Persuasion is undoubtedly a critical negotiation skill. But while the literature has examined its role in negotiation, few, if any, scholars or practitioners have offered a clear strategic framework for putting persuasion into negotiation practice. The ethos, pathos, and logos modes of persuasion elucidated by Aristotle in the fourth century B.C.E. provide a clear, understandable, and easy‐to‐apply framework that students and trainees can use to prepare for negotiation, to deploy during the negotiation process, and to conduct debriefings following a negotiation. In this article, I describe how to apply this Aristotelian framework and explain an additional dimension of persuasion in negotiation that I believe is also critical: timing. Through the real‐world example of Anwar Sadat and his trip to Jerusalem, I demonstrate how this framework has worked in practice.

The teaching of negotiation in an online context is not only possible, but surprisingly provides a number of opportunities that the traditional face‐to‐face classroom setting lacks. The author, drawing on his practical experience over the past few years, puts forth suggestions for preparing and teaching negotiation online. After explaining the preparation and structure of the course, the author offers six core insights to consider when teaching negotiation in this context.

The author identifies three distinct mediation sequencing strategies used in intratable communal conflicts: the graualism model; a “boulder‐in‐the‐road” approach; and the “committee” strategy. Using case examples of contemporary mediation efforts, he describes the three approaches and their advantages and disadvantages. A wider‐angle approach to the differences in how mediators and conflicting parties achieve peace in these destructive conflicts is useful for both scholarly inquiry and practice.

This essay outlines a conceptual framework for discussing “success” in interactive conflict resolution and in conflict resolution efforts more generally. It first proposes reasons why evaluation is crucial for improving practice. An overview of the new framework and its development are then presented. This gives the reader a window into its construction and some of the challenges of evaluation in conflict intervention processes. Next, the uses of the framework are explained as well as how its use helps to change the debate about successful processes. Finally, this article discusses how the theoretician, practitioner, and researcher‐evaluator can use this framework for their own purposes, and how evaluating processes based upon their goals helps to improve the theory, practice, and research of the field.