International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (ICCCR)

by Regina Kim

Shortly after the 9-11 attack, we gathered at the World Trade Center site in New York and the Pentagon to mourn the nearly 3,000 victims of the 2001 terror attacks.  We, united as one, praised our heroes, the firefighters and policeman who sacrificed their lives to save those who were in danger and we asked for justice to be done – to capture and condemn Osama bin Ladin.  This tragedy also triggered a wave of anti-Islamic feelings or “islamophobia” in the United States.  Mosques were burned to the ground and the number of hate groups increased. Continue reading →

by Christine Webb

At the recent Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) conference in New Orleans, a symposium titled Life is an Adventure in Forgiveness: Surprising Lessons in Giving and Gaining Forgiveness offered some unexpected insights. Findings ranged from the risks associated with being too forgiving of interpersonal transgressions to the effectiveness of prayer for forgiveness in close relationships. One particular line of research attempted to unravel the common perception that intergroup apologies are successful at promoting intergroup forgiveness. Continue reading →

 by Kyong Mazzaro

In September 2012, the United Nations published a general Guidance for mediators working at the international, national and local levels, which identifies eight fundamentals of an effective mediation process: preparedness, consent, impartiality, inclusivity, national ownership, international law and normative frameworks, coherence, coordination and complementarity among mediation efforts, and the development of quality peace agreements.  Of all these, it could be said that impartiality or unbiased mediation, being highlighted in research and models of practice as highly desirable, is one of the most debated subjects across the mediation literature. Continue reading →

by Nick Redding

A recently published study provides evidence of a phenomena that all organization development practitioners, or anyone working in an organization setting, will immediately recognize:  1) the social environment of the organization has a strong influence on employee relations – especially how often and to what extremes conflicts manifest and persist, and 2) the leader of the organization is the likely culprit. This is no secret in the world of organizational development, but surprisingly, there is a little data to support this commonly observed phenomena. Continue reading →

by Taly Harel-Marian

Today, scholars like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker claim that we actually live in the most peaceful period in human history. If so, how can we explain this?

In a recent paper, Gat (2012) examines different explanations for the data that show violence and mortality rates related to conflicts actually dropped steeply over the last few centuries. Like others, he argues that the three longest periods of peace in modern times all occurred after 1815. However, Gat rejects the idea that the main reason is that wars became more costly and destructive during the past two centuries. Continue reading →

by Kyong Mazzaro

Since 1961, Amnesty International has deployed more than 3,300 missions to identify human rights violations, produced more than 17,000 reports and public documents, and distributed around 20,500 Urgent Actions through a network of affiliates who send letters, e-mails, and faxes to government officials worldwide. Like Amnesty International, many other international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) and human rights organizations (HROs) advocate and mobilize resources to support initiatives that promote respect for human rights. They denounce violations, organize protests, and expose governments and any other accomplices while seeking support from above and below. But is it possible to assess their impact? Continue reading →

by Christine Webb

When reconciling after a conflict, which is more important: responding quickly or responding correctly and thoroughly? A new study on motivation addresses this question.

Regulatory Mode Theory (RMT)1 distinguishes between two aspects of how we monitor and assess our own behavior: locomotion and assessment. Locomotion is the motivational component concerned with initiating and maintaining movement, whereas assessment is the motivational component concerned with making critical comparisons and evaluations. RMT suggests that locomotion and assessment function independently of one another. Continue reading →

by Regina Kim

“In the forum of the entire group I was forced to tell her that I couldn’t fulfill the task since the allotted time wasn’t reasonable. She claimed that it was a simple task . . . I felt that she was cornering me and that in any case I wouldn’t come out of this conversation looking good . . . My sense was that it was her word against mine . . . I felt small and rather helpless. This situation made me feel ashamed because I felt that my credibility was being called into question . . . I responded angrily, I tried to explain why, given the existing pressure, I wouldn’t be able to keep up with the schedule anyway.”  (p.1125) Continue reading →

by Nick Redding

In the United States, we continually struggle with how to address inequality. Competing beliefs can usually be broken down into tensions between philosophies of equality, equity, and need. Conversations around equality center on making sure policies and procedures do not exclude certain members of the system, while those around equity center on making sure one receives what they have earned and thus deserve (i.e. merit). Continue reading →

by Taly Harel-Marian

Contact between members of groups in conflict can, under the right conditions, reduce prejudice and promote resolution. But how can you convince the conflicting sides to interact? Particularly when the conflict is violent and long lasting? Continue reading →