Monthly Archives: December 2025

What do we Call Ourselves Blog: Conflict Manager or Dispute Resolver?

Posted on by
1

Peter Condliffe PhD and Claire Holland PhD
This blog is a summary of a more substantive paper currently in preparation and is based on that paper: See Condliffe, P and Holland C, What Do we Call Ourselves: Conflict Manager or Dispute Resolver, in preparation.

Introduction

This blog has come about as a result of the author’s collaboration on a new and seventh edition of Conflict Management: Theory and Practice (previously titled ‘Conflict Management: A Practical Guide’ Lexis Nexis, 2019). Earlier editions had been written by a single author, and decisions regarding framing, scope, and terminology had therefore not required negotiation. The co-authorship of the new edition thus offered an opportunity to revisit, clarify, and reaffirm the foundational assumptions that have shaped the book since its inception.

Among the most consequential of these framing decisions was the title itself, Conflict Management. Since the publication of the first edition in 1991, this term has been deliberately preferred over the more commonly used ‘disputeresolution’. This choice was not incidental. It reflected an underlying set of conceptual, theoretical, and practical commitments that distinguished the work from other texts in the field and has continued to guide its evolution over subsequent editions. After thorough discussion, the authors reaffirmed their decision to retain Conflict Management in the title, recognising it as central to the book’s epistemological and pedagogical identity.

There are a number of reasons why this may be important because creating  “mental models” of our interventions as conflict managers can effect how we behave and make decisions.1 They also help us with longer term, structural and value-based conflict interventions.  They can also, we believe, keep us more process oriented and culturally aligned and responsive. 

Our discussion unfolded in three ways summarised below.

The Conceptual Conversation

A foundational step was engaging with the concept of conflict management and particularly the term conflict. Although widely used across scholarly and practitioner discourses, conflict remains an inherently complex and contested concept.2 It resists a singular definition and is interpreted variously depending on disciplinary orientation, cultural context, and situational dynamics. In both teaching and professional practice, defining what conflict is, and perhaps more importantly what it means, has proven to be a persistent challenge.3 Increasingly, pedagogical approaches have shifted from prescriptive definitions toward participatory inquiry, encouraging learners and practitioners to articulate, compare, and synthesise their own understandings of conflict.4

We concluded that there were five key interrelated dimensions (perception, interpersonal interaction, interdependence, intrapersonal dynamics, and emotion) which would enable us to provide a conceptual scaffold for understanding these terms. This conceptual argument suggests that conflict is best approached not as a discrete event or condition but as a complex, evolving process embedded in human cognition, emotion, and social relationships. Recognising this multidimensionality provides a conceptual foundation for understanding why management, rather than resolution, may more accurately capture the ongoing, adaptive work required in navigating conflictual human experiences. Our perspective is broadly ‘social constructivist’ in orientation.5

Like Avruch6 and Lederach7 have argued, we believe conflict is both embedded in and expressive of cultural patterns, the shared symbols, narratives, and cognitive schemas that structure how groups perceive and respond to difference. Understanding conflict, therefore, requires a careful examination of the cultural knowledge and everyday assumptions that shape how people interpret social reality.

We were further challenged by the ambiguity and interchangeability of key terms, particularly conflict and dispute. Although frequently used as synonyms in everyday and professional discourse, these terms carry distinct theoretical and practical implications. Conflict can be understood as a dynamic process of disagreement, tension, or grievance that emerges within or between individuals and groups.8 In contrast, a dispute represents a more specific and manifest expression of conflict, such as an event or situation in which opposing parties directly express incompatible or opposing positions or claims.9 In this sense, we consider conflict to be a broader term than dispute.

We were particularly influenced in this respect by the work of Australian diplomat and scholar John Burton, whose pioneering work in conflict analysis continues to influence both international and domestic peace studies. He argued for a sharp distinction between disputes and conflicts.10 According to Burton, “conflicts are struggles between opposing forces, struggles with institutions, that involve inherent human needs in respect of which there can be limited or no compliance.”11 In other words, disputes may be resolved through negotiation or procedural settlement, whereas conflicts reflect structural or identity-based tensions that resist simple resolution because they implicate people’s basic needs for recognition, security, and belonging.12

Whilst we have some issues with Burton’s distinctions it remains conceptually powerful and moving forward from this perspective, the essential task lies not in eliminating conflict but in managing it adaptively and contextually.  For us then it is preferable to base the distinction between conflict and dispute on process rather than on the possibility of resolution. A dispute represents a particular response or manifestation within the broader process of conflict, not a fundamentally different phenomenon.

Conceptualising practice as conflict management allows for a more comprehensive engagement with the full range of human experience embedded in conflictual relationships.

The Inclusivity Conversation

The other discussion we had, and are having, arises from our’ extensive practical experience as mediators, trainers, facilitators and mentors. Over many years of practice, the authors have predominantly been supporting individuals and groups in conflict management rather than definitive conflict resolution.

By shifting our focus then to conflict management we recognise that successful practice may involve containment, transformation, or construction of ongoing relational processes, not just the ‘end’ of conflict. This distinction has implications for practitioner identity, process design and expectation-setting for participants.

This inclusive orientation aligns with recent Australian standards and guidelines. For example, the Australian Standards authority’s publication of AS 10002:2022 – Guidelines for complaint management in organisations reflects a shift in terminology from “resolution/resolving” to terms such as “management/managing”, “outcome”, “finalised/ addressed”.13 This shift underscores the importance of process language that accommodates a range of outcomes and recognises the ongoing dynamics of conflicts.

This suggests that organisational, interpersonal or societal conflict may be better framed through inclusive, process-oriented language rather than endpoint-oriented labels. For those managing organisations such as a complex court or legal bodies, this may also be a pertinent issue.  We were pleased to see, for instance, in the commercial litigation context, the Honourable Chief Justice of Queensland, Helen Baskill, recently observed, after seeing a recent text by Condliffe that the term “conflict management” rather than “dispute resolution” could have resonance in developing better systemic processes and practices in the court context that she manages.14 

From an academic perspective, this inclusivity argument finds support in the literature on conflict management systems and dispute resolution in Australia. Australian scholars have noted the limitations of purely settlement-oriented approaches and the value of conflict management systems that emphasise ongoing dialogue, relational maintenance and the design of integrated conflict management processes.15

The Productive Social Change Conversation

We also considered that, beyond the interpersonal and organisational realms, conflict has a profound relationship with society and social transformation which is important to us as practitioners. As American philosopher John Dewey once said,

Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates us to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity. Conflict is the sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.16

From this perspective, conflict does more than disrupt. Conflict can stimulate not only economic and scientific change but also the overthrow of old norms and institutions. It is through contested ideas and practices that norms evolve and institutions adapt.17

This insight aligns us with classical sociological theory.18 According to Coser for example, conflict only becomes dysfunctional within social systems that lack sufficient tolerance for conflict. We also realise that our text owes much in the field of conflict theory to Morton Deutsch, one of the founders of modern conflict management theory, whose modelling emphasized both competitive and cooperative frameworks in conflict.19

Putting this all together we conclude that conflict, when managed constructively, is not just a problem to be avoided but can drive positive social change.  

Conclusion

Together, these arguments we believe reasserts conflict management as a more encompassing, process-centred and socially responsive framework for practice. It orients our preference to refer to ourselves as conflict managers rather than dispute resolvers in our professional practices.

Authors Biography

Peter Condliffe PhD is a barrister, teacher and mediator. He has also been previously employed in several academic, management and human rights roles including with the United Nations. He is an experienced teacher having developed and presented courses in universities and other organisations. He is a past chair of The Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Standards (AMDRAS) Board and long-serving member of the Victorian Bars’ ADR Committee. He was instrumental in the development of the new national AMDRAS Standards.

Claire Holland PhD is an experienced academic, trainer, mediator and consultant. She has worked nationally and internationally as a mediation and conflict management specialist, and in training and capacity development roles. She has worked in complex and protracted settings on the Thailand Myanmar border and in the Philippines and has carried out consultant-based work in the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. Claire is a trainer and coach mentor with the Conflict Management Academy, specialising in conflict analysis, conflict coaching, leadership and mediation training. Claire is the former Director of the Masters of Conflict Management and Resolution at James Cook University and a founding board member and past Chair of Mediators Beyond Borders Oceania.

  1. Bartoli A, Nowak A and Bui-Wrzosinska L, ‘Mental Models in the Visualization of Conflict Escalation and Entrapment: Biases and Alternatives’, IACM 24th Annual Conference Paper, 3–6 July 2011, p.3-5, <http://scar.gmu.edu/presentations-proceding/12857&gt; ↩︎
  2. See generally Peter L Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Anchor Books, 1966); Johan Galtung, ‘Violence, Peace, and Peace Research’ (1969) 6(3) Journal of Peace Research 167; John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures (Syracuse University Press, 1995); Morton Deutsch, ‘An Experimental Study of the Effects of Cooperation and Competition upon Group Process’ (1949) 2(3) Human Relations 199; Peter T Coleman, ‘Characteristics of Protracted, Intractable Conflict: Toward the Development of a Metaframework’ (2003) 9(1) Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 1; Daniel Bar-Tal, Intractable Conflicts: Socio-Psychological Foundations and Dynamics (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ↩︎
  3. Tjosvold, Dean. (2006). Defining Conflict and Making Choices About Its Management: Lighting the Dark Side of Organizational Life. International Journal of Conflict Management. 17. 87-95. 10.1108/10444060610736585. ↩︎
  4. See for example, Ciobanu (2018), Active and Participatory Teaching Methods. European Journal of Education May August 2018 Volume 1, Issue 2. ↩︎
  5. See Lederach J, Preaching for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, Syracuse University Press, New York, 1995, pp8-10. ↩︎
  6. Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and conflict resolution. United States Institute of Peace Press. ↩︎
  7. Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of Peace Press. ↩︎
  8. Condliffe and Holland, 2025, s 1.5; Boulle, 2005, p 83. ↩︎
  9. Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. ↩︎
  10. Burton, J. W. (1996). Conflict resolution: Its language and processes. Scarecrow Press. ↩︎
  11. Burton, J. W. (1996) f. 28, p 21. ↩︎
  12. Burton, J. W. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and prevention. Macmillan. ↩︎
  13. Australian Standard 10002:2022 Guidelines for complaint management in organizations (ISO 10002:2018, NEQ); SOCAP,. Guidelines for Complaint Management in Organisations: Comparison of the 2014 and 2022 Editions, (AS 10002:2022), see https://<www.socap.org.au/public/98/files/SOCAP%20Member_Info_Sheet_2022_LR.p ↩︎
  14. Article Series: Mediation: Australia’s Place in the International Scene – AMDRAS. ↩︎
  15. Boulle, L., & Field, R. (2021). Australian dispute resolution: Law and practice. LexisNexis Butterworths; Van Gramberg, B. (2005). Managing workplace conflict: Alternative dispute resolution in Australia. The Federation Press. ↩︎
  16. Dewey J,Human Nature and Conflict, Modern Library, New York, 1930, p 30. ↩︎
  17. Deutsch (1973) ↩︎
  18. Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: The Free Press, 1956; Beyond Intractability, Summary of “The Functions of Social Conflict”, <https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/coser-functions> accessed 1st November 2025. ↩︎
  19. Deutsch, M, The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes, Yale University Press, New Haven ↩︎

The IOMed Convention: How It Could Redefine Cross-Border Mediation

Posted on by
Reply

By Akshat Garg
This article has been republished with permission. The original publication can be found at Kluwer Mediation Blog.

On 30 May 2025, the global dispute resolution landscape quietly shifted. In Hong Kong SAR, 33 countries signed the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (“IOMed”), the world’s first intergovernmental body dedicated solely to mediation.

More than 400 representatives from 85 countries and 20 international and regional organizations gathered for the signing. The Convention entered into force on 29 August 2025. At its inaugural meeting held on 20 October 2025, the Governing Council authorised the commencement of operations with effect from the same date. On paper, it appears to be just another treaty. In practice, however, it could reshape how governments, businesses, and individuals resolve some of the world’s most complex disputes.

Why does this matter now? For decades, mediation has lived in the shadow of arbitration and litigation, praised for its flexibility but lacking the institutional backbone to rival them. The IOMed could change this.

Mediation Steps Out of the Shadows

Mediation has always promised something courts and arbitral tribunals cannot: outcomes that preserve relationships rather than destroy them. While mediation had received treaty recognition through the ICSID Convention, restricted to investor-state conciliation, and the Singapore Convention, which addressed the enforcement of mediated settlements, no dedicated intergovernmental framework existed.

The IOMed Convention addresses this gap, institutionalising mediation itself as a treaty-based mechanism for resolving international disputes. It creates a permanent organization with legal personality, a governing council of states, and leadership roles open only to nationals of contracting states. In other words, mediation now has a seat at the table of international law.

How the IOMed Has Made Itself Unique

The IOMed is not a vague promise; it has teeth. The Convention envisages two separate panels of mediators: one for State-to-State disputes and another for disputes involving States and private parties, including commercial disputes. This matters because mediation in international politics requires a different skillset than mediation in business contracts. The Convention acknowledges this nuance, demanding that State-to-State mediators bring not only legal knowledge but also diplomatic judgment and geopolitical experience.

Consent remains its bedrock. No State can be dragged into a mediation without agreeing, and countries can expressly exclude sensitive disputes such as sovereignty or maritime boundaries from the IOMed’s purview. Far from weakening the system, these safeguards are likely to make the Convention more attractive to States.

The Convention takes an important step toward building global trust in mediation. By granting immunity to mediators and participants from arrest, detention, or legal action for what’s said or disclosed in mediation, it protects the process from fear or interference. This isn’t just a legal safeguard; it’s a confidence-building move that encourages openness and integrity. It may be an early step, but it’s a bold one, showing IOMed’s intent to make mediation a safer, more credible space for resolving disputes.

What makes the IOMed particularly intriguing is its accessibility. It may also provide mediation for non-contracting states or international organizations, should they wish to submit their disputes, subject to the rules adopted by the Governing Council of the IOMed. Such inclusivity could allow the IOMed to become a hub for dialogue at a time when global cooperation often feels gridlocked. It is not a court, and it will not hand down binding decisions unless parties agree. Instead, it offers a structured, principled, and confidential process for parties to craft their own solutions – as is the inherent asset of mediation – with the legitimacy of an international institution behind it.

The Quiet Gaps in the Convention

The IOMed Convention opens the door for the mediation of “international commercial disputes,” but it stops short of defining exactly what that means. It simply provides that the Organization will offer mediation services for disputes arising out of or related to international commercial relationships between private parties, subject to conditions set by the Governing Council. In practice, how the Council chooses to interpret and apply these provisions will play a crucial role in shaping the Convention’s real-world impact.

The Convention also leaves it to the parties to agree on suspending the limitation period during mediation as per applicable laws, a provision that realistically, is unlikely to see easy consensus, and to agree on whether mediation can run alongside other dispute resolution proceedings. Such flexibility, while well-intentioned, could lead to uncertainty and uneven outcomes, especially in cross-border disputes where different legal systems come into play.

When it comes to enforcement, the Convention provides that settlement agreements arising from international commercial disputes may be enforced by the contracting states, who should agree on a protocol specifying the conditions of enforcing such settlement agreements. Notably, it says nothing about the enforcement of state-to-state settlement agreements, leaving a notable gap in the framework for intergovernmental disputes.

The Governing Council also carries significant responsibilities, including adopting the rules of procedure for mediation, maintaining mediator panels, and approving the Secretariat’s capacity-building and fellowship programs. The success and credibility of IOMed will hinge on how actively and thoughtfully the Council pursues these tasks.

A Space Created for Everyone

At a time when arbitration often feels prohibitively expensive or adversarial, the IOMed offers something different: a forum designed to de-escalate, not inflame.

For businesses engaged in cross-border trade, this means a credible path to settle disputes without burning bridges.

For States, it offers a way to manage conflicts without locking themselves into binding rulings that might be politically impossible to implement.

For professionals, lawyers, mediators, and policy advisors, it signals an emerging market for a new breed of expertise: not just legal knowledge, but skills in negotiation, psychology, cross-cultural communication, and strategic problem-solving.

When the World Trade Organization was created, it reshaped trade. When the International Criminal Court was launched, it changed how we view accountability. The IOMed may not have the same headline-grabbing impact, but time will tell whether it redefines how conflicts are prevented, managed, and resolved across borders.

Mediation as the Primary Strategy, Not a Soft Alternative

As of 20 October 2025, only eight countries – China, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Congo, Kiribati, Pakistan, Kenya, and Dominica – have ratified the Convention. Major hubs like Europe, India, and Singapore are notably absent, reflecting a cautious approach. This hesitation likely stems from concerns over enforcement and procedural gaps left to the Governing Council.

Like all new institutions, the IOMed will need trust, early successes, and a generation of professionals ready to champion it. If mediation is to mature into a global institution, practitioners and policymakers will need to take it seriously, not as a “softer” option, but as a strategic one.

That is the challenge and opportunity: to ensure that this new framework is not just another treaty on paper, but a living mechanism that reshapes how the world deals with conflict. Whether you are a lawyer, business leader, diplomat, or student of international affairs, the message is clear: mediation is no longer an afterthought. With the IOMed, it could become the default.

Author Biography

Akshat Garg is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of India and an IMI-qualified mediator, blending legal practice with a global perspective on dispute resolution. Educated at Lloyd Law College, India, he has contributed to cross-border agreements, institutional and ad-hoc arbitration, and regulatory advisory, emphasising practical solutions, procedural clarity, and strategic insight. Beyond practice, Akshat coaches and judges international ADR competitions, leads initiatives to build capacity in emerging markets, and develops frameworks to enhance efficiency and accessibility. Committed to bridging law, policy, and industry, he works to advance global arbitration and mediation with purpose and lasting impact.