Co-Director
Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado
UCB 580, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0580, (303) 492-1635
burgess@colorado.edu
Copyright © 2014 Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess
Lowest Number Grade for
Each Letter Grade
119
96
90
84
81
79
75
71
67
62
56
54
A+
A/A+
A
A/AAA/B
B+
B/B+
B
B/BBC+/B-
52
51
47
45
42
40
36
30
27
16
9
C
C+
C/C+
C
C/CCC/D
D/D+
D/DF
F--
Questions
about how
your test was
graded.
After class
Thursday or by
appointment.
Re-Test / Extra Credit Option
Test #1 Only
http://peacestudies.colorado.edu/test-1-re-test-extra-credit-assignment
Constructive/Legitimate vs.
Destructive/Illegitimate Power Contests
Legitimate Power Options
Illegitimate Power Options
Administrative Appeals
Bribes (Legal/Illegal)
Rights-Based Litigation
Loophole Litigation
“Hot Button” Propaganda”
Principled Campaigns
Democratic Elections
Secret Police
Nonviolent Action
Terrorism
Conquest/Invasion
Military Defense
Invisible Hand
Invisible Fist (Monopoly)
BATNA
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
On what basis do you decide
whether or not to accept a
negotiated agreement?
BATNA
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
Conclusion of a
Negotiation
Process
Administrative appeal
Legal challenge
Political lobbying
Are there any
power contest
alternatives that
are likely to give
me a better
deal?
Electoral campaigns
Public persuasion
Economic action
Civil disobedience
Accept
Agreement
Military action
Etc,
BATNA Limit / Ripeness
Conclusion of a
Negotiation
Process
Administrative appeal
Conclusion of a
Negotiation
Process
Legal challenge
Are there any
power contest
alternatives that
are likely to give
me a better
deal?
Political lobbying
Electoral campaigns
Public persuasion
Are there any
power contest
alternatives that
are likely to give
me a better
deal?
Economic action
Accept
Agreement
Civil disobedience
Military action
Etc,
Accept
Agreement
BATNA Limit / Ripeness
Conclusion of a
Negotiation
Process
Conclusion of a
Negotiation
Process
Are there any
power contest
alternatives that
are likely to give
me a better
deal?
Are there any
power contest
alternatives that
are likely to give
me a better
deal?
WIN Ballot Initiative WIN
Power
Contest
Shortcut
Accept
Agreement
Bitter End Path
Accept
Agreement
BATNA Limit / Ripeness
Conclusion of a
Negotiation
Process
Conclusion of a
Negotiation
Process
Are there any
power contest
alternatives that
are likely to give
me a better
deal?
Are there any
power contest
alternatives that
are likely to give
me a better
deal?
WIN Ballot Initiative LOSE
Power
Contest
Shortcut
Accept
Agreement
Bitter End Path
Accept
Agreement
Consensus Building Institute
Consensus Building I

Assumption: the parties really want to
resolve the dispute


Usually business-as-usual is not
acceptable
Examples
•
•
•
•
•
•
Metropolitan Denver water supply
Social Security
Denver-area transit
Municipal budget downsizing
Security and anti-terrorism
Boulder Open Space management
Consensus Building II
 Step #1: Conflict assessment / development
of a consensus building plan
 Need lead individual / organization to do the work
 Identify stakeholders
• Active and latent stakeholders
• Especially those with veto power
• Constituency groups and potential representatives
 Determine stakeholder interests (with visits /
documents)
• Formal (often legal) responsibilities
• Formal (often legal) constraints
• Powers (legal, political, economic, public opinion)
Consensus Building III
 Explain consensus building opportunities and
options
 Discuss their willingness to participate “in good
faith”
 Concerns that must be overcome
 Opportunities that they would like to see developed
 Identify potential funding sources
 Prepare a consensus building proposal
 Must work within existing responsibility and power
relationships
Consensus Building IV
 Step #2: Sell the proposal
 Obtain commitments to participate from key
stakeholders
 Obtain skilled facilitation/mediation services
• May be different from person doing assessment
 Obtain adequate funding
Consensus Building V
 Step #3: Implement the consensus
building process




Convene stakeholder/participants
Establish ground rules
Agree on meeting schedule
Establish routine negotiators/constituent
loop
 Build interpersonal relationships among
negotiators
 Identify problems to be addressed
• Field trips, narratives
Consensus Building VI
 Step #3 (continued)
 Identify interests to be protected/advanced
 Identify options for mutual gain
• Or minimal loss (in negative-sum) conflicts
 Identify action forcing mechanisms
 Step #4: Implement the agreement
 Sequencing / enforcement
 Periodic reassessments
Fire Next Time
An Intimate Window Into the
Red/Blue Divide
Flathead Community "Re-Boot"
Forum
Group #1: Not in Our Town
Group #2: Environmentalists
Group #3: Logging Industry
Group #4: ORV Recreationists
Group #5: Community Leaders
Group #6: Assertive Activists
Mirrors
Hands Against Hate
Assertive Activists
• Try to understand their
frustrations
– Lost jobs
– Lost recreation
– Perceived government
favoritism – race
– Misinformation
– No recourse within
government
– Fear
• Still, illegitimate tactics
can discredit the
movement
Extra Slides
Other Examples
Flathead Community "Re-Boot"
Forum
Fire Next Time
Community Common Ground Meeting
•
Two discussion group scores
•
Group #1 / Interest
•
Group Caucus
Group #2 / Community Roundtables /
Plenary
Common Ground Meeting
 What points of agreement exist?
 What points of disagreement exist?
 Fact-based disagreements
 Value-based disagreements
 What initiatives can you imagine that
would achieve broad (but not necessarily
universal support)?
 In cases where we feel we must “agree
to disagree” how can we handle those
disagreements most constructively?
Ground Rules
 Treat others the way you would like to be
treated
 Accept that you are talking about important issues
that everyone really cares about
 Respect others and expect to be respected
 Listen and expect to be listened to
 Agree where you can, but disagree where you must
 Acknowledge that participants will still be
aggressive advocates following the meeting
 Goal:
• Identify areas in which we can work together
• Focus our disagreements as constructively as possible on
the core issues
Pre-Meeting Group Caucuses
 Identify
 Interests you want to defend / advance –
things you really care about
 Persuasive arguments explaining why the
things that you care about are in the interest
of the whole community
 Factual arguments supporting your position
 Proposed “quid pro quo” exchanges /
compromises
 Strategies for dealing with irreconcilable
differences (constructive, non-violent
confrontations)
Group Roles
Really try to imagine yourself in their position
Common Ground Meeting
 What points of agreement exist?
 What points of disagreement exist?
 Fact-based disagreements
 Value-based disagreements
 What possible compromises can you
imagine for simultaneously advancing the
interests of all parties?
 In cases where we feel we must “agree
to disagree” how can we handle those
disagreements most constructively?
Forum Goals
 Not to suppress conflict
 Help everyone advance their core
interests
 Limit destructive conflict dynamics that
are making it hard to advance those
interests
Group Assignments?
• Groups will be randomly assigned next
Tuesday unless you volunteer for a group or
groups by 9am Monday using the urgent
contact form.
• In general, things work better if everybody
really believes in their group – so volunteer for
a group that you can identify with.
• Also, I need volunteers for the “Assertive
Activists” group – the most non-politically
correct group. For this to work, I need people
to really try to understand their perspectives.
3rd Party Intervention / Rescue
3rd Party / Intermediary Processes
 Adjudication
 Special Case: Mock Trials
 Arbitration
 Special Case: Final Offer Arbitration
 Med-Arb (Mediation/Arbitration)
 Mediation
 Special Case: Transformative
Mediation
 Facilitation
 Convening
 Hybrid Processes
Neutrality?
Other Ideas





Self-Interest vs. Social Interests
Higman’s “WHY?” questions
NIMBY’s NOPE’s BANANA’s
Within Coalition vs. Between Coalition
Fairness Principles