Multiple Paths to Knowledge in International Relations: Methodology in the Study of Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution (Innovations in the Study of World Politics) by

Language: eng
Format: azw3
ISBN: 9780739157930
Publisher: Lexington Books
Published: 2004-06-16T04:00:00+00:00

M6: <Reno><HALT NEGOTIATION><Cartha>

Perceptual layer: In response to the five previous messages (listed in table 6.1), AMed has by now arrived at a substantially revised interpretation of the mediation system: (1) Reno is now seen as highly hostile toward Cartha; (2) Cartha is seen as more hostile toward Reno than at the outset; (3) in part because there is no mechanism for changing anything in LTM that is not in a frame header, both Reno and Cartha are still seen as committed to the negotiation (that is, there is still a link between both actor frames and the NEGOTIATOR frame; indeed, that link has grown stronger because it has repeatedly carried activation each time the two actors were invoked, which happened with each message); (4) on the other hand, in the interpretation of the mediation system in WM, both actors are seen as more motivated by hostility than desire for a negotiated settlement, though this is far more extreme for Reno; and (5) the actors’ resources are still seen as moderate and equal. M6 is quickly interpreted by drawing the relevant frames into WM and filling in the message stimulus object with information from the appropriate frames. The overall trend in the interpretation of the mediation system was reinforced by the message.

Reasoning layer: HALT NEGOTIATIONS, in conjunction with AMed’s (mis)perception that Reno has nothing to gain by halting negotiations (i.e., Reno is not expected to be likely to gain its goals through any unilateral action because the actors are relatively equal in power), triggers the COMM frame again. From that frame (in particular, a set of rules designed to detect behavior by the disputants that fails to match the motives or resources attributed to them), AMed draws the conclusion that it needs to try to clarify the real interests of the actors.

It assumes that Reno has misunderstood the realities of the situation and attempts to explain these realities (using the strategies, “clarify situation” and “supply missing information”). In addition, following another line of reasoning in COMM designed to restart stopped negotiations, AMed tries once again to “make contact with the parties” and “arrange for interactions between the parties.” These two lines of reasoning culminate in: (1) SAY “<current interpretation of system>”; and (2) DO “Invite both parties to conference.” Recall that SAY “<current interpretation of system>” means that AMed will explain to the disputants its own current interpretation of the mediation system, including the motives and resources it believes the actors all have.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.