To send 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 sending content to .
To send 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 sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.
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.
This chapter provides a description of the basic interpersonal clause system in Khorchin Mongolian – i.e., MOOD. The categories in the traditional description of Khorchin Mongolian clause grammar are mostly defined notionally and are not grammatically motivated. In contrast, the description in this chapter motivates the clause classes in the MOOD system in terms of their structural configurations based on unmonitored conversational data. The functions of Predicator, Positioner, Interrogator and Inquirer are used to distinguish the general types of [indicative] and [imperative] and the more delicate systems they make available. The MOOD systems are then characterised in relation to their functions in exchanges in terms of the structural configurations that realise options in NEGOTIATION in discourse semantics. The description in this chapter makes significant contributions to (i) the unified description of Khorchin Mongolian clause types and structures, and (ii) the characterisation of grammatical patterns in terms of discourse semantics.
Chapter four looks at the development of the violent struggle and details the options the actors have available to deal with violent challenges. The causal mechanisms leading to escalation here focuses on a different set of shifts in saliency for the belligerents. The chapter shows that important escalatory potential can be found in the response of the state towards the sometimes only peaceful expression of opposition. The cases that are brought forward here are Northern Ireland and the Philippines in the 1970s, where escalation was triggered by the specific responses from the government.
This chapter develops a carefully reasoned analysis of Spanish resources enacting the negotiability of propositions and proposals. Following a review of the ways in which English and French structure the negotiability of moves in conversation, the chapter turns to Spanish – demonstrating that it is the Predicator function, realised by verbal group resources, that manages the negotiability of the clause (with respect to those resources ‘most at risk’ in the exchange). The chapter shows that functions such as Subject or Finite have no place in the interpersonal grammar of a Spanish clause and closes with an overview of basic negotiatory structures in Romance languages, from the perspective of functional language typology.
This chapter is a text-based study of the enactment of interpersonal meaning in Mandarin, with particular focus on the MOOD system and structure, part of interpersonal grammar that is involved in the realisation of the discourse-semantic system of NEGOTIATION. The data considered is taken from the genres of criminal case courtroom discourse, realised interpersonally by a tenor of unequal social status and lack of reciprocity of linguistic choices among the speakers. The study adopts an axis-oriented trinocular perspective, foregrounding paradigmatic relations as the fundamental principle of linguistic organisation and reasoning about system-structure relations from above, round about and below. The analysis shows that MOOD in Mandarin is not only responsible for negotiating knowledge and action exchanges between moves in dialogue, but also closely interacts with MODALITY and POLARITY systems that are associated with the subsystem ENGAGEMENT of the discourse semantic system APPRAISAL. Therefore a complementary description of Mandarin MOOD is presented with a perspective oriented toward both NEGOTIATION and ENGAGEMENT.
In this chapter I use a text-based approach to grammatical description in order to explore the interpersonal grammar of Scottish Gaelic. I analyse extracts from two Scottish Gaelic novels from the perspectives of the semantic systems of NEGOTIATION and ENGAGEMENT and correlate distinctions in these systems with function structures at the lexicogrammatical stratum. By these means I build up a partial systems network for MOOD in Gaelic profile, with choices and distinctive features represented in the most economical way and labelled according to their distinctive usages in discourse. On the basis of this analysis, I will suggest that Scottish Gaelic does not have a [declarative] versus [interrogative] opposition in MOOD, redounding with the system of NEGOTIATION at the semantic stratum, but rather an [assertive] versus [non-assertive] opposition, redounding with the system of ENGAGEMENT at the semantic stratum.
Like most other types of human activity, international legal practice relies heavily on deadlines. Yet deadlines have received little attention in international legal scholarship. This is the case even though deadlines are heavily studied in other contexts, with research finding that people frequently set and respond to deadlines in ways consistent with bounded rather than perfect rationality. This chapter takes up the topic of deadlines in international legal practice and makes four contributions. First, using the Chemical Weapons Convention as a case study, it explores ways in which deadlines are used in international legal practice and highlights just how pervasive they can be. Second, it reviews some behavioral research on deadlines in other contexts and demonstrates that these findings have intriguing parallels with how the Convention’s deadlines have functioned in practice. Third, it assesses the evidence available for evaluating the relevance of domestic research to international affairs in relation to deadlines. The chapter argues that, even though this evidence is currently limited, legal actors would do well to factor this research into their decision-making about how to structure and respond to deadlines. Finally, the chapter considers the extent to which these issues are common to both diplomacy and international law.
Chapter 7 evaluates rivalry termination expectations. The rivalry process helps states overcome the commitment problem but not necessary through war, as traditionally expected. States instead use the rivalry process to consolidate power so as to disincentivize the revision of an eventual agreement. Given the difficulties of overcoming the commitment problem, we would expect these rivalries to be of longer duration and more violence prone. We derive a series of predictions from this argument. Conflict management techniques should be somewhat effective at helping rivals resolve border disagreements within rivalry but only in the absence of power endowments. The exception is legalized dispute resolution techniques, which may have features that help states overcome commitment problems. Border settlement within rivalry will facilitate rivalry termination but rival states bargaining over territorial borders that contain power endowments will be less likely to terminate. Relations between these rivals will generally improve after border settlement. We also derive hypotheses based whether the neighbors are democracies, share an alliance, power relations, and presence of ethnic kin.
Chapter 8 empirically evaluates the hypotheses proposed in Chapter 7. The first set of hypotheses examines the effectiveness of conflict management efforts to settle the border within the context of rivalry. The empirical patterns are consistent with our expectations. Negotiation and mediation generally increase the likelihood of border settlement but this relationship does not hold when power endowments are present. Legal approaches generally help neighbors settle borders with and without power endowments, but are generally more effective in the absence of power endowments. We then examine the relationship between border settlement, power endowments, and rivalry termination. The probability of rivalry termination increases with border settlement but termination is less likely when power endowments are present. Rivalry relationship transforms once border settlement occurs but the rivalry does not immediately terminate. Crises and disputes are less severe and of shorter durations. We find little evidence that democratic neighbors, allied, closer in parity, or the presence of ethnic kin in the border region affect the odds of rivalry termination.
The conclusion shows that the International Court has contributed to the interpretation of remedies. Several aspects of the remedies available before the Court have been clarified through its practice and, consequently, states now have more reasonable expectations when they submit a dispute before the Court. The consistency that the Court has demonstrated in its interpretation of the remedies available before it has enhanced predictability in the manner in which the Court applies and clarifies the remedies that are requested by the parties appearing before it. The manner in which the remedies of international law are interpreted and applied is, however, strictly connected with the function of the Court, i.e., that of being the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Therefore, the fact that the Court observes the manner in which its judgments contribute to the maintenance of international peace influences the application of remedies with respect to the disputes submitted before it.
It analyses the legal issues arising from state practice in the implementation of the UNCLOS, particularly relating to the practice in East Asia, concerning maritime dispute settlement. It discusses the general legal framework including in the UNCLOS and how the states in East Asia solve their disputes in a peaceful manner. Unlike Europe or America, the Asian cultures are quite divergent. Such divergence has different impacts on attitudes and policies of Asian countries towards the settlement of disputes. It may also be an obstacle to the regional integration of effective control of disputes as well as to the general acceptance of the international judicial bodies whose foundation was based basically on Western legal systems. The questions about ‘the efficacy of future global initiatives that are perceived to be Western in origin and orientation, and how they can be amenably incorporated into the legal systems and cultures of non-Western countries’ should be timely and properly answered.
National dialogues hold significant promise for conflict resolution because they enable diverse interests to engage in an inclusive negotiation process. However, peacemakers and conflict parties need to have realistic expectations. This chapter makes two arguments regarding the effectiveness of national dialogues. The first is that national dialogues are well-placed to strengthen and legitimise elite agreements that have already been struck, but not well-placed to develop elite-level commitment to dialogue when none has previously been built. The second argument is that, in order to make a positive contribution, national dialogues need to be able to adjust flexibly to changing political realities and to avoid rigid rules and structures. National dialogues which are able to adapt their negotiation formats are more likely to make reach decisions which are implemented by the parties.
The era of American leadership in the multilateral trading regime has ended. This paper argues that this current antipathy to trade is unsurprising: support for US leadership of the regime has always rested on a precarious balance among domestic interests. To overcome a historic bias in favor of home market production, American leaders created incentives for exporters to organize while creating roadblocks for import-competing firms and their employees. The dominance of the exporters’ voice had a significant influence on the policies the US pursued in the design and execution of the global trade regime. Most importantly, the absence of labor's voice undermined the prospect for “embedded liberalism” and instead resulted in an anemic system of adjustment for job loss at home and limited support for worker interests within the regime. While policymakers’ decision to shift power away from potential “veto” groups may have been necessary for US leadership of the Liberal International Order, this institutional design undermined a robust response to the economic dislocation thought to be a result of globalization. The result was a fracturing of the coalition in support of American leadership in the GATT/WTO regime.
In this chapter, I begin by discussing the legal definitional differences between treaty accession and ratification. Accession differs from ratification in that states commit via accession after the treaty has already been negotiated and signed by other states. Acceding states, in general, are states that come to the treaty later and were not involved in the lengthy negotiations to craft the laws. I argue that this difference in involvement is an important distinction that has been overlooked. I argue that participating in treaty negotiation socializes states towards optimal human rights standards. Building on my argument of the importance of involvement and lack of involvement in negotiations, I focus on this history of treaty negotiations of the ICCPR treaty. I highlight how states involved in negotiations shaped the breadth and strength of the law and those not involved lacked that important contribution to the law. Then, I quantitatively test accession versus ratification for effects on human rights behavior after committing to the ICCPR and CEDAW treaties. I find that states that acceded had worse rights practices than ratifying states.
In the conclusion, I revisit the findings from the earlier chapters and begin to discuss how the findings apply to international law and outside of the human rights area. I address how the four different commitment types fare in the future of international law.
The decolonization, a process that leads to the nominal independence and international recognition of states, gained momentum in the late-1950s, having its peak in 1960, the African year, when 18 colonies, protectorates, and trust territories became independent. This chapter explores the decolonization of Africa from three perspectives: of the colonial powers, of the colonial states, i.e. the colonies themselves, and of the international system. It argues that there is not one explanation to capture the decolonization. Only if we scrutinize decolonisation from all three perspectives, we are able to comprehend that process in its complexity.