Just Solution Approach to Resolution of Conflict: Dov Ronen's Call for Reactions

"Just and lasting peace." King Hussein of Jordan has repeated this phrase often in his bass voice. He is not alone. The notion of "just," and its intrinsic connection with lasting peace, were probably not absent from the minds of the signers of Oslo and other agreements, nor from the minds of those who have worked over the years on various approaches to conflict and dispute resolution. I do believe that almost everyone in the collaborative analytical problem-solving tradition has worked with some implicit notion of the justness of the solution for all parties, and that its presence has proven critical to whether or not an agreement will endure. I propose to make the notion explicit and to put it at the top of the agenda, at the forefront of negotiation. Here is what I have in mind. Challenge each party to a conflict or dispute to do two things:

Propose what their party thinks might be a just solution of that specific conflict or dispute explain to each other why they consider their solution just.

Here are a few words on what I think are the two pivotal elements of the approach: First, I speak of justice, not fairness; these two words are not synonyms. Fairness is a more elastic, looser, and more general concept than justice. While "fair," according to the dictionary, means unbiased, impartial, "just" implies adherence to a standard. A fair decision or agreement is an impartial one; a just decision or agreement is not only impartial, it also measures up to a standard of rightness. I propose an approach that tries for a high standard of justice (e.g., striving for a resolution agreement that the parties might agree is inherently or morally just, right, correct).

The obvious question is whether or not such a standard of justice exists or may be agreed upon. Specifically, the question is whether or not conflicting parties (especially those from different culture/value traditions) share, or might eventually agree upon, a more or less universal conception of justice. I believe it is possible; I am convinced it should be tried. The parties are asked to explain to each other why they consider their solution just.

Second, interest vis-a-vis needs. Interest, again, is a more elastic concept than needs, a far looser and more general one in my view. "Interest" is the desire to have more and/or better of something; "need," on the other hand, in my vocabulary, is a rather fixed requirement (e.g., for survival, well-being, or peace). The issue of "less" or "more" is secondary, if at all relevant, to such an interpretation of "need." Without elaborating further, the notion of justice would probably pertain to a similarly restricted notion of needs, thus excluding relational justice and tending toward universal justice.

Lastly, there is little chance that the Just Solution Approach (JSA) would be welcomed by all parties to any of the various international conflicts and disputes. In the prevailing international climate, "just and lasting peace" will likely remain only a slogan on many lips. However, JSA may prove to be useful as a possible supplement to other approaches. Above all, it may have the potential to "heighten consciousness about what exactly makes a solution a good and just one."

In practice, the parties must first identify the central issue(s) of the conflict. On the other hand, it is also likely that this two-step approach may prove to be more useful in regard to negotiations on each specific issue rather than on the conflict as a whole. However, I restrict my comments here to the overall theoretical sphere in which the two steps are central.

Kevin Clements, in personal correspondence. I also want to use this opportunity to express my thanks for his comments on the original version of the idea.