South Tyrol’s Model of Conflict Resolution: Territorial Autonomy and Power-Sharing

2020 ◽  
pp. 171-199
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Alber
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-20
Author(s):  
Seth Akhilele

Abstract In this article, there is the intersection of biblical principles into the teaching and learning of organizational behavior. It examined the crisis in the early Church, as told in the Luke account of Acts of the Apostles Chapter six, and how the leaders decided to resolve the conflict. The exegetical analysis method revealed the lessons learned from the apostolic leaders’ decision-making strategy and the power play in their leadership style. The results included the need for decision making for conflict resolution, decision and empowerment, power distance advantage, and power-sharing advantage in the early Church. The decision-making style for resolving the conflict in the Church was then recommended for contemporary church leaders, in teaching organizational leadership behavior in Christian schools, and in practice in other organizations. The study results suggest that the Bible is a rich source of data for teaching organizational behavior. Keywords: Low-power distance, conflict resolution, decision making, church, power-sharing.


2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (7) ◽  
pp. 854-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela L. Walden ◽  
Shabnam Javdani ◽  
Nicole E. Allen

Author(s):  
Andrea Talentino

This paper addresses international conflict resolution and the disparity between the number of attempts at resolution and the number of successes. It argues that one flaw in efforts thus far has been a lack of understanding of local actors and motivations, leading to ineffective strategies for resolution. In regions where conflict crosses borders, contributes to the trend of politics, and involves mercenary sub-state actors, traditional methods of resolution may be ineffective. Purveyors of violence have little interest in the power-sharing and consensual politics that international actors often try to promote. They also have significant and negative effects on regional stability. This paper further addresses the need to reconsider approaches to conflict resolution, and the significance of taking better account of local circumstances in an effort to construct strategies to address them.


The main ways of ending military conflicts, both between states and within the state, are considered. Among the four main ways to end the war are: military victory, negotiated settlement, negotiated truces, peace of sorts is imposed by third parties. Researchers conclude that the best way to promote sustainable peace is a negotiated settlement. The main factor here is the text of the peace agreement, which creates the rules of the game, according to which the key actors in the conflict agree to act. The models of democracy that can be laid down in a peace agreement are analyzed. Among them are consociational democracy, power-dividing, centrifugal and corporate models. The attention is paid to the consociational model, which according to the author, is the best alternative for resolving the armed conflict in the occupied territories of Luhansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine. The basic idea of power-sharing or consociational democracy is to accommodate the interests of the political elite, which represents each segment in a divided society. The key characteristics of power-sharing are a grand coalition, segment’s autonomy, proportional representation, and mutual veto. All these features can be applied in different categories of power-sharing. These are political, military, economic, and territorial dimensions. Besides, there are three types of power-sharing: inclusive power-sharing, constraining power-sharing, and dispersive power-sharing. The division of different types helps to understand at what stage of conflict resolution, what kind of institutions of power-sharing should be implemented. An analysis of the Minsk Agreement revealed that its text was at odds with current conflict resolution practices, which was one of the reasons why the agreement does not affect conflict resolution.


2009 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 11-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandra Lekha Sriram ◽  
Marie-Joëlle Zahar

The purpose of international conflict-resolution efforts is, in the short term, to bring an end to violent armed conflict, and, in the medium to longer term, to prevent the revival of conflict. However, at least one of the mechanisms often utilised in conflict resolution and peace agreements, power-sharing, may not only prove problematic in early negotiation and implementation, but may potentially be at odds with the longer-term goal of preventing resurgence of conflict. Why might this be the case? Longer-term peacebuilding seeks to prevent conflict in part by building strong and sustainable states. Such states should be able to avoid reverting to armed conflict because they would be more responsive to grievances and more effective in dealing with violent dissent. However, power-sharing arrangements may undermine such efforts by placing in power individuals and groups not fully committed to, or unable to take part in, governance for the benefit of the entire populace; in part because it necessarily places in power those who have engaged in significant violence to achieve their ends. This is likely to create less democratic states, although we do not insist that democracy is or should be the only goal of peacebuilders. Rather, we suggest that power-sharing arrangements may tend not only towards undemocratic states, but towards states which are not responsive to the needs of the citizenry for security in ways which may undermine human security and state legitimacy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document