To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Commelina benghalensis L. is a noxious invasive species and was detected in a long-term experiment in a Research Farm Goldsboro, NC. A multistakeholder governance model was used to address the invasion of this species. Regulators insisted on the use of fumigation in all fields, but after intense negotiations a multi-tier eradication plan was designed and implemented allowing fumigation outside the long-term experiment and a combination of integrated approaches (including physical removal) and intense monitoring and mapping for long-term experimental fields. In the long-term experiment, C. benghalensis populations decreased logarithmically from over 50 thousand plants in approximately 80 hectares in 2005 to 19 plants in less than 1 hectare in 2019, with a projection of full eradication by 2024. Despite these results, which were considered as proof of successful ecological management by university researchers, regulators decided to fumigate the fields containing the remaining 19 plants. This decision was made because regulators considered factors such as professional liability and control efficacy. This created serious disagreements between the different stakeholders who participated in the design of the original plan. Despite the goodwill all parties exhibited at the beginning of the governance process, there were important shortcomings that likely contributed to the disagreements at the end. For example, the plan did not include specific milestones, and there was no clarity about what acceptable progress was based on (i.e., plant numbers or the rate of population decline). Also, there were no financial limits established, which made administrators concerned about the financial burden the eradication program had become over time. Multistakeholder governance can effectively address plant invasions, but proper definition of progress and the point at which the program must be modified are critical for success, and all this must be done within a governance model that balances power in the decision-making process.
This paper examines the economic implications of the tariff increases by the United States and by China during the Trump era trade dispute and the gains from their potential removal. The increases were dramatic, with the US raising tariffs on industrial products by a factor of six – with particularly large tariff increases on intermediate and capital goods – and China increasing its tariffs on US agricultural products more than five-fold. These changes distort trade and production decisions in both countries and undercut the global trading system. They resulted in substantial economic losses to each country, with import volumes reduced by 4.9% in China and 4.5% in the USA, and bilateral trade patterns were massively distorted. Their cost to the United States rose at the end of 2021, when the import expansion provisions of the Trump era Phase One Agreement expired. Negotiating the abolition of these costly and disruptive tariffs would generate substantial real income gains for both countries and help lower US consumer prices.
This chapter begins by elaborating on the concept of a dispute, before providing a historical perspective on the evolution of the requirement to settle disputes peacefully. The chapter then explores diplomatic as well as legal methods of dispute settlement. Diplomatic forms of dispute settlement (also known as political or non-legal forms of dispute settlement) include negotiation, mediation, inquiry, and conciliation. Legal forms of dispute settlement include arbitration and adjudication. Resort by states to dispute settlement procedures, and in particular legal methods of dispute settlement, has grown exponentially in the last decades. Since the 1990s, the International Court of Justice has had an increasingly active docket of cases, and, in addition, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has undergone a sort of renaissance. The focus of this chapter will be on the settlement of inter-state disputes, as opposed to disputes between states and non-state actors or between non-state actors.
I argue that lying in business negotiations is pro tanto wrong and no less wrong than lying in other contexts. First, I assert that lying in general is pro tanto wrong. Then, I examine and refute five arguments to the effect that lying in a business context is less wrong than lying in other contexts. The common thought behind these arguments—based on consent, self-defence, the “greater good,” fiduciary duty, and practicality—is that the particular circumstances which are characteristic of business negotiations are such that the wrongness of lying is either mitigated or eliminated completely. I argue that all these “special exemption” arguments fail. I conclude that, in the absence of a credible argument to the contrary, the same moral constraints must apply to lying in business negotiations as apply to lying in other contexts. Furthermore, I show that for the negotiator, there are real practical benefits from not lying.
The Australian approach to multi-tier dispute resolution and arb-med clauses may be described as one of progressive acceptance. Australian courts now generally recognise and give effect to negotiation and mediation clauses, where entered into as a prerequisite to litigation or arbitration. ‘Good faith’ negotiation clauses and ‘agreements to agree’ a future dispute resolution process are also increasingly accepted, although clauses which are futile or unconscionable will not be enforced.
The current regime for arb-med was introduced in Australia in uniform State and Territory domestic arbitration legislation from 2010 and is based on the Singapore and Hong Kong models. While a recent New South Wales decision reveals a willingness to support the process, concern exists about the strict requirement for party consent to a mediator continuing to act as arbitrator. There is currently no scope for parties to choose arb-med in an international arbitration seated in Australia.
In the USA, commercial contracts often include tiered or stepped dispute resolution schemes that comprise multiple, varied mechanisms for resolving conflict. Contractual relationships are particularly suitable for tiered processes that accommodate business priorities, although critiques raise issues regarding necessity, utility and enforceability. Where courts have found contractual negotiation or mediation provisions to be valid and enforceable, the manner in which they address non-compliance under such agreements varies. When a party to a multi-step process fails or refuses to participate in contractually required negotiation or mediation prior to arbitration, there may be issues as to whether the consequences should be addressed in court or via arbitration. Despite being conventionally disfavoured in the USA, many neutrals have experience with ‘switching hats’ – ie moving from being mediator to being arbitrator, or vice versa – in the course of resolving disputes. Guidelines for the use of multi-tier processes take into account the uncertainties associated with judicial handling of stepped agreements as well as their inherent complexities, while recognising potential benefits.
Over 1953–60 counterinsurgency was optimised, buidling upon the solid foundations of geodemographic control achieved over 1950–2, and of systems optimisation achieved under Templer. Framework operations by units bolted onto localities were continuously refined, as was the use of jungle forts to win over the Orang Asli, and of big combined Special Branch–food control–military operations. Together these sustained an ‘elimination’ rate (kills, surrenders, captures) of about 20 per cent of insurgents a year – that is, until after the MCP attempt to negotiate at Baling in 1955 was rebuffed, and then further negotiation was refused from late 1957. As hope faded insurgent ‘surrenders’ (some induced or duped) snowballed in the face of priority big operations. By now those featured months-long intense controls, each targetting the entire area of one or more MCP committees. That way the MCP would struggle to regenerate afterwards. The collapse of local MCP forces often came as freedoms increased elsewhere, while a big operation clamped down more strongly than ever on the targetted area. In 1958 the MCP decided on a strategy of running down the military campaign, and the Emergency was formally ended on 31 July 1958.
A civil dispute is one which arises between private parties (including governments acting in their private capacity) and excludes criminal prosecutions.
This chapter will introduce the themes and theory of civil dispute resolution (CDR) and explain the structure and limitations of this book to assist readers in navigating through the chapters. This chapter will also introduce the procedures for resolving civil disputes, each of which will be canvassed in more detail in subsequent chapters. While this book need not be read cover to cover, it is recommended that Chapters 1, 2 and 3 be read first as they are fundamental to understanding the remainder of the book.
This chapter introduces the key types and uses of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and their role in civil dispute resolution (CDR). ADR refers to the alternatives to litigation which individuals may wish to pursue instead of, before, or during, litigation. ADR is usually less formal than litigation — the procedures tend to be more flexible and more variable so the procedures discussed in this chapter are, of necessity, simply examples of how various forms of ADR can occur.
Neither laziness nor its condemnation are new inventions, however, perceiving laziness as a social condition that afflicts a 'nation' is. In the early modern era, Ottoman political treatises did not regard the people as the source of the state's problems. Yet in the nineteenth century, as the imperial ideology of Ottomanism and modern discourses of citizenship spread, so did the understanding of laziness as a social disease that the 'Ottoman nation' needed to eradicate. Asking what we can learn about Ottoman history over the long nineteenth-century by looking closely into the contested and shifting boundaries of the laziness - productivity binary, Melis Hafez explores how 'laziness' can be used to understand emerging civic culture and its exclusionary practices in the Ottoman Empire. A polyphonic involvement of moralists, intellectuals, polemicists, novelists, bureaucrats, and, to an extent, the public reveals the complexities and ambiguities of this multifaceted cultural transformation. Using a wide variety of sources, this book explores the sustained anxiety about productivity that generated numerous reforms as well as new understandings of morality, subjectivity, citizenship, and nationhood among the Ottomans.
Chapter 2 explores how the anxiety of productivity played out in the bureaucratic system, by focusing on how laziness and inefficiency were criminalized in the Ottoman bureaucracy from the late nineteenth century until the end of World War I. This chapter considers the daily practices of the Ottoman reform period as central to the construction of a culture of productivity, rather than attributing causality to an emulation of certain idealized notions of the “West.” A plethora of documents (personnel records, bills, memorandums, and petitions, along with accounts by and about officeholders) show how in these empire-wide offices Ottoman citizens, bureaucrats and laypeople alike, experienced the anxiety of efficiency and modern practices of work. The personnel files document the severe responses meted out to those deemed lazy, slow, and careless. In turn, bureaucrats disputed these accusations through legal means. These processes reveal a contested realm over the expectations and actual performance of duties from the perspective of both the state and its employees.
It was early in the morning of October 5, 2015 when the trade ministers of twelve countries announced in Atlanta, Georgia, the successful conclusion of a seven-year, extremely complex negotiating effort known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). The TPP was formally signed four months after its conclusion, on February 4, 2016, in Auckland, New Zealand, apparently heralding a new momentum for international trade and investment liberalization.
This chapter enables the dyslexic reader to gain an insight into a theoretical explanation for the underlying anxiety that exists for the student with dyslexia. It also provides a justification of mechanisms of coping that they may have encountered and presents productive approaches for reflection. By revisiting theoretical approaches to anxiety and the theoretical framework for understanding coping responses, interpretations are provided of how the data presented in the chapters relates to the theories. However, only theories that appear appropriate for helping to explain the findings and that help to provide an explanation for the relationship between academic performance and anxiety for the dyslexic participants are discussed. These include Ohman’s (1993) information-processing model of anxiety and Hadwin, Brogan and Stevenson’s (2005) processing efficiency theory. Additionally, of the thirteen families of coping conceptualised by Skinner et al. (2003) only the coping categories predominantly used by the dyslexic participants, are evaluated: problem-solving, seeking support, cognitive restructuring, emotion regulation, negotiation and delegation.
The conclusion examines my argument’s implications for both scholarship and policy. For scholars, the evidence I offer here challenges the strict geographic and chronological separation between time periods and peacekeeping missions that some studies take as given. For policymakers, the arguments and evidence I advance contribute to ongoing debates about the future of peace operations. Peacekeeping today is turning increasingly towards a more military posture—but key among my argument’s implications is the idea that if the reconstruction, investment, and refugee resettlement services the international community can provide are more important than security protection to some combatants, then tying negotiation, peacekeeping, and intervention more tightly to the UN’s aid and humanitarian agencies may represent another, better direction for the UN.
This chapter evaluates the UN’s engagement in Guatemalan negotiations from 1989-1996. It asks how the Government of Guatemala (the GoG) and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG), the coalition of rebel groups fighting and negotiating with the GoG, assessed the UN’s performance as the guarantor of agreements elsewhere, especially the concurrent peacekeeping success in neighboring El Salvador and the simultaneous failure in the Balkans, and how these assessments influenced the course of negotiations and the final agreement that emerged from their peace process. Drawing on archival material and oral histories, I find that participants looked nearly exclusively at El Salvador to assess the contours and possibilities of UN intervention—but they perceived the Salvadoran example as a negative one: both sides believed their Salvadoran counterparts had given too much away during their negotiations, and advocated for a smaller UN mission. This is surprising—influential credible commitment theories of peacekeeping predict that the UN’s success in El Salvador would enhance the Guatemalan parties’ confidence in the UN as guarantor. Instead, the UN’s banner success in El Salvador first prolonged the war in Guatemala and then produced a weaker agreement and a degraded capacity to enforce the peace.
Dispute management processes are becoming the norm as a precursor, or an alternative, to traditional court-based litigation. Dispute Management is a clear and concise introduction to an expansive range of dispute processes. Beginning with communication theory and practice, and the historical, philosophical and cultural considerations of dispute management, the book then addresses the traditional topics of negotiation, mediation and litigation, as well as interviewing, collaborative law and arbitration. Each topic is well-researched, offering the necessary depth, socio-legal considerations and balanced coverage of theory and practice. Chapters address relevant ethical and cultural issues and is supported by array of interesting examples that promote discussion. Case studies at the end of each chapter link theory to practice and present disputes between neighbours, conflict in the workplace and cases that make it to trial. Offering a combination of theoretical insights and practical information Dispute Management is a vital resource for students, lawyers and dispute practitioners.
This chapter focuses on the lexicogrammatical systems of IMPERATIVE MOOD and INDICATIVE MOOD in the Australian language, Pitjantjatjara, in relation to the discourse-semantic systems of NEGOTIATION, SPEECH FUNCTION, ENGAGEMENT and GRADUATION and the phonological system of TONE. It treats co-selections of features in MOOD and TONE as instantial couplings (Martin 2008) that realise variations in speech function. This discourse-semantic orientation departs from the treatment in Halliday (1967), Halliday & Greaves (2008) and Rose (2001, 2008) of tone/mood relations in terms of grammatical delicacy. Options in NEGOTIATION and SPEECH FUNCTION are illustrated with a series of exchanges that exemplify the coupling of MOOD and TONE selections. Imperative and indicative mood systems are then described in detail and exemplified with mood/tone couplings, including options for metaphors of mood. The chapter concludes by outlining grammatical and phonological realisations of ENGAGEMENT and GRADUATION, including the lexicogrammatical system of MODAL ASSESSMENT.
In this chapter, we take paradigmatic reasoning as point of departure and describe axial relations for interpersonal clause systems in Brazilian Portuguese. We reason axially about MOOD types first in relation to discourse-semantic systems and then by agnating clause structures. Our description is text-based and privileges the view from above as it investigates how exchanges are enacted in language through the discourse-semantic systems of NEGOTIATION, SPEECH FUNCTION and ENGAGEMENT – which in turn are realised by MOOD and ASSESSMENT in the grammar. A corpus based on a range of text types forms the basis of the study. The core of interpersonal grammar comprises the functions of Predicator, Finite and Subject realising MOOD – responsible for dialogic interaction and negotiation. Positioner is the function realising ASSESSMENT – the grammatical system responsible for assessing the roles of speaker and listener, thus managing their voices in the negotiation of moves.