Conflict management

All in all, the question is warranted whether the management of these conflict types constitutes a case of state and market failure. To be precise, these are conflict types which have, after all, not been judged sufficiently relevant by the systems traditionally handling conflict management, i.e. they are under-institutionalized.

It is possible to view them as neglected consequences of functional differentiation. It is the goal of civilian conflict management to use as forceless forms of conflict management as possible, in order to contribute to the reduction of violence and its structures.

Often the idea of civil conflict management is confused with or equated to constructively dealing with conflicts. This confusion needs not be further elaborated. Whether a conflict has actually been constructively managed, is only visible in the results of the process and will be judged very differently, depending on the perspective.

Even if both involved parties are convinced of the constructiveness of the conflict management, this need not necessarily the case and need not be recognised as such by a third-person party. This makes constructivity a normative label and hence unsuitable for describing

a specific approach. Of course, the demand that conflict be managed as productively as possible, can still serve as a normative concept.

Civilian conflict management is meant as a civilising of conflicts and not only as an increasingly non-forcible and constructive management of individual conflicts. This lets civilian conflict management be understood as part of a comprehensive strategy in the framework of a civilian society: „Civilizing is the...conscious curbing of aggression and regulation of violence of individuals or of society using non-forcible strategies of conflict management in order to model a sustainable state of peace. Civilising can be seen – depending on the cognitive intention and the way of looking at the problem – as a process, principle or result.“ (Vogt, 1997, 23).

Three levels are important for defining the term of civilian conflict management. These are as follows: the level of the social system as a whole (macro level), everyday-life/real-life (mezo level), and the level of individual actors (micro level). Each of these levels follows its own underlying logic and „rules“. It is fairly obvious that the mezo level, embodying the interface between societal and individual level, must be accorded the most importance in a civilian conflict management that aims to increase and differentiate the civilian proportion.

Geißel has pointed out that two strains of thought must be distinguished in the debate about the civil society (Geißel, 2007, 27). The definition used in the classical, empirical sciences sees the civil society as a part of society located between the state, market and privacy. The more interaction definitions refer to the „social type of ‘civic’ actions or virtues. Basic logic of civic action are self-organization, acknowledgement of others, non-violence, tolerance, fairness and referral to common concerns“ (Ibidem).

3. Mediation

Mediation, meaning the intermediation in cases of conflicts as a process or rather a method, can be regarded as interaction-based civil society. This process consists of a mainly informal procedure, in which a neutral third-person party without any power to sanction, mediates between the two parties and tries to find a consensual solution by

effectively channelling the negotiations (Moore, 1996). In reality, the term of mediation is often used indiscriminately for a variety of third-party interventions. In point of fact, mediation must be perceived as one variant within a plethora of instruments actually labelled as conflict management (Glasl, 2004). Frequently, mediation has been used to refer to constructive or civilian conflict management. While the term

„constructive“ „only“ refers to a normative demand, prone to changes according to the subjective viewpoint, civilian conflict management refers to a strategy that is substantial in content. This means a utilisation of conflict management for the goal of democratisation.

Regarding this, a participation democracy depends on a maximally large number of affected people taking part in decisions that directly concern them. In this context, civilising is defined as the „conscious curbing of aggression and regulation of violence non-forcible instruments of conflict management.“ (Vogt, 1997, 23).

Mediation is probably the most well-known and important method of civilian conflict management. Its present day form comes from the USA, where it has long been an established procedure, as can be seen by its implementation in different areas and a growing field of research (Scimecca, 1993; Moore, 1996, 379). In Europe, mediation is now used mainly in the areas of family mediation, separation and divorce conflicts, reconciliation of perpetrator and victim, neighbourhood mediation, environmental conflicts, and many more.

The term mediation has its source in the Anglosaxon language use. The original root is the Latin word „medius“, which simply means ‘the middle’. In present day use, mediation is used to refer to a certain procedure for conflict management.

Mediation is an informal, extra-judicial procedure including all involved parties on a voluntary, self-determined and consensus-oriented basis. The aim is to reach a legally binding agreement in a concrete, conflict-affected issue with the help of the intermediation of a third-person party (Banks, 1986, 589; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993, 165).

This constitutes a definition most scientists and practitioners can agree upon. Accordingly, mediation comprises the following elements:

 Mediation's primary goal is the search for and discovery of solutions in a concrete conflict that are satisfactory for all participants. A successful mediation is consequently the result of a consensus on the settlement of the conflict, containing agreements which all parties acknowledge as binding.

 Mediation is based on voluntaries, meaning that the conflict parties have realised on their own that they cannot come to a satisfactory resolution without enlisting outside help.

 There are basic rules for mediation which have not yet been bindingly determined. The course of mediation, its methods and techniques are variable and can be negotiated by the participants. A third-person party who is generally independent of all involved parties and does not have any personal interest invested in the conflict is in charge of the intermediation. Neutrality is an important condition.

Contrary to what recent debates about alternative conflict resolution may have implied, conflict mediation by a third-person party is not a new phenomenon. There are a number of intermediation traditions originating in various cultures of the world. Historical roots can be found in Japan and China where religious conceptions of harmony have aided consensus-oriented procedures, in ancient Greece, in African tribes and in the Western religious movements (Burton, 1990, 26).