The month of April is "Crisis Negotiation Month" at ADRhub.com. It is a collaboration between the ACR Crisis Negotiation Section and ADRhub.com and it will bring you articles, tips, info graphics, and a webinar throughout the month.
"What's Happening in Conflict Resolution" is a weekly round up of the all the ADR news, jobs, events and more. Check it out each week and view past versions [HERE].
Noam Ebner- ...So, what is it that video-based communication has to offer as a medium for conducting mediation – and what challenges does it pose? This article addresses a very small corner of that question, as an invitation to others to ask similar questions about other corners. One major shift that video-conferencing introduces to online mediation is that it returns the contextual cues offered by non-verbal communication back into the mix of communication signals being exchanged. Does this mean that non-verbal communication in video-based mediation will be identical with its face-to-face, in–the-room counterpart?
Justin R. Corbett- Only 34% of mediators take their own conflicts to mediation!
Read more [HERE].
Patricia M Porter- The term bullying is used often, in this show we will talk about the many faces that bullies use, it could be in the form of a alpha male/female, a mean boss or the power hungry bully. We will explain the underneath motivation that causes bullying and how to take care of yourself when you are face to face with this kind of workplace behavior.
Read more [HERE].
Max Abrahms and Matthew Gottfried explore the question of if acts of terrorism are beneficial in their forthcoming paper in Terrorism and Political Violence titled Does Terrorism Pay? An Empirical Analysis.
Abrahms, who has explored the topic in previous studies with respect to terrorism being a losing political strategy, and Gottfried examine the political effectiveness of terrorism, specifically whether using the tactic increases the chances of government concessions. For reasons they carefully explain in their study, they restrict their sample to cases of hostage taking and then assess whether governments are more likely to comply to the demands when the hostages have been physically harmed.
Their main finding is that terrorism…
Negotiating With Terrorists
The argument against negotiating with terrorists is simple: Democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never be rewarded for using it. Negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means. Talks can destabilize the negotiating governments' political systems, undercut international efforts to outlaw terrorism, and set a dangerous precedent.
Yet in practice, democratic governments often negotiate with terrorists. The British government maintained a secret back channel to the Irish Republican Army even after the IRA had launched a mortar attack on 10 Downing Street that nearly eliminated the entire British cabinet in 1991.
Read more [here].
News, Jobs, & More
Redirect to LawGazaette.co.uk
New ICC Mediation Rules Released- redirect to Lexology.com
Free Mediation in NYC (in case you missed it) redirect to WSJ.com