Editor's Note Open Access

With articles on arbitration, negotiation, and mediation, this issue of Negotiation Journal explores a range of approaches to conflict resolution.

Jeswald W. Salacuse leads the issue with “Interstate Arbitration: Settling Disputes Which Diplomacy Has Failed to Settle.” Interstate arbitration—less well‐known and less well established than commercial, labor, and employment arbitration—is a timely topic given the current transnational conflicts in Ukraine, Ethiopia, and Yemen, as well as simmering tensions in other parts of the world. Salacuse analyzes the nature of interstate arbitration, reviews its historical development, outlines its contemporary processes, and proposes a framework for applying it to international conflicts between states. The historic and contemporary cases are instructive, positioning interstate arbitration as a powerful alternative to armed conflict when diplomacy has failed.

Salacuse addresses seven key factors to consider when contemplating the use of interstate arbitration. The first two factors are the parties' acknowledgment that diplomacy has failed, and an understanding of governments' interests and expectations. It is also important to examine a government's estimated strength of a legal case, the associated cost/benefit analysis, the likely political attacks against those pursuing interstate arbitration, the value (and limitations) of an expedited settlement, and the role of other nations providing “third” party support. Given the broad interstate coalition that has come together in the war between Ukraine and Russia, as well as the lack of such a coalition with other concurrent conflicts, there may well be a historical inflection point in the next few years in which the roadmap provided in this article will inform much needed global institution‐building efforts.

In “Honesty Among Lawyers: Moral Character, Game Framing, and Honest Disclosures in Negotiations,” Taya R. Cohen, Erik G. Helzer, and Robert A. Creo present findings of a survey of lawyers in a wide variety of practice areas. The authors explore the degree to which framing a dispute as a “game” increases the likelihood of dishonest behaviors, as well as the degree to which higher levels of “moral character” lead to more honest disclosures. There are, of course, rules of professional conduct prohibiting outright lying regarding material facts or statements of the law, which the authors note, yet much is left to attorneys' discretion. Using a mix of scenarios and personality survey questions, the authors find that low moral character is a strong predictor that lawyers will use game framing in negotiations and exhibit less honest behaviors than those who do not adopt game framing. Conversely, higher moral character is a predictor for less game framing and more honest disclosure of relevant information that is unfavorable to the disclosing lawyer or their client. Further, there are gender effects, with female lawyers more likely to score higher on the moral character questions. This research is a great example of bringing laboratory rigor to survey research with practicing professionals. It has broad implications for the training of lawyers and for the norms advanced by professional societies and the judiciary, as well as for the behavior of professionals in many other domains.

The second article on negotiation is Brooke Davies' essay, “Madeleine Albright: Negotiating Gender at Home and Abroad.” Although written prior to Secretary Albright's death on May 23, 2022, it is a fitting memorial to a remarkable leader and a great negotiator. Davies notes that Albright, as the first female Secretary of State for the United States, frequently faced gender‐based stereotypes. Albright's response was not to try to outdo the men with more masculine stereotyped behaviors. Instead, she used the underestimates of her abilities to her advantage and reframed her assertiveness to avoid triggering a counter stereotypic backlash. Instead of ignoring or minimizing gender, Albright incorporated her gender (and other aspects of her identity) in ways that were both true to who she was and effective on the international stage. Two detailed case examples illustrate the points and serve as a lesson for us all: We begin with who we are in any negotiation and can find hidden sources of power with judo‐like moves that take the power of stereotypes and turn them around for positive effect.

“When Do Mediators Say ‘No’? The Case of American Resistance to Mediating the Gulf Diplomatic Crisis,” by Sinisa Vuković and Danielle Martin, is the first of two articles focused on mediation. Although we think of mediators as always ready and willing to serve in that role, that is not always the case. Vuković and Martin lift up the choices that mediators make when they say “no” to requests for intervention by analyzing the United States' reluctance to mediate the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The findings are both important and troubling. The authors argue that nations decline to mediate conflicts that are characterized by high levels of power symmetry, structural linkages with conflicting parties, and strategic interests in the conflict‐affected area. While these circumstances do reflect cases where potential mediators stand back because they are not neutral in the conflict, it also means that these same outside parties may be acting more out of narrow self‐interest than the larger interests of the global community. The article points to the need for greater dialogue, policy, and protocols on the roles that interdependent—but independent—parties can and should play in conflicts around the world. When potential mediators say “no,” there are not always suitable alternative mediators who can say “yes.”

The second article on mediation is “The Curious Case of the Irrational Disputant: Insights and Strategies from the Science of Moral Reasoning,” a practice and policy contribution by Jane Juliano. The article begins with the uncomfortable moment in a mediation when a party who had been acting in seemingly rational ways suddenly takes a position that seems completely irrational. Reviewing scholarship on the subject as well as her lived experience with these disputes, Juliano highlights the importance of not trying to meet irrational behavior with rational arguments. Instead, she suggests engaging the party at an emotional level, appreciating the likelihood that intuitive moral judgments are driving the seemingly irrational behavior and that attempting to reason with the disputant is unlikely to yield positive results. Effective engagement will likely involve stories and other mechanisms that incorporate moral reframing, with the possibility that rational implications will follow. Not only is this analysis useful for practitioners, but it also provides a great teaching focus for trainings and classes in conflict resolution. This is an example of theory and practice combining to great effect.

Moving from conflicts with irrational disputants to encounters with “aliens” from other planets, we have three short pieces on Deepak Malhotra's The Peacemaker's Code. A rare contribution to the field, Malhotra's science fiction debut earns a reflective essay by Michael Wheeler, my predecessor as editor of Negotiation Journal, and book reviews by Carrie Menkel‐Meadow and myself, both in the current editorial leadership of the Journal. This is a great read by one of our own, but that is not what warrants all this attention. Rather, the way in which negotiation principles drive the story is what has drawn all three of us in. Based on conversations with the author, Wheeler pulls back the curtain, providing insights into both the book's genesis and Malhotra's challenge of finding a way out of the seemingly intractable situation he had created. Menkel‐Meadow keys in on a recurring theme in the book: “every problem wants to be solved.” I focus on how the book captures what is variously called “second tables” or “intraorganizational negotiations”—the parallel internal negotiations that occur along with the negotiations between the parties. We all commend the book to our colleagues around the world and it is sure to find its way onto syllabi across the field. Teaching a class based on this book (or even multiple classes) will be a joy.

The issue ends with reviews of two books that will interest many in the conflict resolution field. In “It's About Justice!” Orna Rabinovich‐Einy reviews Dispute System Design: Preventing, Managing, and Resolving Conflict by Lisa Blomgren Amsler, Janet K. Martinez, and Stephanie E. Smith. After reviewing foundational principles, the book moves beyond traditional dichotomies in our field—formal and informal, public and private, practice and theory, process and substance—to advance the overarching aim of justice in the design and operation of dispute resolution systems. Theory and illustrative cases are included. As the review notes, the book faces head‐on the many challenges in these systems, including retaliation, control of information, and the rise of new technologies.

In “Feeling the Beating Heart of Lives Well Spent,” Grande Lum reviews Evolution of a Field: Personal Histories in Conflict Resolution, edited by Howard Gadlin and Nancy A. Welsh. The review lifts up twenty‐three autobiographical essays that, together, serve to mark the evolution of the field of conflict resolution. The co‐editors are themselves leaders in the field and, true to their training, serve in a facilitative role in the generation of the volume. This book highlights what the editors see as a critical moment for the field when the teaching of conflict resolution in law schools and other settings is diminishing, the divides in society are increasing, and the roles of third parties are undervalued. The review notes the four roles of conflict resolution that are reflected in the structure of the book: ending discord; providing voice and connection; fostering creativity; and bridging socially just, democratic, and inclusive communities. Underneath this structure, the review recommends the journey into the hearts and minds of thought leaders in the field.