Conflict Resolution and Distributive Justice: Reflections on the Burton-Laue Debate

Authors

Richard E. Rubenstein
Frank O. Blechman

Abstract

Excerpt

From its inception, the field of conflict resolution has appealed strongly to practitioners, researchers, and theorists interested in social betterment. Most conflict resolvers would probably agree that their efforts are motivated, at least in part, by the conception of a Good (or at least a Better) Society considerably less violent and contentious, more peaceful and cooperative, than the existing social order. Many would also affirm that in order to reach this goal, the sources of violence and contention, which include cultural norms sanctioning or glorifying violence, invidious and discriminatory "isms" (racism, sexism, etc.), gross socioeconomic and political inequities, and over-reliance on formal, adversarial decision-making procedures need to be eliminated or, at least, mitigated. And many would assert, in addition, that the methods of making these changes should be consistent, so far as possible, with the aims sought to be achieved: that is, they should rely on nonviolent conflict resolution.²

Author Bio(s)

Richard E. Rubenstein is Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at the George Mason University.

Frank O. Blechman is Coordinator of the M.S. Degree Program of Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution and teaches clinical skills courses.

Keywords

conflict resolution, Distributive Justice, Jim Laue, John Burton, social justice, U.S. Institute of Peace

Publication Date

11-1999

DOI

10.46743/1082-7307/1999.1198

Recommended Citation

Rubenstein, Richard E. and Blechman, Frank O. (1999) "Conflict Resolution and Distributive Justice: Reflections on the Burton-Laue Debate," Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 6: No. 1, Article 4.
DOI: 10.46743/1082-7307/1999.1198
Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol6/iss1/4