Peace versus Justice ─ Negotiating Foward-and Backword-looking Outcomes

A central dilemma of conflict settlement is that attempts to bring current combats to an end may interfere with long-term resolution of the deeper causes and larger issues that gave rise to the conflict in the first place. Zartman (conflict resolution and international organizations, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins U., US) and Kremenyuk (Institute for United States of America and Canada Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia) present 15 papers that address aspects of this dilemma, particularly the costs and benefits of simply ending the fighting, how and why negotiators provide for long-term conflict resolution, and the proper mix between negotiation strategies that look backward to end current hostilities and those that look ahead to prevent their recurrence. The papers provide historical case studies of the Peace of Westphalia, the Congress of Vienna, the Austrian State Treaty, the Dayton agreement in Bosnia, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the construction of Mercosur (the Common Market of the South), Cyprus, post-Apartheid South Africa, Mozambique, and the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the former Soviet Union. Annotation ©2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)

I. William Zartman is Jacob Blaustein Professor of Conflict Resolution and International Organizations at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of the John Hopkins University. Victor Kremenyuk is deputy director at the Institute for U.S.A. and Canada Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow.