 |
Beyond Diplomacy: Conflict Management in the Network Society
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
half of all conflicts have been ended through communication and peace talks between the conflict parties, whereas 100 years ago roughly one in five was resolved through negotiation (Sisk 2001). However, this success cannot be credited solely to more effective official negotiations (First Track Diplomacy). Unofficial diplomacy, known as Second Track Diplomacy, also played a major role in the success of negotiations. Both First Track (official) and Second Track (unofficial) Diplomacy, despite their differences in scope, try to establish communication between the conflict parties, mainly by facilitating or establishing some form of dialogue
1
. These dialogue processes, regardless if they are between government officials,
community leaders or even between victims of the different conflict parties, are based on similar structural preconditions necessary for them to be effective. These preconditions depend upon the “simple” task of organizing roughly the same groups of people (mostly official or unofficial decision-makers) to be physically present at dialogue meetings over a longer period of time.
However, even these most basic preconditions of the dialogue processes are challenged
today. As Manuel Castells (1996) describes it, “our world, our lives, are being shaped by the conflicting trends of globalization and identity. The information technology revolution, and the restructuring of capitalism, have induced a new form of society, the network society.” This network society, which is shaped by enormous technical evolution and globalization, has triggered many changes in socialization and communication patterns in conflict environments. In particular, changes in the diffusion of power, social networking and communication have major effects on the underlying structural preconditions for dialogue processes. Although, on the one hand, using modern technology and network capabilities can make diplomacy and dialogue approaches even more effective and wide-reaching, on the other, it also challenges the structural preconditions for dialogue.
In this paper I will argue that the changes in the network society are making it nearly
impossible to meet the classic pre-conditions for dialogue; this in turn threatens the success and effectiveness of official and unofficial diplomacy in the network society, which rests heavily on traditional dialogue processes. Therefore, the success and effectiveness of dialogue based on the fulfillment of the structural preconditions will serve as my dependent variable. The changes in the network society effecting dialogue processes will act as my independent variables. Given that the success of dialogue is a very challenging thing to measure, I will define success as the establishment of ongoing dialogue between different conflict parties, leading to more cooperation and understanding. Ultimately, increased cooperation, peace talks, agreements, the end of violence and potentially the resolution of the conflict will act as indicators of success.
My line of argumentation is in three parts. First, I will introduce the importance and success
of dialogue processes in conflict management and the underlying preconditions. This will be methodologically grounded in empirical evidence from a wide array of case studies.
In a second step, I will utilize the widely developed literature on globalization and the
network society. I will bring forward evidence that today’s conflict environment is changing and that, independent of discussion about the final impact of these changes, its effect on today’s conflict environments is irrefutable and needs to be dealt with.
In the third and final step, I will compare the findings on the changing conflict environments
in the network society with the preconditions for dialogue processes and evaluate their impact. This will highlight how these changes are hindering the preconditions of dialogue and threatening its success. Here, I will present current empirical research and ongoing discussions in
1
My use of the word “dialogue” does not mean one particular form or method of human interaction but should be
understood as a definition of all group-based interaction processes between conflict parties. By this definition, official negotiations between politicians are a kind of dialogue, as well as unofficial talks between community leaders.
2
|
| | Authors: Wehrenfennig, Daniel. |
|
| |
|
|
half of all conflicts have been ended through communication and peace talks between the
conflict parties, whereas 100 years ago roughly one in five was resolved through negotiation
(Sisk 2001). However, this success cannot be credited solely to more effective official
negotiations (First Track Diplomacy). Unofficial diplomacy, known as Second Track
Diplomacy, also played a major role in the success of negotiations. Both First Track (official)
and Second Track (unofficial) Diplomacy, despite their differences in scope, try to establish
communication between the conflict parties, mainly by facilitating or establishing some form of
dialogue
. These dialogue processes, regardless if they are between government officials,
community leaders or even between victims of the different conflict parties, are based on similar
structural preconditions necessary for them to be effective. These preconditions depend upon the
“simple” task of organizing roughly the same groups of people (mostly official or unofficial
decision-makers) to be physically present at dialogue meetings over a longer period of time.
However, even these most basic preconditions of the dialogue processes are challenged
today. As Manuel Castells (1996) describes it, “our world, our lives, are being shaped by the
conflicting trends of globalization and identity. The information technology revolution, and the
restructuring of capitalism, have induced a new form of society, the network society.” This
network society, which is shaped by enormous technical evolution and globalization, has
triggered many changes in socialization and communication patterns in conflict environments. In
particular, changes in the diffusion of power, social networking and communication have major
effects on the underlying structural preconditions for dialogue processes. Although, on the one
hand, using modern technology and network capabilities can make diplomacy and dialogue
approaches even more effective and wide-reaching, on the other, it also challenges the structural
preconditions for dialogue.
In this paper I will argue that the changes in the network society are making it nearly
impossible to meet the classic pre-conditions for dialogue; this in turn threatens the success and
effectiveness of official and unofficial diplomacy in the network society, which rests heavily on
traditional dialogue processes. Therefore, the success and effectiveness of dialogue based on the
fulfillment of the structural preconditions will serve as my dependent variable. The changes in
the network society effecting dialogue processes will act as my independent variables. Given that
the success of dialogue is a very challenging thing to measure, I will define success as the
establishment of ongoing dialogue between different conflict parties, leading to more
cooperation and understanding. Ultimately, increased cooperation, peace talks, agreements, the
end of violence and potentially the resolution of the conflict will act as indicators of success.
My line of argumentation is in three parts. First, I will introduce the importance and success
of dialogue processes in conflict management and the underlying preconditions. This will be
methodologically grounded in empirical evidence from a wide array of case studies.
In a second step, I will utilize the widely developed literature on globalization and the
network society. I will bring forward evidence that today’s conflict environment is changing and
that, independent of discussion about the final impact of these changes, its effect on today’s
conflict environments is irrefutable and needs to be dealt with.
In the third and final step, I will compare the findings on the changing conflict environments
in the network society with the preconditions for dialogue processes and evaluate their impact.
This will highlight how these changes are hindering the preconditions of dialogue and
threatening its success. Here, I will present current empirical research and ongoing discussions in
1
My use of the word “dialogue” does not mean one particular form or method of human interaction but should be
understood as a definition of all group-based interaction processes between conflict parties. By this definition,
official negotiations between politicians are a kind of dialogue, as well as unofficial talks between community
leaders.
2
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
