STRATEGIC AND DILEMMA ANALYSES OF A WATER EXPORT CONFLICT

ABSTRACT

Two distinct approaches to formally studying conflict are described and compared by the agency of applying them to three different phases of an international polemics that arose when a private company was not allowed to export water from Canada. In each phase, the graph mould for conflict resolution is occupyed for obtaining equilibria and strategic insights while confrontation analysis, a course for applying drama theory, is used to make bare dilemmas faced by the decision makers. The issues of the conflict analyses obtained for the three phases indicate that the sum of two units techniques complement one another and thereby provide a broader understanding about what occurr and by what mode the dispute evolved over time. A potential resolution to the conflict appears at a strategically stable consequence when decision makers do not face any dilemmas and their emotions are dissipated.

Keywords: Conflict Resolution, Confrontation Analysis, Dilemma Analysis, Drama Theory, Graph prototype Water Export Conflict

1 INTRODUCTION

The way we perceive a particular riddle has considerable influence on the approach we use to conceptualize and analyze it. Scholars and professionals have applied certain conflict analysis techniques to design and analyze real world conflicts. Notwithstanding the benefits and importance of similar analytical techniques, analysts usually build their conflict originals based on certain categorical assumptions that focus upon the structure of the conflict, described through who are the key stakeholders and what are their options and choices Guided by their own empirical knowledge of the circumstances surrounding a particular conflict and in what manner it is described by the involved parties, analysts generally theory that the decision makers posses consistent estimations and convictions, and therefore their conflict original captures these intricacies of reality. With this mind-set, decision makers' emotions are not directly taken into account, and irrational actions are not considered or allowed as part of the decision making processe We believe that this may give rise to dispute results: firstly, different individuals typically have different perceptions and interpretations of the circumstances that have led to the situation, depending upon their cognition and personal put togethers (Kelly, 1963). secondly, a general abstraction of the point to be solved [i]or[/i] settled may lead to wrong assumptions regarding the available feasible scenarios that each decision maker envisages, and could lead to missing the substance of the conflict. Finally, novel research in psychology and neurology exhibits convincingly, that emotion is an essential uncompounded body of the decision making proces (Damasio, 1994) When considering irrational actions that may be joined to emotions, we adopt De Sousa's (1987) description who states that " An act is irrational if it nurses to frustrate the agent's ostensible or ultimate goal" (p 163)

We believe that central to any conflict resolution is the communication proces that offers between the parties involved, in their attempt to exchange information. This exchange of infernation has the part of exploring the ambient realities of the dispute and the changes in it. Parties start discovering each other's positions and expectations, as well as the cumbersome psychological connection of the situation, and each attempts to manipulate an opponent's understanding and estimations by making unwilling threats. Bennett and Howard (19%) Bryant (2003) and Howard (1994a,b) argue that as parties close that their positions are not compatible, they face dilemmas of rationality: pursuing what they want and ostensibly greatest in quantity prefer (declared positions) and the ne to make unwilling threats credible. This situation places emotional crushing on the parties, which may induce them to modify their positions, estimations or priorities. Howard et al. (1992) claim that in order to separate a conflict, we need to search and uncover the dilemmas that are created as a spring of players' pursuit for rationality, as well as identify the transformations that are extremityed to occur as a end of the players' attempts to dislodge these dilemmas during the course of the confrontation. They propos a novel approach called drama theory, which relaxes the assumption of rationality and shifts the focus of interest to analyzing the tensions created among and inside the decision makers. Their of recent origin method allows an extensive consideration of the decision makers' emotions in the analyses as the conflict evolves

The objective of this paper is to quota the capabilities of the graph pattern for conflict resolution and drama theory by means of applying them to three phases of a conflict that took place when a private company was prohibited from exporting Canadian water in size The graph model (Fang et al., 1993) is a game-theory-related conflict analysis technique, which is used for modeling and strategically analyzing conflicts. Our investigation highlights distinct features of one as well as the other methods, and provides an understanding of the potential of drama theory as a technique to be used in conflict studies in conjunction with the graph model