Search results

The present paper attempts to map the discursive relations between conflict and settlement as reflected in the realms of law and mediation during the second half of the 20th century, offering a 21st century model to combine the mediation drive to settle through reaching inter-subjective transformation with the legal drive to escalate and promote social conflict. Contemporary mediation, according to this model, should involve on the one hand “negotiating for justice,” according to the familiar models of problem solving and transformation, and on the other hand “fighting for law”: acknowledging the self-referential and ideological quality of conflicts, while emphasizing the pragmatic need to end them through an interpretive public act that involves value judgments.

Agricultural trade has generated more than its share of disputes in the past fifty years. Lack of a clear structure of rules to constrain government activity in these markets, coupled with the particularly sensitive nature of trade in basic foodstuffs, has been the main cause of this disproportion. New rules agreed in the Uruguay Round provided an improved framework for government policy in this area, and a temporary exemption was given to certain subsidies from challenge in the WTO (the Peace Clause). However, the expiry of the Peace Clause in 2003 and a growing willingness on the part of exporters to challenge domestic farm programs in other countries through action under the Dispute Settlement Understanding has once again stirred the agricultural pot. Now trade disputes are frequently leading to litigation, encouraged by the slow progress in the Doha Round of trade negotiations. In particular, the scope for domestic subsidies, under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, has increasingly become the subject of litigation. Countries may have to further modify their domestic policies so as to reduce their vulnerability to challenge in the WTO.

Purpose – The overall aim of the chapter is to explore how disputes between family members are accomplished and how the actions of copresent members (the mother and elder brother) contribute to the unfolding dispute.

Methodology – Selected from video recordings of the family breakfast, three extended sequences of mealtime talk were transcribed using the Jeffersonian system and analyzed using the analytic resources of conversation analysis and ethnomethodology.

Findings – This analysis establishes how both the mother and elder sibling intervene in matters to do with who has access to some bookclub brochures. Appeals to rules such as “you’ve got to share” are used by the mother to manage the local issue of the dispute. In intervening to resolve and settle disputes, the mother makes visible particular moral orders, such as sharing. Intervention is accomplished through directions, increasing physical proximity to the dispute, topic shift, and physical intervention in the dispute, such as gently removing a child's hand from the brochures. Justifications for sharing proffered by the mother that work to establish an alignment with one child are challenged by the other sibling, thus contributing to an escalation of the dispute. Also explicated is how an older sibling buys into the dispute, making visible his view about how sharing is accomplished; that is, you “just cope with it.”

Practical implications – This chapter has some practical implications for adults who interact with children (teachers, parents) highlighting that in some way, adults, through their actions may contribute to the continuation of a dispute and second, how adult attempts to settle or end a dispute may result only in a temporary settlement rather than a cessation of the dispute.

Value of chapter – The chapter contributes understandings about how family members manage disputes interactionally and how social and moral orders are accomplished during family mealtime. Additionally, it shows how some disputes are temporarily settled and connected across a section of action rather than ended.

A somewhat underappreciated aspect of the burgeoning rush to regional trade agreements (RTAs) is a discrepancy between the dispute settlement procedure (DSP) embodied in the original World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and that found in the language of many RTAs. This chapter explores the issue in the context of a dynamic repeated game of trade agreements. As is well known, the institutional alternatives available in negotiating multilateral freer trade agreements – regional agreements, side agreements, trade dispute settlement punishments, and so on – can proscribe the limits and shape the nature of self-enforcing trade agreements. Here, we suggest the extent to which deviations from the WTO DSP embodied in RTAs – for example, “private interest access,” “third party procedures,” and “choice of forum” – can not only work against the interests of “weaker parties” but furthermore undermine multilateral agreements closer to free trade.

In this article, we focus on alternative dispute resolution procedures, in particular third party procedures. We describe eight different procedures and provide examples of how these procedures are used in different cultural contexts. We then evaluate the procedures in terms of how they impact four key criteria that have been noted in the literature related to negotiation: process criteria, settlement criteria, issue-related criteria, and relationship criteria. We subsequently explore the potential impact of culture on evaluations of these criteria. We finish with a discussion of future directions for research and practice, emphasizing that procedural recommendations should be made carefully when the criteria for effectiveness and applicability are derived from US-centric research. In other words, there is not “one best choice” for third party procedures universal to the myriad cultures on our planet.

The appropriateness of retaliatory trade measures in the World Trade Organization dispute settlement process have increasingly come under scrutiny in recent years. Several Members and commentators alike have recommended large-scale amendments to the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) to provide alternatives to retaliatory measures, with the most notable including compensation, collective retaliation, and increased special and differential treatment for developing countries and/or widespread loss of privileges for non-conforming respondents.

Unfortunately, many of the proposals failed to first identify the aims and objectives of the retaliatory phase, or even of dispute settlement more generally. This chapter takes a more holistic approach in its analysis of whether any of the current proposals will improve (or harm) the system. In doing so, this chapter will first assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of retaliatory trade measures by evaluating the goals and objectives in which it is designed to achieve. It will then evaluate some of the more prominent proposals for amending the DSU under the same framework. Taking such an approach will allow for a more comprehensive review and will reveal not only the problems with retaliatory trade measures, but also its positive aspects, and not only the positive aspects of the suggested alternatives but also where they may be detrimental to the system.

Purpose – In this chapter, the use and organization of conditional threats are analysed in relation to preschool children's disputes.

Methodology – Using conversation analysis, naturally occurring examples of children's threats observed in preschool classrooms demonstrate how conditional threats are placed, used and analysed by children in their talk-in-interaction.

Findings – The function of threats – specifically in terms of the outcome of children's disputes – cannot be classified by the content of the inducement. ‘You can’t come to my birthday party’, for example, is commonly heard in young children's discourse, but this threat is implicated in both the resolution and dissipation (abandonment) of dispute episodes. Accordingly, the meaning and analysability of threats is explored with respect to their relative value and their practical rationality.

Research limitations – This small data set presents the opportunity for the phenomena of children's threats to studied further in a larger collection.

Originality/value of chapter – This chapter makes a unique contribution to the study of language and social interaction by illustrating young children's competent use of conditional threats in the closings of peer disputes.

In the construction industry, various parties are involved in a project. Consequently, claims and disputes are inevitable in this industry. This paper aims to develop Integrated project delivery (IPD) practices including early involvement of stakeholders and multiparty contracts which its combination with advanced technologies such as blockchain can lead to better dispute management and improve the whole construction process.

Based on literature review, the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for IPD contacts were identified, and three formats of IPD contracts were selected, and the dispute resolution process of them has been analyzed. Then, based on blockchain review, a conceptual blockchain-based dispute management (BDM) model was generated for ADR in IPD. Model validation was done by an interview. Experts were asked to compare the BDM model with the traditional system regarding the ADR duration.

Analyses of the collected data from the experts demonstrated that the BDM model has better function in terms of time and cost for ADR process when the project is facing serious and considerable number of disputes. The relation between blockchain technology (BCT) and building information modeling (BIM) has been examined through a framework, and the ability of the proposed model for administrating dispute resolution process has been verified using four different scenarios of construction claims that show the system can run successfully.

The current study proposes a truthful model, reliable framework to address the problem of project dispute management in IPD contracts. The system combines the ability to being unchangeable and the reliability characteristics of BCT with informative and automation aspects of BIM together to improve dispute resolution issue in the IPD system.

This study compares dispute resolution strategies of workers in hierarchical, conventional businesses with those of members of worker cooperatives – organizations in which all workers co-own and co-manage the business. Drawing on data from three industries (coal mining, taxicab driving, and food distribution), this study finds some support for predictions in the literature that assert that the cooperative's flattened structure and egalitarian ideology will affect workers’ grievance resolution. Although the data do not indicate a single pattern in dispute resolution strategies (i.e., with all members of the cooperatives resolving their disputes one way and all non-cooperative employees using a different strategy), the data do demonstrate that, when comparing matched cooperative and conventional businesses within each industry, the worker cooperative members possess more dispute resolution strategies than their conventionally employed counterparts.

Purpose – This chapter examines disputes produced by two young children during computer game playing and considers how the disputes were related to the children's ongoing activity.

Methodology/approach – The study is framed by ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Sequential analysis of recorded data details the mutual production of disputes during talk and interaction.

Findings – The analysis establishes how the children made each other accountable to the agreed-upon way of playing the game after one child offered to show the other how to play. Conflict developed during the game and disputes built upon previous disputes, especially in relation to claims made about knowing how to play.

Research implications – The disputes here are best understood in relation to how disagreement was avoided initially but then emerged as the gaming progressed. Examining disputes in the course of computer activity shows how the children turn agreement into disagreement over time.

Social implications – This study establishes some of the ways that disputes arise out of young children's social interactions during computer game playing and how disputes are related, or not, to shared understandings of what is going on moment by moment in the game.

Originality – Overall, this chapter provides a detailed sequential analysis across computer activity and establishes how the children's disputes challenge the order of game playing as the game progresses.