Problem-solving approach privileges both parties

Sir, Your editorial “Island stalemate” (November 6), on the dispute between China and Japan over the sovereignty of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, painted a grim picture of how nationalistic and jingoistic posturing by both sides increases the likelihood of an “accidental” escalation that could even draw in the US.

But, is arbitration by the International Court of Justice the optimal way forward, as your editorial argued, to prevent the conflict being “just one human error away” from an explosion into open hostilities?

More than 40 years ago, John W. Burton, formerly permanent head of Australia’s Department of External Affairs, and his colleagues at the Centre for the Analysis of Conflict, Faculty of Laws, University College London, developed a novel approach to conflict resolution and applied it to a territorial dispute between two countries in south-east Asia, with some measure of success.

Arbitration takes decision-making power completely out of the hands of the parties, thereby undermining prospects for their agreement with whatever decisions are handed down. By contrast, Dr Burton’s methodology, which has been used in conflicts since the 1960s, is a relationship-focused, third-party approach to problem-solving that privileges the parties. They “own” the process, which increases the likelihood that they will abide by whatever agreements they themselves reach with the assistance of experienced facilitators.

Although Dr Burton and his UCL group have left the scene, quite a few of his former colleagues and a younger generation trained by them in the US and Britain could be called upon to help set into motion a facilitated problem-solving exercise to assist China and Japan in ensuring that the unthinkable does not accidentally occur in the East (or South) China Sea, with significant implications for regional and global security.