|
Mediation
in Conflicts
Mediation
as a term has its roots in the Latin word "mediare" (to
intervene). It was introduced as a specialist term in the USA in 1970 and
adopted from English by the German language. Mediation can be defined as the
intervention in conflicts by neutral third-parties with the aim of
negotiating a common solution acceptable to all sides.
This is based on the experience that after a specific point in the dynamics
of escalation, a conflict can no longer be reconciled alone by the opponents
involved. A third party, accepted by all the parties to the conflict, needs
to step in.
As a rule, mediation proceedings are based on the principles of
interest-oriented solutions to conflicts, which assume that conflicts can be
solved more effectively and cost effectively when interests are placed in
the foreground and not rights or power. This approach was developed at
Harvard University and is referred to as the 'Harvard Model' (see box on the
right).
Using mediation to deal with conflicts is much more widespread as first
assumed. It is used to reconcile family or matrimonial disputes in the form
of marriage or inheritance mediation, in criminal courts in the form of
perpetrator-victim compensation, in matters relating to the natural
environment in the form of environmental mediation, in communal politics in
the form of round tables, or in schools as part of pupil-dispute-arbitration
programmes.
Peer
Mediation at School
The
Pupil-Dispute-Arbitration Model used in many schools and advanced teacher
training these days provides children and young people with an adequate set
of methods for settling everyday conflicts close to home. This model
demonstrates the same characteristics as other mediation procedures:
 |
In that
it is based on freewill; |
|
Both
conflicting parties and a neutral, third person are present; |
|
The
solution is negotiated in a self-responsible manner and taken down in
writing.
|
What is
decisive in this case, however, is that it is the pupils who arbitrate
conflicts between pupils and not teachers; whereby reconciliation of the
conflict takes places immediately and as a rule during break time or during
the lesson immediately afterwards. The issue for the initiators here is to
provide an atmosphere in which 'the conflicting parties can reconcile
themselves and make a new start'.
Under the aspect of educating pupils to become self-starters, this model is
appraised extremely positively because it trains pupils and students to take
the helm in conflicts and responsibility to transferred to them at an early
age. Conflicts are not 'solved' here by orders being given from above or by
being suppressed, but are made accessible by taking them up and dealing with
them.
This programme provides schools with a visibly structured, easily learnable
procedure that has been tested in practice (more information on the
Pupil-Dispute-Arbitration Model can be found on a
separate page).
But
dealing with conflicts needs to go far beyond arbitration programmes. What
are short-term, personally and locally oriented approaches to dealing with
conflicts constructively are wholly legitimate, but need to be complemented
by middle-term socially and regionally oriented approaches extended around
long-term ecologically and globally oriented approaches.
These programmes need to be integrated into whole scale social developments
and relations and above all extended to organisations and institutions. For
instance, besides personally oriented dispute arbitration programmes in
schools, concepts for organisational development and school reform also need
to be implemented in order to create suitable conditions for change. |
|
The
Harvard Concept
"There
are three basic methods of solving conflicts: balancing out interests,
determining legislative status and determining power status.
Problem-solving negotiations illustrate an approach oriented towards
the interests of the conflicting parties; appeals in court represents
an example of an approach oriented towards legal status. Strikes and
wars are seen to be the same processes oriented towards power status.
We assume that an approach targeting a balancing of interests is less
expensive in general than litigation, which, in turn is less expensive
than conflicts of power.
Six
Rules for Applying an Inexpensive System of Solving Conflicts:
1. Place
the interests of the conflict parties at the centre of negotiations.
2. Develop procedures that motivate conflicting parties to sit down at
the negotiating table again.
3. Plan in inexpensive procedures based on legislation or authority in
case the methods you have developed fail.
4. Advise those affected and give them feedback on how to prevent
conflicts on a long-term basis.
5. Arrange the various procedures in order of the most inexpensive and
expensive.
6. Note what motivates the participants, their capabilities and the
methods they use during the proceedings.
A conflict is solved more effectively if the interests and not the
legal or power position is identified. If the parties put aside
questions of less importance in favour of questions of greater
importance, all participants profit from the solution to the conflict.
Balancing out interests generally provides both parties with a larger
measure of satisfaction than determining legal or power status. The
degree of satisfaction of the parties has a long-term effect on the
relationship and reduces the danger of conflicts flaring up again.
Despite the advantages described, it is neither possible nor desirable
to settle conflicts by balancing out interests. A legal process may be
necessary to define the legal boundaries within which a solution is
possible. Lack of knowledge concerning legal status can sometimes
impede negotiations just as much as the lack of knowledge concerning
relative power status. If a party wants to demonstrate that the
balance of power has shifted to their advantage, they will come to the
decision that a fight for power and nothing else will bring clarity
into the conflict.
Although it is less expensive to balance out interests than determine
legal or power status, only jurisdiction is capable of making a
binding decision on public interests. Considered from a social
viewpoint, judicial proceedings are, in several cases at least, to be favored
in place of a negotiation aiming at establishing a balance of
interests. (...)
However, it is better to settle most conflicts by balancing out
interests. Most of them, by determining legislative status and fewer
least by determining power status. A conflict solution system should
target lowering the costs of cases involving conflict and find
satisfactory and permanent solutions."
[William L.
Ury, Jeanne M. Brett, Stephen B. Goldberg: Konfliktmanagement.
Wirksame Strategien für den sachgerechten Interessenausgleich.
Frankfurt/New York 1991, S. 13, S. 35, S. 95]
|
|
