A logic-based model for resolving conflicts.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which formal logic can be applied to conflict analysis and resolution. It is motivated by the idea that conflicts can be understood as inconsistent sets of interests. Design/methodology/approach – A simple propositional model, based on propositional logic, which can be used to analyze conflicts, has been introduced and four algorithms have been presented to generate possible solutions to a conflict. The model is illustrated by applying it to the conflict between the Obama administration and the Syrian Government in September 2013 over the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme. Findings – The author shows how different solutions, such as compromises, minimally invasive solutions or solutions compatible with certain pre-defined norms, can be generated by the model. It is shown how the model can operate in situations where the game-theoretic model fails due to a lack of information about the parties’ utility values. Research limitations/implications – The model can be used as a theoretical framework for future experimental research and/or to trace the course of particular conflict scenarios. Practical implications – The model can be used as the basis for building software applications for conflict resolution practitioners, such as negotiators or mediators. Originality/value – While the idea of using logic to analyse the structure of conflicts and generate possible solutions is not new to the field of conflict studies, the model presented in this paper provides a novel way of understanding conflicts for both researchers and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]