THE SOVEREIGNTY OF HUMAN DIGNITY
IN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND CONFLICT
The Fuschi Conversation
Valencia (Spain), September 21 – 25, 1992
XIXth Round Table on Current Problems of
International Humanitarian Law
Sanremo (Italy), 29 August – 2 September, 1994
World Conference on Population and Development
Cairo (Egypt), September 5 – 13, 1994
CSCE Budapest Review Conference
10 October – 2 December, 1994
All Polish and European Conference
Human Rights Education on Academic Level
(including the teaching of Bioethics)
Torun (Poland), 14 – 16 October, 1994
Human conflicts in the political evolution of all societies worldwide have promoted studies and research programs political authorities
will have to refer to in order to improve the quality of life and to carry into effect the universal principles stated by the United Nations in 1948 in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. In our capacity as scientists in service of human evolution, we are going to face the subject of conflict resolution from a scientific point of view, using
an integrated method, in order to give a contribution useful to conflict analysis, evaluation as well as resolution, with respect to both their physiological and pathological
aspects. We are going to propose a method of approach for the advancement of knowledge aimed at transforming present styles of conflict management (obliging, dominating, avoiding,
compromising and integrating) into a multidisciplinary system leading to a style of conflict resolution in which the parties accept, with their free consent, the resolution adopted
because they deem it right and useful to the development and well-being of the whole human community.
In synthesis, justice has to prevail over the logic that justifies selfishness and the power of the strongest but not the respect for the sovereignty of Man's (women's and men's) centrality and for their dignity regardless of their country, race and color: Human Rights, in fact, identified the principle of the sovereignty of Nations
ORIGINS OF INTRAPERSONAL CONFLICT
Starting from the dawn of civilizations, conflict and conflict resolution have represented two peculiar phases of human evolution. The
intrinsic mechanisms regulating these two evolutionary phases have a double nature: genetic, because the relationship between the individual and the environment is controlled and
mediated by genetic laws aimed to maintain an energetic, dynamic homeostasis; psychological, because the perception of the surrounding environment is regulated by a continuous comparison
between the individual's mnemonic and experiential endowment (which is, as a consequence, strongly defended) and what is new or alien to it. That is to say, all that is new can arouse
both curiosity and fear, according to the informational characteristics of the novelty. Fear engenders intrapersonal conflict (in fact, such a conflict, too, takes place between the
individual and his/her environment); curiosity pushes toward a better knowledge of the perceived phenomenon (or of the novelty). Therefore, at the basis of whatever kind of conflict we
can find fear as the defensive mechanism of the biological being's evolutionary dynamics.
Fear, distress-suffering, conflict, competition, resolution (experience): these are the phases through which the individual's consciousness develops, at both the animal and human levels. As a result, conflict plays a major role in the evolution of human consciousness. Since the moment of his/her birth, the individual is subject to pressures and tensions of various kinds and this causes biological and behavioral alterations to take place, which gradually lead to modifying one's vision of the world, up to "wisdom11. The "trial-and-error" strategy is also a part of this process, but usually error is recognized only when the conflict between the individual and the environment is solved by understanding the process that misled the individual.
But accepting and understanding the error are not easy things to do, in that they depend on several factors (e.g., age, seriousness of the error, number of effects provoked). The fact is that the human brain can make actions - it is facilitated in doing so - but it can hardly go back, that is, reconsider its responsibilities, its errors in those actions. The obstacles to an individual's action force him/her to change his/her behavior. Therefore, conflict resolution - where opponent, antagonist forces are at stake - is possible only through "victory" and, hence, the capitulation of the counterpart. In this case, the "conditio sine qua non" for the resolution is either capitulating or accepting the error, that is, the subjugation of one part over the other.
Accepting the error or capitulating occurs when the antagonist action jeopardizes the individual's biological survival. This is based on a defensive mechanism of the biological system which causes behavioral responses for keeping the system itself integral. As a consequence, if on one hand a physiological drive exists to self-affirmation over the environment, on the other we know that the individual "a priori" defends his/her survival. All this is regulated by genetic drives which are gradually altered and increasingly controlled by experiences.
The analytical determination of the characteristics of conflicts is definitively necessary in order to render justice to human evolution.
A child, restrained by a strongly coercive family system, processes avoiding strategies that modify its physiological drives and finally make it deviate from social rules. In this case, that child will be conditioned in the future to live its relationships with other people in the same way and by the same strategies by which it escaped the coercive system of its family. For handling its conflicts it will resort to avoidance, thus escaping comparison. But such a style of conflict management is not adequate to attain an increasing knowledge of the environment or of the world.
On the contrary, a child, facilitated by its family unexpressing its genetic potentials, will manage comparison with its fellow men in a better way and, hence, will attain a better cognitive growth. These aspects of human character are basically due to a family educational transfer in the early stages of the individual's development. The numberless ways of handling conflict on the part of the individual, as said above, have given life to a multidisciplinary culture which complicates the understanding of the evolutionary process that "justifies" human conflicts for the purpose of cognitive growth, that is, of a better knowledge of both oneself and the physical environment in which the individual lives.
OUTLINES OF PHYSIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY OF CONFLICT
The interaction between physical and biological systems produces dynamism: each interacting system tends toward a dynamic equilibrium and,
therefore, a physiological interaction always takes place with the integration of new information.
A conflict between physical and biological systems arises when it is not possible to quickly integrate new information. According to the information characteristics, systems oppose a resistance that is directly proportional to the extent to which information is far from the possibilities of integration of the receiving system. Applying to the human being these physical principles, we see that conflicts start in the same way, that is to say, when interaction does not permit integrating new information. Therefore, the levels of conflict - within certain limits - develop a dynamic work in the cerebral system aiming at re-processing information in order to integrate it. The quantity of information, its heterogeneity and physical characteristics as well as how it is learnt (coactively, spontaneously), whether it is requested or imposed, determine a dynamic cerebral "software" over time in compliance with the physiological and biological laws regulating the genetic control activity of the mechanisms of defense, attack, flight, aggressiveness, acceptance, submission, integration. Any individual, therefore, develops a specific psychotypology which is necessary to understand in the interaction in order to bring about a communication in tune one with the other, thus reducing the amount of conflict. In this regard, conflict is born from the lack of either understanding or associating/integrating different items of information. One of the most important keys in communication we have always to bear in mind suggests to never “a priori” deny others7 statements. In doing so, one predisposes first of all one's own perceptual system to zero-sum conflict and, as a consequence, to an exchange of information with greater possibilities of integration.
The complexity of the human brain's higher functions is such that it would be necessary to study them systematically for comprehending the scientific contents of the above descriptions. In the present context, we can simplify by analyzing the main components of perception. Anatomy and physiology show that two systems of perception may take place in the brain, in the left hemisphere and in the right hemisphere respectively. They communicate through a '"bridge" of nerve fibers (the corpus callosum) devoted to keeping synergism of the global perceptual system. From birth on, the information flow reaching the two hemispheres gives rise to the grounds of personality, of temper, of intelligence, according to the physical characteristics of the information. The global physiological system - we can call it "genetic hardware" - determines the demands necessary to the maintenance of the dynamic homeostasis of the individual as a whole. At the moment of birth the two hemispheres communicate one with the other physiologically and develop harmoniously as long as information starts to "split" their perceptual activity functionally and dynamically. It is information and its substantial contents, therefore, that begin to give life to two different processes of perception and memorization in the individual. Each piece of information imposed and implying the features of repetitivity produces perceptual laterality; whenever an external stimulus evokes that piece of information, the individual can do nothing but respond by repeating it. Under such circumstances there is no synergistic activity between the two hemispheres, insofar as the information stored in memory implies an automatic response, so that no processing is requested: it is the classical robot-like conditioning typical of computers. It is the left hemisphere, genetically predisposed, that processes this kind of information. On the contrary, when the information has not undergone symbolic codification, but is directly emitted by the object or by the environment in the space, it does not cause an automatic response pre-memorized in the left hemisphere, rather it is perceived and integrated by a synergistic process between the two hemispheres.
To avoid hemispheric functional disconnection the ideal method is that of presenting simultaneously - mainly during the early stages of children's development - both the symbolic information and the object or situation linked to the symbol or what it should identify. This allows a synergistic response in any moment and with whatever kind of information, both objectual and symbolic (the symbol recalls the substance, the substance permits communication by the symbol).
The bases of this knowledge should have to transform pedagogy, school and university education, and this would free Man from that sort of repetitivity that, pushed to paradox, makes him a virtual computer and splits him into two personalities: the one, highly repetitive, the other - unknown to the former -emotional, irrational, thus producing a continuous alteration of the mood according to the prevalence of one or the other personality on the basis of circumstances and interactions. This splitting fosters social conflict, dehumanizes the individual's personality and, mainly, gets rid of creativeness.
Furthermore, the individual takes part in that social competitiveness which often leads to a kind of hardly solvable conflict. As a matter of fact, it is political and social organization that attempts to plan the formation of individuals7 characters in order to make them homogeneous to social rules. Recognizing oneself in these behavioral rules (rights and duties) means the individual is adapted to society and to its hierarchy of powers which ranks him/her, in fact and not in right, as A, B, C, etc., class. But only a part of the brain, as we have seen, can be instructed to social models; the other part escapes the control of behavioral factors of activation/inhibition determined by rules. On the contrary, intrapersonal conflicts give rise to an unceasing transformation of such rules. Therefore, we can shape political evolution of all Peoples in a form of evolution that teaches the individual to limit as well as to handle conflict within the framework of an organization that gradually "frees" Man from the slavery of needs otherwise hard to meet.
THE ROLE OF CONFLICT IN SOCIAL EVOLUTION
The group turns human conflict, with its thousands of shades, into a form of social conflict. Group and social
organization is, hence, aimed, on one hand, to reduce the individual's evolutionary conflict, on the other, to permit a faster development of individual consciousness by means of social
interaction. Conflict management can take place at different levels: the first step consists of the work of parents in the family. Bringing into operation the rules imposed by the
society they live in, they train, form the early levels of consciousness of their children, who learn to avoid and manage both intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts thanks to the
education they receive. This stresses that human evolution - at the level of both individuals and groups - goes on just because of conflict management.
The different forms of civilization can be related to a better and better conflict management. As a consequence, we can hypothesize that the amount of conflict is inversely proportional to the degree of civilization or evolution in individuals, groups and societies. The political development of all societies of the world, if on one hand has managed conflict with coercions and impositions of various kinds, on the other hand has guided human beings towards higher and higher levels of freedom and evolution. Citizens' rights and duties as sanctioned by the Constitutions of the different countries show, in fact, the spaces of liberty in which they are allowed to act and beyond which conditions of interpersonal and intergroup conflict may occur. Then, there are the supranational Organizations that control the good course of relationships among States or between State and citizens, such as the UN, EEC, the Council of Europe and so on. A State's subscription to international rules contributes reducing more and more conflict of interests between States and, at the same time, helps evolve and harmonize all human beings of the world. However, in the light of present events, it seems that more social freedoms do produce more conflict among individuals and between public and private powers. We believe that the cause of such a seeming contradiction lays in the States' democratic evolution, that induces citizen hood to shoulder the responsibility for its political choices. Individuals are, therefore, asked to use the attained level of consciousness in order to improve their social organization. Unfortunately, incomprehension take place between the State's political organization and citizen hood since institutions do not transfer to the consciousness of this latter constitutional values in the appropriate way and time. Thus, dysfunctions arise between the value of democratic laws and citizens' chaotic expectations. The subsequent feedback causes an increased amount of conflict and a greater chaos within the State's political system. This mechanism, however, forms part of the evolutionary process: passing from a strongly coercive system - as in the case of a dictatorship - to a democratic system, that is, acquiring rights without knowing profoundly one's duties, gives birth to heavy disequilibria in societal evolution. Someone thinks that such conflicts can be solved by strengthening the State's coercive power; many States, in fact, still provide for capital punishment as a means of deterrence against criminal behaviors. But this neither restrains nor solves social conflicts which rather increase. Thus, it is necessary to deeply reflect in search of the causes.
Dictatorships maintain domestic order by repressive systems contrary to democratic principles. If it may be true that such a form of government reduces social conflict by improving order between public and private powers, between State and citizen hood, it is not true at all that an imposed public order eliminates intrapersonal conflict. In this case, the individual experiences distress and tensions because of the fear of coercion; beyond certain limits, these feelings explode in collective actions that initially threaten the dictatorial system and subsequently, should coercion levels not decrease, attempt to sweep away the system itself to achieve higher and higher democratic levels. However, sudden and traumatic transitions from one form of government to another make entropy, imbalance, chaos, increase: therefore, the new political system must act in a suitable way to reduce unbalances, toward an order where each individual becomes responsible for the good course of the whole community.
In most cases, political actions within a democratic system help the groups (such as political parties, trade-unions, etc.) more than the individual. As a result, leaders' opinion - once transferred into the awareness of the single associates -limits, in fact, that 'global" vision the State should give citizens. Conflict is, hence, developed among parties (i.e., groups), and the individual is nothing but a reinforcement to struggles among parties. This increases the system's conflict and creates subsystems for collective actions: as a consequence, the individual's consciousness, that should be as large as possible in a democratic system, is filtered and restricted because of the interests of the group. Ideological principles are too often sacrificed in favor of interests which stimulate social conflict in that they privilege someone to the detriment of the others. Ideological principles usually call for justice as a tool to foster human evolution, but unfortunately the individual, when conflicting, competing and fighting, often loses sight of the guidelines provided by those globalizing principles he claims to believe in. In short, theory and practice contradict each other. Those phenomena, pointed out more or less in all political systems of the world, emphasize the role played by conflict at the political level: it forces citizens to continuously verify their own levels of consciousness in order to search, through conflict itself, for those principles of justice toward which anyone should tend.
We have seen so far that whatever kind of intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, social, religious, etc., conflict, it is a propaedeutic element of the evolution of human consciousness towards the principles of freedom, justice, cooperation and love to which Mankind, even if "unaware", aims. We have also said that families, groups, nations, organize themselves politically for the purpose of helping a more serene evolution of Mankind, controlling more and more the conflict deriving from the animal world that pushes, by evolutionary need, the bigger fish to eat the smaller, as well as wolves to eat lambs, lions to eat gazelles, in synthesis, leading to the survival of the strongest ones. In this sense, Darwinian evolutionism teaches us.
By his/her cultural evolution, the human being achieves overtime and in space that project potentially held in his/her genetic endowment. Conflict and the gradual increasing in consciousness are the main tools for this achievement, using principles, such as good and evil, equity, justice; means, such as punishment, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"; taking into account ideological goals such as the equality of all citizens before the law, the respect for the dignity of all human beings of the planet, the right to psychophysical and social well-being, the right to education, the protection of the weakest strata of population, the freedom of creed and faith, that is, spiritual transcendence: in a few words, the right to evolve serenely, without conflicts and negative competitions leading to "wars" among citizens, among States. Religious strives represent the utmost contradiction of the values expressed by religions themselves.
The biggest enigma for Mankind, for scholars but mainly for psychological scientist lays at the basis of the above, insofar as conflict is due to the certainty of the truth the individual, group or nation feel to possess and, hence, to the "impossibility" to integrate what is different from, or alien to, one's evolution, ideas and interests.
As we can notice, individual, social, political, divine justice have not yet for Man, in the concrete reality, a universal "profile", that is, efficient and valid for all human beings and for all Peoples. National and international positive law, in fact, plays a 'Vicarious" role as to justice, but is not yet Justice, given that the evolution of human consciousness tends to a better and better understanding of one's own psychophysical, spiritual and social identity.
The evolution of law, in fact, follows human consciousness dynamics and evolution, so that juridical rules are modified as the resolution of individual and social conflict needs laws and standards ever fitter for rendering "justice" to citizens.
We have analyzed so far conflict's origins, physiological and pathological mechanisms, as well as its utility in Peoples' cultural evolution. Society, however, with its political organizational structures takes it really into account only when conflict manifestations overstep the level of "normality", that is, when the individual's behavior degenerates beyond the limits of law. Civil and criminal rules determine the resolution of both individual and social conflicts by economic sanctions, the restriction of personal freedom, and in some countries by capital punishment. It is as if conflict resolution calls for a price the one who caused it has to pay and this does suffice to bring back the course of social life into the boundaries of "normality". Political systems apply this method of approach to social conflict resolution through the agencies of "justice". These agencies, managed by judges and lawyers, could let us think that real conflict management can be developed through a better and deeper training of judges, lawyers and judicial structures. Unfortunately, this corresponds only in part to truth, since the limits imposed to both judges and lawyers depend in fact upon the abstractness of laws and juridical rules, which say little of the existential dynamics of Man's psychophysical and spiritual development. Can we affirm nowadays that lawyers and judges are really able to mediate - and not to punish - conflict between persons or between individuals and society? Yet, the agencies of justice within a democratic framework should be the most sophisticated means to improve society, increasing citizens' consciousness thanks to a just resolution of individual and social conflict. In order to do so, it is necessary to bear in mind that the individual - confronted with stimuli he/she does not consider fair - reacts, in abnormal ways sometimes, to incur judicial actions. The worst is that he/she ignores the conceptual and educational value of the rules to respect, since in present national and international education systems these are not decoded in a way fit for teaching and producing citizens' social consciousness.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION
A comprehensive classification of the phenomenology linked to cause/effect principle is indispensable in order to determine methological
aspects of both conflict management and conflict resolution. It permits a sort of dynamic rationalization that, as such, allows a scientific approach to the phenomenon
As we have stated, dealing with conflict physiology and pathology, it is possible, regardless of the interests causing conflict, to circumscribe the phenomenon within the single individual and multiply it, if the same interests involve many persons, by the number of persons sharing the situation underway. Thus, it will be easier to understand the phenomena at the basis of conflict, because the rousing elements contradict the common "rules" of the group (moral, ethical, economic and social rules). Therefore, resolution, too, is possible through an action that restores the "sovereignty" of the principles ruling the equilibrium of the group itself.
When dealing with conflict physiology we have also seen how nations control societal dynamics by laws, juridical rules and public functions. In this context, society organizes itself in groups, associations, etc., that share ideas and strategies that they compare to each other in order to reach higher levels of wellbeing and social justice. Conflict is, therefore, allowed within the limits of non-violence. But competition is not always held within the limits of legality and the resulting bias engenders dissatisfactions which, in their turn, restrain individual and social development.
This is why conflict management and conflict resolution on the part of governments call for a better scientific knowledge of Man, in order to prevent those institutional dysfunctions which are the warning signs of more generalized conflicts.
In the last few years, in particular, we have been able to see how governments have much difficulty in giving up the old styles of conflict management, where the law of the strongest was in force to settle disputes, this causing new conflicts - within and among nations - between the desire to live in peace of younger generations and the hegemonic instinct men and nations still bring in themselves.
A real peace - consisting of the respect for Human Rights, where each human being's dignity, development and conscience must be protected and granted - is possible only by a worldwide teaching of these values, and not by mere declarations of intents or demagogic statements in favor of social and human justice. Resorting to weapons will never render justice to human dignity, but rather it legitimates overwhelming weaker people to the detriment of Human Rights. This principle leads to a profound reflection useful for seeking methods of conflict resolution in tune with the aims of the States that agree on Human Rights.
The State's sovereignty according to the international agreements has played a role in Peoples7 evolution that has been a determinant of economic and social development. However, nowadays, it is in contradiction with the principles inherent in Human Rights. As a matter of fact, these principles sanction at a planetary level the sovereignty of human dignity, universally recognized by all Peoples of the Earth. The first task of the United Nations, therefore, is not the protection of the sovereignty of the nation, but that of human dignity, of the woman-man nucleus, giving at the same time all nations of the world "laws" in accordance with the protection and development of all those values which render justice to the sovereignty of human life.
These are the outlines of a scientific, multidisciplinar^, integrated method for solving individual and social conflict and for eliminating, at the same time, the imposing manipulation of information that, unfortunately, pushes to overwhelm the weaker in favor of the stronger, be it an individual, a group, or a nation.
When States conform themselves to the principle of sovereignty of Man's (woman-man) centrality and of their dignity, their political axis will shift towards a new constitutional address: institutions (i.e., school, university, justice, health, economic, etc., agencies) will aim their studies and all their energies to carry into effect actions able to motivate the individual to live for achieving a gradual self-management of his/her own dignity and creative potentialities useful to strengthen a kind of harmonious socialization integrating human experiential diversities of all nations.
Literature on conflict management and conflict resolution shows that conflict can be: covert or overt; direct or indirect; non-violent or violent; with superiors, subordinates, peers. Conflict phenomenology can occur between interests and/or values within both personality development and groups or nations. Interests are of economic, hegemonic, etc., nature; values can be ideological, religious, ethical, cultural and so forth. Much has been said of the various forms of conflicts and we have also analyzed how a "covert" conflict can turn in a short time into a generalized conflict. The different styles of conflict management have been classified as: avoiding, compromising, obliging, dominating and integrating. We believe that whatever style of resolution that does not apply the integrating method and that does not protect the integral dignity of all single individuals, is only fictitious and postpones the problem to further forms of conflict. One must, therefore, create conditions to bring about studies and research in order to conceive a new method of approach for conflict resolution that takes into account:
1.Man's centrality, dignity, and sovereignty in his physical and social habitat;
2.that no resolution will be such if the parties do not exercise their free consensus to the resolution itself;
3. that those who manage conflict mediation must consider first of all the objective reality in which conflict took place as well as its causes, making the parties aw are of the respect due to their own dignity and to that of the other parties subject to that conflict resolution;
4. that the interests of the parties will be legitimate only on the condition that they are useful to improve the quality of life, attaching utmost emphasis to the development of values and to the qualitative expression of human potentials.
We are really able to achieve a new "civilization" today, where the human being must rise to the role of protagonist, and this calls for a serious sense of responsibility on the part of political authorities who, as is clear by now, manage the lives of millions and billions people. All of them are entitled to the right to live and to develop serenely, without those conflicts that depress the existence of the whole planet. Political authorities of the States can launch first of all a constitutional reform of the system, taking into consideration that the Constitution is a project whose sole aim is to gradually permit the highest expression of Man's potentials, by now scientifically classified in psychophysical and spiritual human potentialities. For this inherent potential to be expressed, it has to be known by both political authorities and pedagogic, scientific, economic, social and cultural institutions. Public functions, too, need a humanizing requalification in the respect due to Man's centrality.
The State's agencies of justice deserve specific attention, insofar as they are appointed to solve conflicts particularly relevant to society and to re-educate the ones who deviate from penal rules. Judicial structures will have to be fair so that no one suffers in vain and each one can understand, through "judgment", one's errors and increase one's consciousness levels. Civil and criminal sanctions must always take into account human dignity. Every phase of both inquiry and trial violates in fact the individual's fundamental freedoms ratified and protected by Constitutions. And if, on one hand, present methods still find a justification in social chaos and conflict, on the other they stress that States know little about Man and his inherent values and dignity. As a matter of fact, inquiry and evidence evaluation are too often left to the arbitrary discretion of individuals whose technical or scientific training and human conscience are often unsatisfactory. This is mainly due to judging commissions: they, too, lack the means to evaluate and identify the levels of consciousness needed to perform the duties of judge, lawyer, etc. Justice cannot be and will never be only "technique" in that Man - as said above - implies a dignity acquired by birth and the State's goal is that of making him aware of it, and of defending and protecting it within society. Social conflicts, therefore, come from the violation of Human Rights committed because of the ignorance, selfishness and thirst for power still reigning all over the world, where economic and hegemonic interests are pursued even by compromises and actions contrary to the sense of responsibility each one of us should feel, in accordance with the values of a loyal, honest, coherent and just consciousness. On the contrary, the technical value of juridical rules is often correct in the abstract, but it does not consider the dynamics of reality, the reason whereby the work of both judges and lawyers compresses reality in that technicality to the detriment of "truth". Legal sciences, therefore, and Human Rights must be integrated in order to give a sole vision of Man's psychophysical and spiritual integrity in all its dynamics and, chiefly, of the hard process that subjects people to severe trials along the whole span of their existence.
An analytical synthesis of Peoples' political and cultural evolution shows a sort of predetermination gradually leading to give life to
human consciousness, aimed at freeing Man from cerebral defensive mechanisms devoted to protect, through conflict, the mnemonic, experiential capital inherited by his family, society and
history. This stresses once more that "natura non facit saltus", a lot of energy is wasted in looking for faults which, at the present step of human evolution, are of no use for
solving problems jeopardizing the future course of life on the Earth. We remind you that the past lives in the present and prearranges the future. Therefore, we must solve problems in the
present if we wish a future that deserves to be lived.
Methods for conflict resolution shall have to be scientific, multidisciplinary and integrated, since the concrete reality is dynamic and interdependent and its explanation, as a result, needs contributions from all scientific branches. What is disintegrated is just the knowledge one has of reality. Conflict resolution and problem solving, therefore, call for an in-depth knowledge of reality and not for abstract theories which do not render justice to truth.
We stated that conflicts are mainly due to a lack of integration of what is different from us. We have to universalize knowledge in the fields of pedagogy, psychology, ecology, economics and legal sciences, orienting them all to understanding human evolutionary dynamics. This is the "conditio sine qua non" for implementing policies freeing Man from the slavery of his conditioning, which drives him to compete, to fight and to refuse what could be analyzed, integrated and even accepted if only Man's mind were adequately trained to search for new values and experiences in order to enrich unceasingly his consciousness. Education must, therefore, predispose human beings to look for new values, accepting fair comparisons, and not raising a paroxysmal defense of one's schemes, models, notions or ideas reinforced and repeated over time 4s the only existing truth. It is a matter of methodological planning so that Education can prepare brains to keep their perceptual and integrative functions "free". This is possible only by a scientific integrated method that analyses all aspects of phenomena, understands their intrinsic dynamics, and goes back to their causes. This is why a scientific, political and cultural reconstruction of the situation underway renders justice to all parties involved in the resolution. The conceptual bases have to be sought in the higher functions of the human brain and in the fundamental characteristics of the interacting information. All the rest is chaos, across which we evolve and where "chance" rules over conflicting situations: dramas, sufferings, wars - even fratricidal wars - arise from them. Let us not regret, therefore, the ecological and human catastrophe underway if in conflict resolution "honest" people still apply the method of war to achieve peace. To reverse such a mentality it is necessary to study and understand how to turn the principle of the fact of being obligatory, into a principle of integration that leads to manage and solve conflicts with justice, so that no party involved comes out of the conflict as a loser, but always as a "winner". We invite you to reflect on this point we wish that no one would think that justice discriminates, stifles or kills. It will be fair only when that resolution gives everyone the possibility to understand one's errors and to go on one's evolution, toward the self-determination of each individual of the Earth, thus making human life master of itself.
ALLISON J.R. (1990) The context, properties and constitutionality of nonconsensual arbitration: a study of four systems, in "Journal of
dispute resolution" vol. 1, 1-101, University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Law
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (1989) Rapporto sulla pena di morte nel mondo, Hoepli, Milano AXELROD R. (1984) The evolution of cooperation. New York, Basic Books
BARTOS O.J. (1974) Process and outcome of negotiations, New York, Columbia University Press
CROSS S.G. (1977) Negotiation as a learning process, in "Journal of Conflict Resolution", 21, 4, Sage
DEIGNAN G.M. (1970) Perceptual, interpersonal and situational factors in cooperation and competition, in "Dissertation Abstract", 31, 1371A
DE MARCHI F. et al. (eds.) (1987) Nuovo Dizionario di Sociologia, Ed. Paoline
DEUTSCH M. (1949) A theory of cooperation and competition, in "Human Relations", 2, 129-151
DEUTSCH M. (1973) The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes, London
DEUTSCH M. (1985) Distributive justice: a social-psychological perspective, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press
DRUCKMAN D. (1973) Human factors in international negotiations: social-psychological aspects of international conflict, Beverly Hills
DRUCKMAN D. (1978) The monitoring function in negotiation: two models of responsiveness, in "Contributions to experimental economics: Bargaining
behavior", edited by H. Sauermann, 344-374, Tubingen
DRUCKMAN D. (1983) Social psychology and international negotiations: processes and influences, in "Advances in applied social psychology", edited by R.F. Kidd and M.J. Saks, 51-81, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
DRUCKMAN D., HARRIS R. (1990) Responsiveness in international negotiation, in "Journal of Conflict Resolution", 34, 2, Sage FESTINGER L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance, Sandford University Press GAMBETTA D. (ed.) (1989) Le strategic della fiducia, Einaudi, Torino
HECKATHORN D. (1980) A unified model for bargaining and conflict, in "Behavioral Science", 25
HOFFMAN B. (1989) .An analytical survey of international conflict resolution, executive summary of a work prepared for The Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, Ottawa, Canada
HOROWITZ I. (1962) Consensus, conflict and cooperation, in "Social Forces", 41,10
KOHLBERG L. (1981) The philosophy of moral development: moral stages and the idea of justice, San Francisco, CA, Harper and Row MOSCOVICI S. (1980) Psicologia delle minoranze attive, Torino
RAHIM MA. (1985) A strategy for managing conflict in complex organizations, in "Human Relations", vol. 38 n. 1, 81-89, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
RAHIM M.A. (1990) A normative theory of conflict management: matching styles of handling interpersonal conflict with situations. Paper presented at the debate on "Alternative theoretical approaches to conflict management", 3rd annual conference of the International Association for Conflict Management, Vancouver, Canada
RUBIN J.Z., BROWN BR. (1975) The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation, New York, Academic Press
SCABINI E., GIROTTI G. (1984) Processi di gestione del conflitto: la negoziazione, in "Questioni di Psicologia politica", A. Quadrio Aristarchi (ed.), GiufTre, Milano, 274-299
SNYDER G.H., DIESING P. (1977) Conflict among nations: bargaining, decision-making and system structure in international crisis, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
SPECTOR B.I. (1975) The effects of personality, perception and power on the bargaining process and outcome. New York University
TJOSYOLD D. (i989) Interdependence approach to conflict management in organizations, in M.A. Rahim (ed.) "Managing conflict: an interdisciplinary
approach", 41-50, New York, Praeger
TRIMARCHI M. (1982) Peace, a universal heritage. Address to the Nobel Prize for Peace Winners gathered at CEU Headquarters, Rome TRIMARCHI M. (1983) A neuropsychophysiological integrated theory on lateralization and codification of the cerebral hemispheres, in "The brain and the integration of sciences", vol. 1, ADE-CEU Pubs., Rome
TRIMARCHI M., CIGLIANO F. (1985) Justice and Human Rights, 6th International Conference of the Council of Europe "The European Convention on Human Rights". Sevilla (Spain)
TRIMARCHI M.. PAPESCHI L.L. (1986) Biological and sociological mechanisms of aggressiveness, in "Toward a world of peace", J.P. Maas and R.A.C. Stewart (eds.). Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conflict resolution and Peace studies, The University of the South Pacific TRIMARCHI M.. PAPESCHI L.L. (1986) Science and conscience towards world peace. Paper presented at the Fuschl Community Conversation within the International Systems Science Society, Fuschl (Austria), ADE-CEL1 Pubs., Rome
TRIMARCHI M.. PAPESCHI L.L. (1986) The culture of life has still to be born, International Seminar "The year of peace - for the sake of life" within the U.N. International year of peace. Murikka (Finland), ADE-CEU Pubs., Rome
TRIMARCHI M.. PAPESCHI L.L. (1986) Biological, psychological and sociological aspects of ethnic discrimination, 2nd UN Congress on Human Rights, Dakar (Senegal)
TRIMARCHI M. (1986) Crime is potentially in our brain. Lecture given at the 9th International Course of Higher Specialization for Police Forces. International Center for Sociological, Penal and Penitentiary Studies and Research, Messina (Italy)
TRIMARCHI M. (1987) The integrated sciences in service of person's dignity for the implementation of Human Rights. International congress organized by the French Ministry of the Interior on "Emergency situations: powers and responsibilities of Police Forces - Human Rights", ADE-CEU Pubs., Rome TRIMARCHI M., PAPESCHI L.L. (1987) The dynamic interdependence of Peoples* evolution. Round-table co-organized by CEU and FIDAPA on "Reflections and trends in international cooperation with Developing Countries", ADE-CEU Pubs., Rome
TRIMARCHI M (1990) Neuropsychophysiology of perception within cerebral lateralization processes. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference of the I.O.P. (International Organization of Psychophysiology), Budapest, Hungary (in press)
WINHAM G.R. (1977) Complexity in international negotiation, in "Negotiations: social-psychological perspectives", edited by D. Druckman, 347-366, Beverly Hills, CA. Sage.