This research tests whether a third model or approach to mediation is possible, if not already in existence - a hybrid model. Two of the main approaches to mediation are explored - transformative and problem-solving - and the hypothesis that a process exists or could be developed that combines elements of both is tested. Transformative mediation was outlined in The Promise of Mediation by Bush and Folger in 1994 and for the purposes of this study John Wear Burton's work is examined as an example of problem-solving mediation. A number of case-studies around parading disputes in Northern Ireland are looked at in more detail as evidence of transformative and problem-solving practice; to test whether hybridity exists and/or whether a model combining elements of both transformative and problem-solving practice is feasible. The major division in mediation theory and practice at present is around where the focus of the process and the mediator's attention should lie. Transformative mediators argue it should focus on the relationship while problem-solving practitioners argue that sometimes those in conflict are not ready, willing or able to aim their attention there. Where this is the case, they argue the mediator should bank any progress or agreements, particularly where there is violence. Interviews with subjects included practitioners operating out of one or other main models of mediation and some who operated out of neither and had no formal training, having leaned their craft on the ground. This research makes a contribution to knowledge in the field as hybrid processes were either found to exist, as in the case of the Newry Good Relations Forum; or it was acknowledged that processes that focused on one element - either the relational or problem-solving - to the detriment of the other element remained contested, for example, the Drumcree dispute.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis comprises fifteen papers and a commentary on their contribution to the field of academic and practitioner knowledge about family mediation, reflecting the author's interest in the theoretical frameworks surrounding this subject. Written over a seven-year period (2000-2007), they reflect the author's evolution as a family mediator and Professional Practice Consultant, and were published against a turbulent background of ongoing political and practice discourses.

No description available.

Abstract This thesis examines the nature and impacts of two intervention radio programmes broadcast on Radio Okapi - the radio service of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) managed by Swiss-based Hirondelle Foundation. The programmes, Dialogue Entre Congolais and Gutahuka adopt different ideologies. Dialogue Entre Congolais uses multiple and competing participation frames, involving audiences and opposing discussants to debate a range of topics related to conflicts, governance, justice, human rights etc. Gutahuka on the other hand targets Rwandan Hutu armed combatants and refugees and seeks to convince them to disarm and voluntarily repatriate to Rwanda. A matched randomization technique was used to assign Rwandan Hutus and Congolese autochthons in South Kivu to listen to either of the two programmes within their naturalistic contexts for 13 months. Autochthon control groups listened to Gutahuka while Hutu control groups listened to Dialogue. At the end of the treatment, participants' perceptions of barriers to peace; descriptive and prescriptive interventions; victimhood and villianity; opportunities for personal development and civic engagement; and knowledge of repatriation processes were assessed in 16 focus groups across four contexts. ) Although Gutahuka was effective in reassuring Hutus already keen on repatriating to Rwanda that help was available, it was less effective in persuading former Hutu armed combatants and refugees to disarm and repatriate. Dialogue listeners on the other hand, across both ethnic networks showed greater knowledge of nascent democratic reforms in the DRC, more positive attitude toward civic engagement and the ethnic Other. The study concludes that media intervention programmes that provide information and a platform for objective analyses within a multiple narrative and participatory framework enhance greater engagement with nascent democratic reforms, positive perception of long term opportunities for personal development and empathy with the ethnic Other than programmes that adopt approaches of strategic or behaviour change communications.

No description available.

No description available.

Argumentation-based negotiation (ABN) is gaining increasing importance as a fundamental method of interaction in multi-agent systems. In essence, ABN enhances the ways agents can interact within a negotiation encounter. In particular, it allows agents to justify their demands, criticise each others’ proposals, and add comments to their statements during a negotiation encounter. Furthermore, ABN gives them the capability to exchange explicit arguments, such as promises, threats, appeals, and other forms of persuasive locutions, to influence one another during a negotiation dialogue. Such enhancements lead to richer forms of negotiation than have hitherto been possible in game-theoretic or heuristic-based models. Therefore, many argue that endowing the agents with the ability to argue during their negotiation interactions, not only facilitates more realistic rational dialogues, but also allows an effective means of resolving different forms of conflicts endemic to multi-agent societies. Even though ABN is argued to be an effective means of resolving conflicts, its operation within multi-agent systems incurs certain computational overheads. In particular, it takes time for an agent to argue and convince an opponent to change its demands and yield to a less favourable agreement within an ABN encounter. It also takes computational effort for both parties of the conflict to carry out the necessary reasoning required to generate, select, and evaluate an appropriate and a convincing set of arguments required for such an encounter. On the other hand, within a multi-agent society, not all conflicts need to be resolved. In some instances conflicts can be avoided by other nonarguing means. For instance, in certain situations agents may be able to avoid conflicts by finding an alternative resource to achieve their actions instead of arguing over a conflicting one. They also may be able to re-plan to achieve the same objective through a different means and, thereby, remove the conflict without argument. In the presence of such overheads and given the alternatives available, this thesis argues that computationally bounded entities such as agents need to consider two critical questions before they use ABN to manage their conflicts. First is when to argue; that is, under what conditions would ABN, as opposed to other non-arguing methods, present a better option for agents to overcome conflicts. Second is how to argue; that is, a computationally tractable method and a set of strategies to successfully formulate such sophisticated ABN dialogues. To this end, this thesis forwards a detailed theoretical and empirical study to address both these research questions. In more detail, first we formulate a novel ABN framework that allows agents to argue, negotiate and, thereby, resolve conflicts in structured multi-agent systems. The framework is unique in the way that it explicitly captures social influences endemic to such agent societies and, in turn, allows agents to use them constructively in their ABN dialogues. Having formulated the framework, we then map it into the computational context of a multi-agent task allocation scenario. In so doing, we bridge the gap between theory and practice and provide a test-bed to evaluate how our ABN model can be used to manage and resolve conflicts in multi-agent societies. Our experimental analysis on when to argue shows a clear inverse correlation between the benefit of arguing and the resources available within the context. It also shows that arguing selectively is both a more efficient and a more effective strategy than doing so in an exhaustive manner. Furthermore, we show that when agents operate under imperfect knowledge conditions, an arguing approach allows them to perform more effectively than a non-arguing one. On the issue of how to argue, we show that arguing earlier in an ABN interaction presents a more efficient method than arguing later in the interaction. Moreover, during an ABN interaction, allowing agents to negotiate their social influences presents both an effective and an efficient method which will enhance their performance within a society.

The aim of this thesis is to examine the effects of ASEAN’s non-interference principle towards managing conflicts, with special reference to Malaysia during Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s premiership from 1981-2003. The core of the study focuses on the genesis of this principle, Malaysia’s understanding of the principle and the effects that this doctrine has towards managing inter and intrastate political and security conflicts. To elaborate on these focal points, five objectives are set in order to reveal the background behind the principle of non-interference, the effects that it had on Malaysia and the reasons why Malaysia should try to amend this principle for the betterment of the country specifically and for ASEAN as a whole. The results of this study reveal that Malaysia has been affected by the implementation of this principle; however, the complex composition of her citizenry and the embedded preferential treatment policy towards the Bumiputeras has stopped Malaysia from altering its support towards the principle in order to make Malaysia and ASEAN, as a whole, more relevant. Firstly, it is revealed that every country in ASEAN has their own reasons behind the embracement of this principle, which makes it difficult for them to change such their perceptions. The history behind the establishment of ASEAN and the nature of the Association itself means it is in the best interest of every member state that the principle should be protected. Secondly, many events have challenged this principle, thus giving the opportunity for member states to rethink their position towards their adherence to the principle. The Asian financial crisis, the Haze problem, the Myanmar factor, and intrastate conflicts in Thailand and the Philippines have asked considerable questions about the effectiveness of this principle in managing regional crises. Thirdly, it is discussed that Malaysia does not have an official interpretation of what constitutes non-interference, thus making it hard for the administration to act decisively and consistently. This has resulted in inconsistency in policy implementation, the inability to resolve regional conflicts and the humiliation that the administration faced as a result of inaction. Furthermore, the revelation that Anwar Ibrahim acted alone in proposing the amendments towards the principle explains Malaysia’s hesitance towards any modification of the principle. Fourthly, it is explained that Malaysia historically has been a major player in the region and contributed towards shaping and influencing ASEAN policy making. However, domestic politics and leadership style remain as ambiguous barriers to making a push toward altering the non-interference principle. Finally, the report card on managing regional conflicts, especially when it involves political and security issues, is of some concern, thus making it vital that this principle should be modified to suit today’s challenges. This study proposes a number of reforms to make Malaysia and ASEAN, as a whole, more relevant in facing regional challenges. It is hoped that the study will enlighten the public on the non-interference principle and create awareness and understanding of regional politics.