Conflict Map And Analysis

Case Study

Discuss about the Conflict Map and Analysis.

Conflict resolution is the process of finding an amicable solution to a conflict between two rival groups that are involved in dispute. Rivaling groups try to resolve their conflict by actively communicating or bringing forward their concerns and negotiating on the best way to end the debate. Conflict resolution is a delicate process that is sensitive to environmental factors and cultural practices. Finding a solution to a conflict is a process that requires a clear understanding of the primary issue and laying down the possible consequences for taking an individual course of action. Some approaches can are applicable in conflict resolution. These include mediation, litigation, and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration involve revolving solving a conflict through a third party who does not participate in the battle. Litigation, on the other hand, involves conflict resolution through a court action. The purpose of this essay is to draw an analysis of a conflict case study by analyzing the underlying facts and stating what ought to be done to de-escalate the crisis.

In the case study above, there is a conflict involving George Pell, Australian cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and David Ridsdale, a high-ranking government official. David accused George of offering a bribe to him to withhold a testimony involving a child abuse case. The conflict arises because George Pell refused to appear before the Royal Commission in person to present his evidence and instead opting to do it over the video from Vatican (Halter, 2013, pp.261).

The conflict resolution method involved in this case is litigation. Litigation is used to coerce disputing parties to participate in the conflict resolution process. The two sides involved have to present their testimonies to the royal commission to end the controversies (Marr, 2013).

A royal commission is an organization that is mandated to make public inquiries into a contentious national issue. The royal commission has the power to sermon all the parties involved in the controversy. It has an obligation to listen and analyze all the testimonies and facts regarding a matter before making a ruling. Stakeholders, on the other hand, have a right to a fair hearing and an obligation to present any evidence that might help them resolve the case. The parties involved are required to sign an agreement affirming that they will abide by the decision of the royal commission. Even though the royal commission judges get an endorsement from the government of the day, their rulings are free of political interference. Royal commissions highly regard transparency and integrity.

Causes of the Conflict

1. Political factors – the two primary parties involved in this case are the government and the Catholic Church. The government participates in the fact that it appoints the royal commission judge bench even though the commission has its independent powers. The current justices of the royal commission received an endorsement from the previous government which later formed the opposition after losing the last general elections. The Catholic Church has good relations and influence with the current administration. This factor offers a perfect platform for the government and opposition to flex their ideological muscles thereby escalating the crises further (Budiselik 2014, pp.565).
2. The media – the publicity given to this case by the media houses has exceeded what is necessary for the resolution process. The case has made headlines for some days thereby creating more tension in the society. The media attention has also changed the way the society views handles conflict due to the varying opinions that are offered by the stakeholders.
3. Financial factors – the Australian government has not provided any extra financial support to the direct stakeholders so as to enable them to give their testimonies before the commission in person. The lack of funding has reduced the chances of fair representation of the defendant (Middleton et al. 2014, pp.20).
4. Social-cultural factors – there has been a significant change in the way that people handle disputes over the last three decades. Victims of sexual abuse, for instance, were earlier viewed as outcasts and often encountered discrimination from the members of the society. On the other hand, the perpetrators of such crimes were left to walk free without facing any consequences for these offenses. The situation has however changed. The society profoundly disregards authors of social evils. Nevertheless, the society has become more concerned with the victim of such an offense and will fight for the victim’s justice through legal actions.
5. Legal factors – tension further escalates because the previous administration appointed the judging bench of the royal commission. It is not clear whether the current government, which is a stakeholder in the crises, may decide to make changes to the royal commission before the commencement of the proceedings (Waddell and Jones, 2016).

1. Cost effective – traveling from Vatican to Australia is a long distance that would require a substantial investment. In addition to the above factor, George Pell is ailing and would need medical support to accompany him. The additional individuals would mean that the transport cost would further increase.
2. Time saving – delivering testimony via video will take lesser time than traveling from Europe to Australia. A video communication is thus as effective as giving the evidence in person while since it saves time.
3. More efficient than other conflict resolution methods – litigation process assures all the parties involved in getting a fair hearing. The parties are also assured of justice unlike in other conflict resolution processes like arbitration where the arbitrator is prone to manipulation.

1. Escalation of the crises due to publicity – in the above case, a Catholic priest, and a high-ranking government official are involved which therefore attracts public attention. All the parties involved such as the legislators, the media, and the public has their motives which further magnifies the impact of the case on the society. The media, for instance, is excited since they will attract more public attention with the story. This awareness will, in turn, increase their sales.
2. The process may be time-consuming in some instances. The delay happens the details involved in the case are many and complex prompting the royal commission to spend more time analyzing the situation. Furthermore, there are legal procedures that must be followed regarding the presentation of evidence and making a ruling. The legal proceedings consist of a given timeframe which the judges must wait before making a decision.
3. Litigation might be costly in some instances. The high cost is due to the bills that every citizen is required to pay when registering a case. In addition to these expenses, a favorable case such as the one above may prompt lawyers to ask for high legal fees which the parties involved are required to finance.
4. The case above may not be fair due to the likeliness of government interference. The defendant, in this instance, is a government official. It means that the legislators are keen to defend the state and may thus interfere with the proceedings of the royal commission.

The case study presented here has escalated to the national level due to the high profile of the individuals involved. The primary driving force behind this escalation is not the weight of the dispute involved but the media attention that it has involved. What is clear is that the motive of the media houses is to promote their businesses and not to advocate for justice and fairness.

Litigation is an excellent method of conflict resolution in this case as a way of providing transparency and impartiality to both parties. However, there is a much broader scope that involves this case. Litigation has provided an avenue to publicity of the issue which is inappropriate considering that the primary victim is a sexual abuse child. Continuous broadcasting is likely to negatively affect the child’s life and instill fear in them. That is why it would have been more appropriate to consider another conflict resolution method (Barsky, 2014).

One of the best-known methods of resolving disputes in such a case is arbitration. Arbitration is a process of resolving conflicts whereby a third party reviews the facts involved in making a ruling that is legally binding to both sides. The third party is known as an arbitrator. Arbitration gives the parties involved a chance to agree on the arbitrator thereby reducing a chance of interference from external parties (Kohn and Rosenberg, 2014, pp.1151)

1. Unlike in litigation where a person is not allowed to choose the jury, arbitration gives the opposing parties a chance to state whether they are comfortable with the third party who is helping resolve the conflict. Disputing parties in arbitration get an opportunity to present their suggestions to the appropriate the appropriate arbitrator before commencing the proceedings. In this case, they can choose a highly qualified legal professional to offer them a solution.
2. Arbitration saves the time involved in conflict resolution process. No given period has been stipulated by the law within which the process should take place. The parties involved are the ones that agree on how soon they would want to end the conflict.
3. The process is less costly in comparison with other conflict resolution techniques such as litigation. In litigation, disputing parties are required to pay court fees and hire attorneys to represent them. It is not the case in arbitration. Hiring legal professionals, in this instance, is a personal decision. This fact makes the process cost efficient.
4. Arbitration is a nonpublic process. Rival parties can solve their dispute at discretion. This fact is what makes it the most preferred conflict resolution method. In the preliminary case study, all the factors of litigation involved such as the jury can fit into arbitration. What makes the later more efficient is that it offers the parties more privacy thereby reducing the adverse effects of publicity.
5. The parties are at liberty to seek further legal advice in an instance where they fail to agree on the way forward. They also have the freedom of adopting other conflict resolution methods such as litigation. The reverse is not true for litigation. Parties solving a dispute through litigation is not at liberty to turn into other methods because the ruling made in this case is final. In case one of the parties feels uncomfortable with the decision, they may extend hostilities to the other parties indirectly. This hostility may further complicate the dispute.

1. There is a limitation to appeal. There is no set guidelines as to how the arbitration process should be carried out. Lack of a predetermined set of conditions to guide this process makes it vulnerable to erroneous judgments that may be unfair to one of the parties. Such a decision may be difficult to overturn where the parties had committed themselves to a permanent final solution from the arbitrator.
2. An arbitrator has no power to enforce the rulings that they make. The lack of an executive authority leaves one of the parties exposed to injustice after the final decision.

The royal commission has the power to lecture all the groups involved in the crises. It has the duty to evaluate and analyze all the evidence and material facts regarding an issue before offering an opinion. There is a wider range that involves this incident. Legal action has provided an avenue to publicize of the subject which is unfortunate considering that the ultimate casualty is a sexual offense youngster. Unceasing propagation is likely to adversely affect the child’s life and possibly drill fear in them. It is the reason as to why it would be more suitable to put into consideration other conflict resolution approaches. Conflict resolution through legal action is a complex process and is prone to environmental influences and cultural orientation (Foley, 2015, pp.164). Coming up with a solution to the problem is a route that entails a clear understanding of the principal facts and establishing the likely consequences for carrying out a given activity.

There exist various tactics that are applicable in conflict elimination. These include arbitration mediation and litigation. Mediation and adjudication comprise of deescalating crises through other parties that are not involved in the skirmish (Moore, 2014). Court process, on the other hand, comprises of a conflict resolution through a legal approach. The people have a right to a fair representation and a duty to bring forward any information that can assist them to win the case. Conflicting individuals might be obligated to affirm their commitment that they will adhere to the requirements of a tribunal or decision of the royal commission (Mullis and Scott, 2012, pp.5). The current government instills the royal commission judges; their verdicts are free of civil intrusion. Royal commissions strictly observe transparency and honesty. The participating individuals have the right to seek further resolution alternatives in a case where they fail to get an amicable solution. They are also at liberty to adopt other conflict resolution techniques such as mediation. It is, however, not likely in the case of litigation. People finding a solution to a crisis through court action do not have the right to turn to other techniques since the decision made by this channel is abiding by both parties. In the case where one of the parties unsatisfied with the decision, they are likely to become more hostile to their rivals even after the ruling. This aggression may further escalate the crisis. It is vital to the point that different conflict resolution methods have their unique characteristics that make them suitable for different occasions. Although some approaches are appropriate for reducing a crisis, they are likely to bring about further problems in the following years (Ralph, 2013, pp.19).

Advantages of Litigation in the Case Study

Conclusion

Conflict resolution is a process that requires keen attention to details. It is important to note that not all peace finding methods are appropriate wherever there is a crisis. Even though some techniques may appear necessary do deescalating a crisis, they may have an adverse outcome in the long-term. In the case study above, a very crucial step of finding the best conflict resolution approach did not get consideration. Adoption of litigation without making further inquiries on the long term effects helped escalate the crises instead of offering a solution. It would have been more appropriate to consider the broader effects of every approach before coming up with the one to adopted. In addition to the above considerations, there is a need of bringing together all the stakeholders of a conflict together before commencing the resolution process. This gathering would offer a platform for sensitizing them on the part they have to play in de-escalating the crisis. 

References

Barsky, A., 2014. Conflict resolution for the helping professions. Oxford University Press.

Budiselik, W., Crawford, F. and Chung, D., 2014. The Australian Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse: dreaming of child safe organisations?. Social Sciences, 3(3), pp.565-583.

Foley, T., 2015. Institutional responses to child sexual abuse: how a moral conversation with its lawyers might contribute to cultural change in a faith-based institution. Legal Ethics, 18(2), pp.164-181.

Gounaris, S., Chatzipanagiotou, K., Boukis, A. and Perks, H., 2016. Unfolding the recipes for conflict resolution during the new service development effort. Journal of Business Research.

Guerzoni, M. and Graham, H., 2015. Catholic Church Responses to Clergy-Child Sexual Abuse and Mandatory Reporting Exemptions in Victoria, Australia: A Discursive Critique. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 4(4), pp.58-75.

Halter, N., 2013. The Australian Catholic Church and the Public Sphere: World Youth Day 2008. Journal of Religious History, 37(2), pp.261-282.

Healy, K., 2015. Becoming a trustworthy profession: Doing better than doing good. Australian Social Work, pp.1-10.

Korn, D. and Rosenberg, D., 2012. Concepcion’s Pro-Defendant Biasing of the Arbitration Process: The Class Counsel Solution. U. Mich. JL Reform,46, p.1151.

Marr, D., 2013. The prince: Faith, abuse and George Pell. Quarterly Essay, (51), p.1.

Middleton, W., Stavropoulos, P., Dorahy, M.J., Krüger, C., Lewis-Fernández, R., Martínez-Taboas, A., Sar, V. and Brand, B., 2014. The Australian Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 48(1), pp.17-21.

Moore, C.W., 2014. The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.

Mullis, A. and Scott, A., 2012. Reframing libel: taking (all) rights seriously and where it leads. N. Ir. Legal Q., 63, p.5.

Ralph, N., Welch, A.J., Norris, P. and Irwin, R., 2013. Reflections on power, conflict and resolution for the perioperative environment. ACORN: the journal of perioperative nursing in Australia, 26(1), p.19.

Waddell, T. and Jones, T.W., 2016. The spoken and unspoken nature of child abuse in the miniseries Devil’s Playground: The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the Catholic Church and television drama in Australia. Media International Australia, p.1329878X16631840.

Wallensteen, P., 2015. Understanding conflict resolution. Sage.