CIIAN NEWS

CIIAN NEWS Returns After Hiatus
The Canadian International Institute of Applied Negotiation distributes CIIAN News three times a year. Through the newsletter we seek to serve CIIAN’s graduates, present candidates and the larger conflict resolution community. One means through which we provide service to our graduates is by promoting the RPDR designation as well as the work of RPDR’s. We also seek to keep our readers informed of CIIAN’s domestic and international activities. Most of all we seek to establish a forum for the CR community to share and exchange ideas relevant to the field. We invite all of our readers to contribute to the dialogue. Please send submissions to:
conciian@magma.ca

CIIAN NEWS
Senior Editor

Pierre LeBlanc

Layout and Design

Heather Pincock

“If we value our own lives, and the lives of our children and all the children everywhere, if we honour both the past and the future, then we must do everything in our power to work non-violently for Peace.” ~Margaret Laurence

Pierre LeBlanc

Editorial

The practice of ADR, in Canada and internationally, faces important challenges in the new construct accentuated by the September 11th tragedy. Accentuated because, in most ways, little has changed for most of the planet’s citizens. As monstrous as was the fear and the pain lived by those who died on that day, on by those who nearly did, and as searing as was and will continue to be the suffering felt by their loved ones; as unconscionable an act as this was, its carnage and destruction is a reality not unlike that experienced by many people around the world on a repetitive, soul-numbing basis.

You would think that such an earth-shattering event would caused our political leaders to pause, and that we as western societies would have drawn a few lessons therein. The compounding tragedy of 9/11 is that we have collectively, it seems, been blinded and deafened by the blow, and have elected to multiply the suffering emanating from this event. Including eliminating all the “undesirables” we can get our hands on in the hills and grottos of Afghanistan, be they bedevilled fighters, mothers, daughters, sons and fathers. The collective thirst we apparently seek to quench could not have been captured and delivered more eloquently and succinctly than it was by a young Canadian soldier at the front who said, and I quote, “We are here to destroy and to kill them”. Obviously, he has not yet been schooled in the principles of proper war etiquette and public relations. A more seasoned soldier asserted on national news on March 17th that they were going to make the Al Qaeda pay for what they did in New York. As this action drags on, our nation’s motives and justification become increasingly tenuous, be it morally or in regards to internal law, and its mid and long term effects become less and less predictable or containable.

Readers might be forgiven for asking whether this is not a rather inappropriate opening to an editorial on ADR. To the extent that the underpinning of ADR is the prevention and resolution of conflict or, at the very least, the containment of its “collateral damage”, ADR practitioners carry a heavy burden in these troubled times. ADR is about creating conditions wherein the resolution of conflicts becomes feasible. It is not about standing idly by while depravation and despair are being surgically compounded by bombs, thus creating the conditions for more unfathomable conflict and suffering for generations to come. September 11 and its corollary, the so-called war on terrorism, are a perverse gift that is sure to keep on giving, and giving.

The ADR community internationally, and Canada’s in particular given this country’s historical role in the fostering of peace, has the responsibility to generate understanding and provide guidance on the anatomy of conflict and on the essential pre-conditions to its management and resolution. If we collectively do not meet the challenge, the Afghani Echo will murmur for some time, and resound louder and louder as rage progressively obliterates reason and self-interest, and as depravation and suffering demand payment in blood. At that moment, interest-based dispute resolution becomes moot. And community, clinical and judicial ADR are diminished in both their effectiveness and their relevance.

A Shift of Pace for CIIAN

The Canadian International Institute of Applied Negotiation (CIIAN) is pleased to confirm that it is resuming the publication of its newsletter. The recent hiatus in publication is linked to the review of CIIAN’s strategic orientation. This review was initiated in the wake of the departure of the Institute’s founding director, Dr. Ben Hoffman, for the Carter Institute in Atlanta, Georgia. In revisiting CIIAN’s positioning in the dispute resolution field, we found it useful to briefly review its history.

CIIAN’s Beginnings

In 1987-1988, Ben Hoffman undertook a master’s program in Negotiation at Harvard University. His studies led him to create a Canadian organization that would focus on the potential of interest-based negotiation as a viable option for the resolution of disputes, a new field at the time. Ideas of social justice also drove the founding of the Institute, as well as concern for access to justice.

In 1987 The Honourable T.G. Zuber, in his Report of the Ontario Courts Inquiry documented the limited "real access" to justice due to the backlog of the courts. At the time, access to justice for middle-class Canadians was one of the concerns that motivated the Canadian Donner Foundation to support Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Canada. In 1990-1991, convinced that there was a need for an organization to offer a comprehensive training program in alternate dispute resolution, especially one that focused on mid-career and above candidates, Dr. Hoffman launched CIIAN. Although the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JI) offered a certificate in conflict resolution aimed at provincial service providers (police, paramedics, social workers, etc), no such programs existed in Central and Eastern Canada at the time. At first, efforts were made to house the Institute within one of the Ottawa area universities. However, this proved unworkable and the Institute was established as a stand-alone organization, with Concorde Inc. acting as its Secretariat.

CIIAN’s Thrust and Programming

Following extensive design and planning, CIIAN’s ADR Certificate Program was launched in 1992. At the time, it was only the second comprehensive program offered in Canada. The Program consisted of seven courses, a professional paper, a mediation moot, and a 200-300 hour practicum. Its focus was one of theory-informed practice aimed at the reflective practitioner. Candidates were encouraged to become involved in the evolving field of alternative dispute resolution, to contribute to its theoretical framework and to its practice, as well as to enhance the development of the individual practitioner active in this field. The Institute sought out and attracted some of the most qualified and effective Canadian trainers to offer the three-day courses. Through promotion and other means, a wide diversity of candidates participated in the Program from across Canada and beyond over the years.
CIIAN soon became one of the leading ADR organizations in Canada, gaining a solid reputation for effective programming and training, thus contributing extensively to building the ADR practitioners’ pool in Canada and abroad. Recognizing a need in 1994, CIIAN attempted to initiate a Canadian-based dialogue on the issue of standards and certification of mediators. A working paper was written and circulated to key organizations and individu-als in the field. CIIAN saw its role as a catalyst in bringing about this dialogue. Unfortunately, it proved difficult to establish a dialogue on this controversial issue. Most organizations decided to pursue their own unilateral direction regarding certification and standards. CIIAN decided to formulate the designation Registered Practitioner in Dispute Resolution (RPDR). The aim of RPDR was to develop a pool of practitioners through an iterative process of evolving standards and certification, in contrast to the top-down approach of a number of ADR organizations.

CIIAN’s International Initiatives

In 1994-1995, CIIAN launched its international ADR intervention program. Its first partnership was fashioned with the Foundation for Democractic Change (FDC) in Romania, which sought CIIAN’s assistance in establishing a conflict resolution program for mid-range actors in their country in the post Soviet Union environment. Since 1995, CIIAN has been involved in supporting capacity building for the expression and resolution of conflict through interest-based, collaborative means. CIIAN personnel have acted as catalysts, mentors, program designers, trainers, and evaluators for programs in Eastern Europe, South America, South Asia, Asia, the Middle East, and the Caribbean. CIIAN has offered its Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution Program (PB & CR) to international audiences featuring over 30 countries. It now partners with organizations in different countries through which to custom-design and offer this PB & CR program. CIIAN is presently involved in discussions with potential new partners in Ethiopia, Somalia and Azerbaijan, while an organization in Sri Lanka is showing keen interest.
In addition, CIIAN designed and developed the inaugural program for The Lester B. Pearson Canadian International Peacekeeping Training Centre and has trained peacekeepers for the Peace Support Operation in Kingston and the RCMP in Ottawa.

Domestically, CIIAN has gained a sound reputation for its design of customized corporate programs. Some examples include conflict management in the workplace, mediation of alleged harassment, early intervention programs within the Public Service Commission’s appeals process, union/management negotiations, international negotiations, and convening.

CIIAN’s Shift of Pace

Over the past decade, CIIAN continually participated in and monitored the development of the ADR field. In response to the changing nature of the field and market demands, CIIAN revised its original program three times over the years in order to maintain the quality of its original ADR Certificate Program and to maintain its niche in the marketplace.

Over the past 6 to 8 months, CIIAN has taken a serious, considered look at the field of ADR in Canada. In contrast to the dearth of ADR programming which was prevalent in the early 90’s, the market is now flooded with opportunities to learn and develop. ADR certificate programs range from less than forty hours of classroom time, to graduate certificate programs in conflict resolution, to master’s programs in conflict analysis and conflict management.

Hence, at the domestic level, CIIAN is charting a new direction to scale a new frontier in dispute resolution in Canada. CIIAN will be taking a specialist approach to training dispute resolution practitioners with an emphasis on the RPDR designation. At the same time, a summer institute will be offered through which interested parties can still obtain CIIAN’s highly respected Certificate in ADR. CIIAN wishes to advise its corporate and government partners that it will continue to design and develop customized programs for specific clientele upon request.
At the international level, CIIAN will continue to centre its activities on capacity building in selected areas of the world. As well, partnering for the offering of the PB & CR Certificate Program will remain an active component of the International Program. Forays into supporting the NGO development community in rounding out its capacity development initiatives with ADR and peacebuilding capabilities will constitute a new initiative for the International Program. Stay tuned for more details over the coming months.

CIIAN is envisioning this shift in orientation with renewed vigour and looks forward to working with people involved domestically and internationally in endeavours requiring ADR and peacebuilding capabilities. It sees this newsletter as a forum for the exchange of ideas, the communication of ADR trends and challenges and the furthering of domestic and international ADR and peacebuilding solutions.

Report on CIIAN’s International Activities

CIIAN’s International Program continues its focus on capacity building for the expression and resolution of conflict through principled, non-violent means. The Institute’s personnel serve as catalysts, mentors, facilitators, trainers, subject matter experts and ADR program evaluators to organizations and institutions around the world.
Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities Program in Pakistan

CIIAN is partnered with the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) to design, develop, and implement an educational pilot project centred on citizenship and human rights education and conflict resolution. The two Canadian organizations have partnered with two teacher training institutes - one in Lahore and one in Karachi - to facilitate the building of elementary and secondary curricula in these subject areas and to pilot test the concepts in schools in the respective cities. Other aspects of this CIDA funded project include initiating a dialogue on the topics with selected ulema, building awareness amongst national and provincial educational personnel and civil society in general, generating a cadre of Pakistani expertise in citizenship and human rights education and conflict resolution, and developing a plan of action for scale-up utilizing lessons learned in the pilot phase. Involvement of the Ministry of Education and the respective Provincial Departments of Education are also key aspects of the initiative.
One of the key findings to date is the need to orient the curriculum so that it assists the children and youth in Pakistan to learn how to create a democracy. This contrasts substantially with a Canadian approach which prepares students to live in a democracy. As might be anticipated, some resistance (substantial by specific individuals) has been experienced with some of the educational ministry officials, especially on the topic of human rights. However, Pakistan has taken major steps to initiate other human rights programs, especially with police and the legal profession. Support for such initiatives comes from the highest government levels.
As might be appreciated, this Program has been delayed by the attacks in the US on September 11th and the fall out as it affected Pakistan. Active involvement has now resumed.

Governance and Institutional Strengthening Program (GISP), Sri Lanka

CIIAN has been providing conflict resolution expertise to The Centre for Human Rights Research and Education, University of Ottawa in its program in Sri Lanka. Most recently, Flaurie Storie supported the conflict resolution component of the Program by working with the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission in Colombo.
Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Justice has an extensive, ten year old mediation program, the Community Mediation Program, that supports the civil and criminal courts of the country. There are over five thousand volunteer mediators who serve on Mediation Panels (three mediators) run by regional Mediation Boards. Services are provided to all citizens of participating areas who wish to avail themselves of mediation for their specific disputes. Given the two decade-plus years of civil war (a ceasefire was signed by the present government and the Tamil Tiger leadership during the week of February 18th), the program does not reach to the North and East in areas held by the Tamil Tigers. Flaurie worked with the cadre of train-the-trainers bringing helpful concepts and training methodology with which the present mediator training program will be revised.

A pilot schools mediation program had been initiated by the Mediation Board in the Katana region (north of Colombo) with two of the Ministry’s trainers providing the mediation training. They were most anxious to draw upon Flaurie’s extensive experience in this area.

The work with the Human Rights Commission focused on introductory mediation training for the inquiry and legal officers of the Commission. By regulation, the Commission is to provide conciliation and mediation services to disputants, particularly those filing cases involving fundamental rights. The Commission had yet to distinguish between the two processes or provide training support to their officers. An introductory training program was carried out to help distinguish between conciliation and mediation and to provide some basic concepts and strategies. The GISP Program whose mandate is at the institutional strengthening level will continue to work with the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission to support in the development of the Commission’s approach to mediation.

It is anticipated that CIIAN will continue to support this Program. As well, it was invited to consider providing the practical arm of a forthcoming certificate program in conflict studies at the University of Colombo.

Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution Certificate Program

CIIAN’s approach to offering the PB & CR Certificate Program is to partner with an organization in a specific conflict zone. Discussions are ongoing with organizations in Ethiopia and Somalia. Most recently, an invitation to partner has come from Nepal. CIIAN works with the partner organization to custom-design a program that meets local needs while bringing a Canadian perspective.

Serious consideration is being given to offering the Certificate Program in Ottawa in August 2002. An increasing number of inquiries have been received since September 11th. CIIAN is actively considering focussing on the development of DR capacity for NGO’s working in conflict zones. If interested in such a program, please contact us by email. conciian@magma.ca

Other International Activities

CIIAN continues to support its partner, the Federation for Democratic Change (FDC), in Romania. FDC has been the Romanian leader in capacity building in dispute resolution, including establishing mediation as a recognized occupation. It has recently been invited to establish a centre for the evaluation of mediators and has called upon CIIAN to provide support to this endeavour. CIIAN is presently in discussion with a group in Azerbaijan which is attempting to establish a mobile conflict resolution training centre.

Flaurie Storie

This article is reprinted with the permission of Interaction Quarterly.

The world has changed. The world has changed. The world has changed. How many times have we heard this since the September 11th terrorist attacks in the United States? The thought that keeps coming to mind is “Whose world?”

Without qualification, there are many who can claim that their world has changed. There are the family, friends, neighbours, and colleagues and so forth of those who lost their lives on that fateful day. There are all the North Americans who never thought for one instant that they could be touched by terrorists of such far away places, let alone in this magnitude of lost lives and through such horrendous visual images. There are the Western political and military leaders who believed that their power and its expressed structures could protect the citizens of their societies from such acts of violence. No doubt an innocence of security was the first casualty for many on September 11th. Truly, many worlds changed.

However, what of others? How has their world changed? A case in point. On September 12th, I was working with a group of Sri Lankans in their capital, Colombo. Almost half the group had not heard of the attacks. There was not much discussion, let alone dismay expressed, when informed of the events. The reaction and attitude can be summed up by one participant’s words offered with a shrug; “Maybe now they will understand what it has been like for us all these years”. Is such a reaction so surprising after thousands upon thousands of lives of their own have been lost due to violence? Is such a reaction so surprising when on a day that saw 2,000 Sri Lankans slaughtered, the Globe and Mail’s front page headline reported one military personnel killed in Bosnia, while only reporting the 2,000 Sri Lankan deaths in a four or five line segment buried deep in the bowels of the newspaper?

The following day, September 13th, saw a symposium on principled conflict resolution with presenters from both Sri Lanka and Canada with approximately two hundred participants. Those who provided opening remarks and the moderator made respectful comments regarding the terrorist attacks. We, Canadians, wove this heinous violence into our presentations where appropriate. However, during discussion time, during breaks, over lunch, at the reception afterwards, there was little discussion except amongst the few Americans, British and Canadians when we were our sole audience.

Certainly for many Sri Lankans, from their perspective in the short term anyway, their world did not change on September 11, 2001.

As a Canadian, this experience was surreal. To feel the attacks as a Canadian, as a North American, as a neighbour of the United States, as a conflict resolutionary while all around such different reaction. The closest I had come to similar feelings of shock, disbelief and fear was the day I received a telephone call to say that my brother had been hit by a train while riding his motorcycle. Likewise on the Saturday evening the news broke reporting Quebec Minister Pierre Laporte’s FLQ murder, my body shook from head to toe. And yet at the same time, to continue on with the program at hand was a daunting challenge. Perhaps it explains why I had such clarity around what this was about and what recourse of action was essential. I sat down and banged out a letter to my MP and one to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen. This is what I wrote to The Citizen:

“The violence inflicted by the terrorists on September 11th in the United States of America needs to be condemned in the strongest of terms. The sorrows reigned on so many beg the deepest compassion. To be taught to so profoundly hate and demonize defies imagination.

At the same time, as an organization whose mission is capacity building for the principled expression and resolution of conflict, we are deeply troubled by the rhetoric of war and revenge. These are criminal acts. We decry retributive revenge through violence; the rule of law must be the first course of action for justice sought.

For to give back in kind is to do no different than those who murdered so many through these despicable acts of terrorism. How we respond to those who committed this horrendous violence is a measure of how far along the spectrum of civilization we truly are. Do we truly believe in the basic values at the very foundation of our country? Or are they only there to be trotted out in days of sunshine?

We urge the Government of Canada to respond through principled means. We further urge the Government of Canada to lead the international community in influencing the American government to house their response within the rule of law. Only if that fails, should measured considerations of force be contemplated.

We are being sorely tested. The way forward for all citizens of our universe totters at the precipice of macro violence. Will we join those who are of hate and violence? Will we play into the hands of those who have created this destructive path? Or will we design a path of our own making to bring justice, equity and peace to our troubled planet?”

As I read this today, there is nothing that I would change. There are additions that I would make. I would contend that by reacting with military force, we would be playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda for a different reason (whether they are responsible for these heinous murders or not). For what has become clear is that it not just hate and fear that is the driving force. The aim is to escalate the anti-Western, anti-modernization, anti-American sentiment that exist widely amongst the Muslim population; the purpose being to coalesce the Muslim world to form Islamic states in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and as far reaching as Indonesia. We, the West, and in particular the United States are a means to an end (yes, we are being used).

And now what? As someone who has been involved in countries of violent civil conflict, it has become clear to me that the backbone of a civil society is the rule of law. To have so quickly (and it was quick) chosen the path of military bombardment against the state of Afghanistan, we have seriously transgressed upon the principles and values that are the foundations of true democracies; not to mention international humanitarian law. I recognize that as a neighbour of the United States, we had little choice but to support their direction once decided upon. We now must add to that role. Canada needs to reach deep within its tradition and lead in the formation of a coalition of mid-power nations. There is a need for a third side to create a space for voices too long shut down; to find a path that leads the citizens of this world from this seriously dangerous precipice upon which we find ourselves. One of the most frightful yet hopeful outcomes of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 is the exposed vulnerability of the state structure. The interdependency of nations and thus the need for principled cooperation that respects all peoples has never been more obvious.

And what about the micro level? My world has changed. In my far-flung travels, I do not expect to be embraced as a Canadian, as in the past. I have an enhanced conviction of the importance of my work in conflict resolution. I am more aware of the fragility of democratic values and principles. At the same time, what hasn’t changed is my determination. I refuse to be terrorized. I will continue to sleep on air flights as I did on September 15th as we flew to London over the airspace of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.

Sobornost

A Russian concept from the philosophy of communalism developed in isolated villages that were under constant threat by marauding animals, outlaws and natural disasters. Sobornost means that even if it is hard to like each other, our continuity and our survival depends on caring for each other. If we can adopt caring as a norm, the discussion of tools, policies and practices ensuring safety and security takes on a new quality, one of human warmth.
How can we apply this concept to the issues surrounding 9/11?

Evan Hoffman

In February of this year I acted as a consultant in the design and delivery of a six-day Peacebuilding Workshop delivered in Nairobi by the Conflict Resolution Program (CRP) of Atlanta’s Carter Center.
This unique workshop was designed to fill several needs; not only did it provide training to the CRP staff, but it also brought together six representatives from each of the GoS, SPLM/A, and Uganda. The goals of the workshop were defined as:

Explore peacebuilding in intra-state conflict;
Learn negotiation and mediation skills;
Learn from each other;
Build relationships for peace.

Once the participants, themselves, decided on the ground rules that would guide the workshop, training officially began. The first three days were spent exploring the theory and tools of conflict resolution, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), mediation, and negotiation. Participants then had a chance to practice these new skills in several roleplays. On day four the focus was on communication skills, specifically, learning to listen. The following day, workshop participants had the opportunity to share with the group any peacebuilding activities that they are currently involved in. Presentations were made on behalf of UNICEF, CHARM, and Operation Save Innocent Lives (OSIL). In the afternoon two keynote speakers joined the group: former Kenyan Ambassador Betheul Kiplagat spoke of his work in assisting the peace process in Mozambique; whilst Dr. Mwiguru from the University of Nairobi had an opportunity to share his experiences with inter-tribal conflict resolution in Kenya’s Rift Valley. The final day of the workshop concluded with a complex multi-party roleplay and a simulated press- conference. Throughout the entire workshop techniques were used to constantly shift group dynamics and thus stimulate social interactions.

The results of the workshop were, overall, very positive. Many participants expressed a need for and an interest in similar future workshops. But it is clear that the 31 participants have returned to their home communities with both practical skills in resolving conflicts non-violently and the theory to back such skills.
Also, as the “circle was closed” on the last day, it was clear from the participants’ comments and reflections about the week that the workshop created a space for sharing common interests, building trust, forming new relationships, and stimulating constructive dialogue amongst a people who have been in conflict since 1956. As one participant stated, “I am grateful for the opportunity to have sat in a room with people who are my enemy and learn from them”.

Evan has an MA in Postwar Recovery Studies and writes from Khartoun, Sudan.

David Daubney

Restorative Justice is a way of viewing justice that puts the emphasis on healing relationships that have been broken by conflict and crime. In this approach crime is understood as a violation of people and relationships and a disruption of the peace of the community, and not only as an offence against the state. Restorative justice is collaborative and inclusive. It encourages the participation of victims, offenders and the community affected by the crime in finding solutions that seek to achieve reconciliation and restore harmony.

In the 15 or so years we, in Canada, have been exploring restorative justice approaches to crime and conflict, Canadians have been impressed by the promise restorative justice offers of achieving a more satisfying justice system. Many of us, though, have also witnessed the impact of poorly run restorative programmes and the additional harm or revictimization they can cause.

So the emerging consensus about the value of Restorative Justice is tempered by prudent caution surrounding the need to safeguard the rights and interests of both victims and offenders in the implementation of restorative justice programmes.

Many in Canada have come to the view that one way to support the orderly and principled development of Restorative Justice is to develop a national statement of fundamental principles on the use of Restorative Justice.
So Canada was pleased to take the lead, with the ultimate support of 39 other Member States, in introducing at the 9th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, in April 2000, a resolution entitled “Basic principles on the use of restorative justice programmes in criminal matters” (2000/14) which initiated a process aimed at developing United Nations basic principles in this field.

Canada hosted a UN Experts’ Meeting in Ottawa in late October 2001 to develop this Declaration of Basic Principles. It was my honour to be elected Chair of the meeting. I am pleased to say this meeting of criminal justice professionals and officials from 17 countries was able to reach consensus on a draft declaration. This draft will be discussed at the 11th Session of the Crime Commission in the spring of next year and, if approved, forwarded to the Economic and Social Council and ultimately to the General Assembly in the autumn for adoption.

What are some of the basic principles contained in the U.N. document?
With respect to the use of restorative justice processes:
that they be generally available at all stages of the criminal justice system;
that they only be used with the free and voluntary consent of the Victim and Offender;
that participation by the offender not be used as evidence of guilt; and
that power imbalances and issues of safety be taken into account in deciding whether or not to refer a case and in conducting one.

With respect to the operation of the restorative justice programmes:
that guidelines and standards should be developed which address:

qualifications, training and assessment of facilitators;
standards of competence and ethical views;
evaluation criteria; and
conditions for the referral of cases.
that fundamental procedural safeguards be respected.

The final section of the document deals with the need to promote and disseminate research and evaluation of restorative justice programmes, the results of which should guide further policy and programme development in this emerging area.

The Justice Committee of the House of Commons in its 1998 Report: Victims-A Voice Not a Veto, was sensitive to this:

“Restorative Justice has its critics and those who are cautious supporters. A concern has been expressed that in some circumstances, restorative justice approaches have been resorted to in the absence of the victim or in the presence of a victim who feels reluctant and coerced to participate. Finally, some victims’ advocates have said that restorative justice initiatives are designed and implemented without taking into sufficient account the perspective of victims, thus further marginalizing them”.

If we can ensure respect for principles of the kind recommended in the UN Resolution, we would go a long way towards addressing victims’ doubts about, and achieving greater public and political support for, Restorative Justice, an approach we know can lead to satisfying outcomes for many victims, offenders and communities.
David Daubney is on the General Counsel Sentencing Reform Team at the Department of Justice and is President of CIIAN’s executive board.

Susan Haslip and Victoria Edwards

‘Out-of-control’, ‘overzealous’, ‘ugly’ - adjectives one might associate with an animal of some sort that has gone out of control - have all been used to describe sport parents who, for one reason or another, have become enraged at or with other parents, officials, their child or other players. While some form of conflict in sport and recreation is likely inevitable, conflict of the unhealthy kind appears to be on the increase, both in terms of prevalence and intensity.

The increase in prevalence and intensity of conflict in youth sport is of cause for concern. The Coaching Association of Canada, for example, reports that 70% of children playing organized sport in Canada drop out of sport by age 13 because they are no longer having fun. Of this group, it is estimated that 30% drop out of sport due to parental conduct or pressure. Recent media coverage of the trial and sentencing of Thomas Junta, the Massachusetts hockey parent convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the beating death of another hockey parent, is a reminder of just how extreme this type of conflict can be.

In an effort to address the drop-out rate in youth sport and put the fun back into sport, increasing attention is being paid to the spectacle of the out-of control/overzealous/’ugly’ parent. Some organizations involved in youth sport in Canada and the United States have turned to the ‘parent contract’ or ‘parent code of conduct’ as a mechanism to outline acceptable parental behaviour. The goal here is to reduce the violence and anti-social behaviour that is increasingly being associated with youth sport and, in so doing, put the fun back into sport and reduce the drop-out rate.

In British Columbia, for example, the parent contract, a component of the province’s ‘SPORTSafe Program’ introduced by the provincial sport’s minister, is the tool of choice. A program designed by the National Alliance for Youth Sport in the United States, on the other hand, and introduced by the Jupiter Tequesta Athletic Association in Jupiter, Florida champions a ‘Parents’ Code of Conduct’. While there have been some detractors, both mechanisms have generally been well-received by their respective sport communities.

Challenges posed by these mechanisms include the appropriateness of such mechanisms to deal with some conflicts arising in youth sport and of the need for a clear process for addressing disputes. A key distinction between the two mechanisms is that Florida’s model is mandatory while B.C.’s is not.

ADR approaches can indeed help to address some of the key issues of conflict minimization in youth sport. Tools such as parents' codes of conduct and parent contracts can be very useful. However, care must be taken to ensure that all key contributors to tension generating situations, which youth sport often is, are integrated into the conflict prevention strategy. Contracts and other instruments will prove to be sustainable to the extent that they are multi-lateral and mutually binding on all parties; they promise to be yet more effective with the addition of conflict prevention and resolving skills. The B.C. and Florida initiatives provide sport communities with useful starting points.

Heather Pincock

For a newcomer to the field, stepping in to the Eleventh Annual Symposium on Conflict Resolution, held on Friday February 1st at Nepean Sportsplex was quite an exciting and overwhelming experience. By a newcomer, I mean an undergraduate student with a growing interest in and an increasing commitment to pursue the field, still with very little experience or understanding of what exactly that means. So the Symposium seemed a perfect way to get a broad-based introduction to the theory, practice and practitioners of conflict resolution. And indeed it certainly was.

However, I was immediately presented with a terrible problem: the “concurrent session”. How on earth can one decide what one is interested in if one knows nothing at all!? I would very much have liked to be able to split myself into four parts and attend every single session offered. There was so much going on that I feel dishonest in claiming I was there at all since I was absent for more of the sessions than I was present. And this is why I would rather discuss my overall impressions than risk omitting some of the most important contributions to the Symposium that I may have unfortunately missed.

What is so exciting to me about conflict resolution is its incredible applicability. Family conflict, community conflict, workplace conflict, international conflict; the applications seem unlimited. The theory as well is vast and ever expanding. Transformative, narrative, restorative, history, solidarity, advocacy, arbitration, negotiation, mediation. Diversity is an unquestionable strength. I think it is this diversity that has caused the field to explode in recent years and it will be this diversity that will maintain the momentum to the future. Yet this diversity also makes the field very overwhelming, it is not homogenous or even unified and is therefore very difficult to pin down. I learned to see this heterogeneity as a flexibility and a great potency. It is the variety of approaches and perspectives that allow for optimism and hope in the face of conflict.

I also learned that a lot comes with the territory. This incredible optimism and hope for change and resolution necessitates a painful intimacy with conflict, a familiarness with the most horrible manifestations of human nature. I believe in this hope but I want to ask CR practitioners how they can withstand this closeness to such a frightening reality. How do they persevere through the struggle and pain of other people, while providing empathy and compassion? How can they maintain clarity and commitment through such a chaotic mess of conflict? Because for me that is what makes this field so incredible and what makes me think it is who I want to be.

Heather Pincock is a 3rd year student at Carleton University who is currently interning at CIIAN.
“You say the little efforts that I make
Will do no good
They never will prevail
To tip the hovering scale
Where justice hangs in the balance.
I don’t think
I ever thought they would
But I am prejudiced beyond debate
In favour of my right
To choose which side
Shall feel the stubborn ounces
Of my weight.”
~Bonaro Overstreet

Leah Berger

I initially discovered the Canadian International Institute for Applied Negotiations on the Internet several years ago when I began my search for avenues to enter the field of dispute resolution. In November 2001, I renewed my interest in this agency when I decided to participate in an internship through the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.

In my capacity as an intern, I provide supplementary research and conduct literature reviews of academic material pertinent to CIIAN's projects. On a recent assignment, I researched appropriate methods of dispute resolution for human rights complaints. The purpose of this task is to contribute to the dissemination of knowledge regarding effective practices and programs in Canada to mediators in Sri Lanka intending to establish their own processes for resolving human rights complaints. In the context of human rights, mediation is perceived as an attractive alternative because it provides complainants and respondents with a means of resolving disputes more quickly than formal adjudication. Furthermore, the process enables complainants to express their point of view and their feelings on the issue. This is significant in the context of Sri Lanka because it represents an attempt by civil society to initiate conflict resolution on a local level despite the protracted social conflict at the national level.

My research at CIIAN consistently raises my awareness of issues related to dispute resolution and third party intervention. From my perspective, I have much to gain from my role as a researcher at CIIAN. I obtain a glimpse into what is up and coming in the field of mediation and a sense of what issues need further research. These valuable insights are significant in terms of the orientation of my own research and the direction of my career pursuits.
Leah Berger is an M.A. Candidate at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University.

Peter Bishop is an Ottawa mediator, lawyer, trainer and conflict management consultant. He has been in private practice in Ottawa since 1978, doing mainly civil litigation and employment law. Since acquiring his ADR Certificate from C.I.I.A.N. in 1995, the majority of his professional activity has been as a mediator and conflict management trainer and consultant. He also is a sessional lecturer at Carleton University where he has taught the undergraduate course Mediation 306 since September 2000.
Most of Peter’s mediation experience has been with court-connected, civil mediation (having mediated hundreds of civil cases of all types including employment, commercial, personal injury, etc.) and with workplace and organizational conflict.

Peter has been a member of Ottawa’s Local Mediation Committee, since its inception in 1996 and, as such, has played an active role in the design and development of the court-connected mediation Pilot Project in Ottawa and of the province-wide Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program instituted in the Ontario court system in 1999. He is on the Ottawa and Toronto roster of mediators under the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program for civil cases in the Ontario court system.

He has developed, delivered and participated as trainer, coach and/or skills assessor in many negotiation, mediation and conflict management training programs provided to both public and private sector clients. He is on National Standing Offers of (1) Public Works and Government Services Canada (mediation services within the Federal Government), (2) Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (conflict resolution intervention and training services within CCRA) (3) National Defence Canada (conflict resolution intervention and training services within DND/CF).
Peter sees himself primarily as a student of mediation - pursuing a lifelong process of learning new approaches and skills for dealing with conflict. In 1995, thinking he knew a lot about conflict resolution, he had the audacity to write the book Winning in the Workplace: ADR Strategies for Employment Disputes. Since then, older and hopefully a bit wiser, a bit more useful and a lot less dangerous, he has learned how little he really knows and how much life and others have to offer if we are open to it.

First drafted in 1997, the RPDR designation is intended as a fundamental statement of “standards” that exists as a “living” document and an advocacy statement. Those who subscribe to it recognize that such a statement is a responsible step in the development of any profession and wish to declare to local, provincial, or national authorities who do or may guide, mandate, or regulate the practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution that such a practice should be informed by a generic Canadian National Statement. The Declaration of Principles, Code of Conduct and Qualities of an RPDR is reviewed every three years by a committee of the Institute’s registered practitioners.
All applicants to the RPDR designation must present a certificate in ADR from CIIAN, three letters of reference from clients, three letters of character reference from peers in the ADR community and indicate that they subscribe the Institute’s Declaration.

List of Graduates from CIIAN Registered with CIIAN as
Registered Practitioners in Dispute Resolution

1. Peter Bishop (613) 567-5537
2. Enid Blackwell (613) 623-3053
3. Norman Ross (416) 964-8389
4. Herve Depow (613) 592-0807
5. Francine Titley (613) 748-1243
6. Doreen Hartley (613) 547-2920
7. Mel Mapp (519) 679-6642
8. Mike Hart (613) 258-8024
9. Gilles Boudreau (819) 994-7360
10. Michelle Plouffe (613) 996-0431
11. Cynthia Leber (416) 486-2363
12. Laura Deeks (King) (416) 954-7166
13. Margaret Kish (905) 509-4861
14. Marion Rivers (613) 837-9761
15. Genevieve O Sullivan (613) 230-6103
16. Michel Laurin (819) 568-7810
Anna Preto (416) 973-5704
Gérald Lavallée (613) 230-5442
19. John Blakney (604) 264-0235
20. Donna Clark (902) 462-4335
21. Christiane Boisjoly (867) 668-6794
22. Barbara Atlas (416) 954-7632
23. Mary Rozenberg (613) 224-0037
24. Suzanne Beaulieu (613) 733-5176
25. Brian Ross (613) 729-8363
26. Rebecca Dalton (519) 439-0874
27. Louise Owen (250) 385-0536
28. Walter Williams (613) 822-1738
29. Ken Petersen (705) 264-5321
30. Jean Benoit (418) 871-8928
31. Ginette Trottier (514) 283-2514
Joanne Archibald (705) 495-2271

Key Faculty
1. Flaurie Storie (613) 237-9050
2. Theresa Dunn (613) 237-9050
3. Jean-Francois Pinnsonault (613) 722-9630
4. Richard Moore (613) 238-6680 x 12

The practitioners named above are registered with the Canadian International Institute of Applied Negotiation (CIIAN). Registration attests to the fact that they have successfully completed the Institute’s 120 hour program and submitted a “Practioner’s Portfolio” which includes subscription to a code of practice. The Institute, however, is not a governing body and is not responsible for the practice of those listed. We do nonetheless, provide these names to potential clients.

Alumni NewsWe love to hear from our alumni! If you are a graduate of CIIAN’s certificate program, please drop us a brief line telling us what you are up to. In the upcoming issues of CIIAN NEWS, we will designate this section to informing our readers about our graduates’ latest endeavours.
Send us a short description of your current work and let us know how your CIIAN training is benefiting you!
Please send Alumni News to:
conciian@magma.ca

Leadership Development
in Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation
September 2002 -
August 2003

Qualifying participants in the program will have at a minimum the equivalent of the 160 hour Third Party Neutral Program Certificate offered by the Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution and a four-year degree or its equivalent.
Over the course of a year teams of people and some individuals would:
take graduate courses;
hold project-based and joint planning sessions;
practise training and process leadership skills;
organize an initial intervention;
implement such a process; and re-convene for lessons learned, action-research insights and further project development.
For more information contact
Vern Neufeld Redekop
Director, Program Development in Conflict Studies
Faculty of Human Sciences
Saint Paul University
613-236-1393 x 2369
vredekop@ustpaul.uottawa.ca

THE MEDIATION CENTRE
AT CARLETON UNIVERSITY
presents
INTRODUCTION to
MEDIATION:
A FORTY HOUR WORKSHOP

When? May 1,2,3, 6 &7, 2002
Where? 2203 Dunton Tower,
Carleton University
Costs?
Carleton University Students:
$100 plus course manual ($23)
Carleton University Faculty and Staff:
$250 plus course manual ($23)
Participants from outside Carleton:
$450 plus course manual ($23)

For more Information, Contact:
The Mediation Centre c/o Equity
Services at Carleton University
2201 Dunton Tower, 1225 Colonel By Dr
Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6
Tel:(613) 520-5622 Fax: (613)520-4037
Email: cheryl_macaulay@carleton.ca

Connections 2002
Building a Culture of Peace

Conflict Resolution Network Canada
and
Family Mediation Canada
present in a joint
National Conflict Resolution
Conference
June 12-14, 2002, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada

For further Connections 2002 details please visit
www.crnetwork.ca and www.fmc.ca

Stay Tuned for CIIAN’s Next Course Offerings:
We are planning a summer Institute with Modules 1 and 2 that is scheduled for August.
Specific dates to be announced.
Watch the website for more details or email
conciian@magma.ca www.canadr.ca

Now in its fifth year…
The GRADUATE CERTIFICATE IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION
A graduate level interdisciplinary for-credit program promoting conflict resolution through understanding. Designed to enable students to understand conflict and intervene in conflict situations so as to empower individuals, groups and organizations to better resolve conflict. Program emphasis is directed toward teaching graduates to do this interactively, creatively and through the reflective application of knowledge and skills.

For information about applying, course listings, schedules and fees visit our web site at www.carleton.ca/law/conflict. OR
You may contact Dr. Cheryl Picard, Director
Graduate Certificate in Conflict Resolution, Department of Law Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Canada
Tel: (613) 520-2600 (Extension 2678) Fax: (613) 520-4467
Email: cpicard@ccs.carleton.ca

Saltspring
Summer Session
IN MEDIATION
FIVE SESSIONS
July 23rd - 31st, 2002
Saltspring Summer Session is a truly unique opportunity for the mediation community across North America to gather together in a wonderful place, with extraordinary people taking fascinating courses that inspire and revitalize.
For additional information please contact:
Jessica McNamara
Summer Session Coordinator
(250) 995-1451
jbmcnamara@shaw.ca
Agreement Number 40675017