International arbitration is a recognized way to resolve economic conflicts. This article asks if state‐state investment arbitration (SSIA) is an option for Latin America. It examines the language of investment treaty provisions, cases and arbitral awards involving states, and treaty‐making practice in the region. The analysis shows some complementarity between the mechanisms of investor‐state arbitration (ISA) and SSIA; sometimes, the latter is the only option. This article concludes that SSIA is neither a backlash nor a more effective mechanism compared to ISA. SSIA constitutes an opportunity for both home and host Latin American states to balance their investment treaty commitments.

This article examines the utility of experiential learning activities (ELAs) for teaching about global complexity and conflict resolution in higher education classrooms. It focuses on two key concepts: the nexus between global and local and the precarity experienced within global processes. Research on two ELAs, a multisession simulation and a single‐session image analysis, each designed for use in conflict resolution courses, produced extensive data on student learning. The analysis presented demonstrates that for many students, the ELAs resulted in greater engagement with course materials, more nuanced understandings of global complexity, and increased ability to link theory to practice.

Abstract Addressing calls for more mediation process research, this qualitative study explored which contradictory tensions are in play in a helpful working relationship between mediators and their clients. Data were collected in semistructured interviews with divorce mediators (n = 12). Relational dialectical analysis detailed how divorce mediators varied practice styles along the central opposing pulls of client self‐determination and professional control, neutrality and engagement, and efficiency and exploration. The findings counterbalance traditional hallmarks of mediation and highlight a range of dynamic truths in which mediators operate. Methodological limitations and implications for research and practice are discussed.

Since the inception of the federal‐sector labor‐management program in 1963 with the issuance of Executive Order 10988, the program has experienced sixteen years of trending toward collaboration and thirty‐five years of adversarial labor‐management relations. Adversarial labor‐management relationships are antithetical to collaborative labor‐management relationships. Notwithstanding the fact that collaborative labor‐management relations can satisfy the interests of managers and employees through their unions to create better delivery of public service, the confluence of presidential, managerial, and union leader support is hard to create and maintain.

We discuss the role of mediation strategies in solving interpersonal conflicts. Our results proved that the efficiency of the mediator's strategy differs depending on whether the conflict takes place in a separate dyad or in a dyad within a social group. The pressing strategy appeared to be the most effective when compared with others in solving conflicts that had arisen in a dyad within a social group. The facilitating strategy appeared to be the most effective in comparison with others in solving conflicts that had arisen in a separate dyad.

The humanistic approach to mediation developed in parallel to Bush and Folger's transformative mediation in the 1990s. While fully harmonizing with transformative mediation, humanistic mediation emphasizes a greater departure from skill‐based techniques and gives less attention to problem solving. By highlighting the humanizing capacities of mediators, parties, and communication processes, the humanistic approach deepens a dialogue process as it fosters good mediator presence and the uninterrupted flow of “heart language” between parties. Nine areas of practice, including preparation meetings, nondirective mediation, and use of silence, are presented in their applicability to both restorative justice and dispute resolution contexts.

Conflict Resolution QuarterlyVolume 32, Issue 4 p. 359-359 Editor's Introduction Editor's Introduction Susan S. Raines PhD, Susan S. Raines PhD Professor, Editor-in-Chief, Conflict Resolution Quarterly sraines@kennesaw.edu MS in Conflict Management Program, Kennesaw State UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Susan S. Raines PhD, Susan S. Raines PhD Professor, Editor-in-Chief, Conflict Resolution Quarterly sraines@kennesaw.edu MS in Conflict Management Program, Kennesaw State UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 03 June 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21125Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume32, Issue4Summer 2015Pages 359-359 RelatedInformation

This article is a response to several factors: the emergence of occupational stress as a main theme in a qualitative study involving parties to workplace mediation; the recognition that mediation, being underpinned by psychological stress models, can reduce occupational stress; and a lack of studies investigating mediation's potential to alleviate occupational stress. Linking mediation's main qualities to interactional and transactional models of stress, the article provides a new angle on mediation's dynamics. Findings are illustrated by extracts from interviews. Suggestions are made as to ways in which workplace mediation might be used more proactively in relation to stress.

In 1994, the University System of Georgia embarked on an ambitious effort to reduce the costs of disputing by creating what is now possibly the largest comprehensive, integrated conflict management system (ICMS) in higher education. For almost twenty years, the Consortium on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution has provided technical advice and support for this initiative. This article reviews the context, summarizes the ICMS design, draws a few lessons, and speculates on the value of this work. Because of my close personal involvement, I am straying from convention and telling this story from the first‐person perspective. Although probably skewed by hindsight, the historical context is important because our decisions and actions reflected the prevailing conditions and our nascent level of knowledge and experience. The overarching lessons are applicable to most organizations and particularly salient for the conflict management challenges facing the diverse colleges and universities in the United States today and any multifaceted, integrative organization.