Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor Peter Jones,
Professor Ian O'Flynn
The international community has many reasons to promote compromise between the parties to internal conflicts. Yet to do so effectively, the international community ought to treat principled rather than strategic compromise as its default position. To make this case, we begin by defining ‘compromise’ and by distinguishing principled from strategic compromise. We then defend the idea of principled compromise against the realist who thinks that that idea is implausible. We conclude by offering a number of practical reasons why principled compromise ought to be preferred. Our argument does not deny that strategic compromise will sometimes be the only option. But, unlike principled compromise, strategic compromise does not provide the parties with any particular reason to look beyond their own particular concerns or to give any ground beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Author(s): Jones P, O'Flynn I
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Government and Opposition
Print publication date: 01/07/2012
Date deposited: 03/04/2013
ISSN (print): 0017-257X
ISSN (electronic): 1477-7053
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Notes: Government & Opposition special issue: Politics as Compromise.
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric