The methods in conflict resolution differ depending on the scale of conflict. In between conflicting individuals it may simply involve discussion of points of disagreement and agreement. In the context of disputing groups, it may involve negotiation by a neutral party and processes of mediation, arbitration, or litigation. In much larger scale of social situation involving armed conflict it requires complex peace building process.
Disputing individuals regardless how complex their arguments can settle their disputes simply by formal discussion of differing standpoints which usually leads to threshing-out of points of disagreement and laying-down of points of agreement. Then settlement of disputes is achieved. This basic and simplest method of conflict resolution is usual among closely related persons.
In negotiation the conflicting groups are represented by their respective negotiators who do the talking and discussing of issues and in bargaining for justifiable compromises favourable to the parties they represent. Part of the negotiators’ responsibilities is to ensure that the compromised agreement is fully implemented.
Mediation is very similar to negotiation except that it is used mostly in disputes involving legal matters. The mediator usually appointed by the legal entity responsible for the issues involved aims to achieve consensus from the disputing groups. Rather than imposing solutions, he encourages disputants to explore the interests underlying their positions and consider meeting the other side in the most fair and still legal points of agreement.
Arbitration resembles a court trial. The neutral party serves as a judge who makes decisions at the end of case presentation from both sides. The arbitrator listens to the arguments and evidences from all sides then renders a binding and often confidential decision. Disputants typically cannot appeal an arbitrator’s decision but they can negotiate most aspects of the arbitration process including whether lawyers can represent and which standards of evidence shall be used.
Conflicting issues unsettled by aforementioned conflict resolution methods may end-up in civil litigation when at least one or more conflicting sides further seek settlement. In civil litigation, the defendant and the plaintiff face off before either a judge or jury who weigh the evidences and make ruling. Information presented in hearings and trials usually enters the public record. Lawyers typically dominate litigation processes who mostly prefer negotiated settlement during the pre-trial period to avoid costly and time-consuming court trial.
Process of peace building is required in settling salient disputes involving armed groups. This complex conflict resolution method starts with cessation of hostilities and ceasefire for no talk can possibly succeed unless aggressions and fighting from either side stop. Diplomatic intervention follows involving series of talks and negotiations. When common grounds of agreement are achieved negotiators establish formal accord. The full implementation of the accord is part of the negotiators’ responsibilities.
In all methods of conflict resolution mentioned above, dialogue is the most effective underlying approach. Talking parties, negotiators, mediators, arbiters, and even litigants must upheld dialogue as basic approach to allow full expression of views, opinions, and suggestions by disputants. In dialogue, there is no defending of opinions and no counterpoints. Everyone gets to express everything emotions included while others only listen and refrained from interrupting and putting-up defences. Dialogue goes beyond settling of disputes. It aims to enhance better communication between or among disputants thereby achieving understanding and appreciation of opposing sides, hence, promoting lasting peace.
Conflict Resolution Steps 