Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
General Theory On Disputes And Conflicts, A, Raymond Shonholtz
General Theory On Disputes And Conflicts, A, Raymond Shonholtz
Journal of Dispute Resolution
In response to Carrie Menkel-Meadow's challenge to articulate and define a general theory of conflict management that is universally applicable regardless of context or domain,' the following General Theory and methodologies are put forth. The relational context that Menkel-Meadow offers between domestic and international is not the applicable construct for the formation of a general theory. Instead, the relevant frame is between non-democratic and democratic political systems and the difference between the concepts of conflict and dispute and their attending institutional mechanisms. Menkel-Meadow's analysis is useful in subdefining the issues in the vast foliage of conflict resolution and dispute management, …
Context, Yes - And Theory, Yes, Morton Deutsch
Context, Yes - And Theory, Yes, Morton Deutsch
Journal of Dispute Resolution
I admire Carrie Menkel-Meadow's article very much.' It reveals her deep and broad knowledge of the field of conflict resolution. It also represents an important and valid emphasis on the necessity of a rich knowledge of specific contexts for applied work in those contexts. However, the article implicitly constructs a false opposition between contextual knowledge and theoretical knowledge; in reality, both are needed. I understand that "practitioners" and "theorists" commonly misunderstand one another because of their different orientations and social roles. In this article, I will discuss these differences and then briefly consider the integration of theory and practice.
Taking Dispute Resolution Theory Seriously At Home And Abroad: Prospects And Limitations, Bryant G. Garth
Taking Dispute Resolution Theory Seriously At Home And Abroad: Prospects And Limitations, Bryant G. Garth
Journal of Dispute Resolution
Carrie Menkel-Meadow's splendid discussion of dispute resolution theory operates at several levels.' One level involves a questioning of the international applicability of U.S. dispute resolution theory. She shows that our theory is in many respects parochial-not necessarily capable of explaining or even contributing to shaping dispute resolution behavior outside the United States. For the theory to make any claim to universality, she suggests, it must take into account very different settings and perhaps even develop counter models applicable to some places but not others. A more context sensitive theory, she argues, can move us beyond concepts and approaches uncritically derived …