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
conflict resolution, Distributive Justice, Jim Laue, John Burton, social justice, U.S. Institute of Peace
Rubenstein, Richard E. and Blechman, Frank O.
"Conflict Resolution and Distributive Justice: Reflections on the Burton-Laue Debate,"
Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 6:
1, Article 4.
Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol6/iss1/4