Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Strategy of Third-Party Mediation Based on the Option Prioritization in the Graph Model

  • Published:
Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The resolution of real-world conflicts is often supported by third-party intervention (i.e., mediation). This paper proposes a possible mediation support in the form of a reverse optimization procedure under the framework of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR). The approach computes minimal priority adjustments of preference statements that are necessary to achieve a desired agreement. A mathematical model, based on the matrix form of GMCR, is developed to analyze this third-party mediation problem. Thereby, this study makes a first attempt to obtain option-based mediation strategies, which add comprehensiveness to the traditional state-based strategies, yet are easier to understand and hence more acceptable to the conflict participants. To illustrate the practicality, the proposed procedure is applied to a medical dispute between a patient and a hospital, with the aim to suggest changes in the ordering of preference statements that lead to a desired outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balas E, Jeroslow R (1972). Canonical cuts on the unit hypercube. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 23(1):61–69

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bove V, Gleditsch KS, Sekeris PG (2016). “Oil above water”: Economic interdependence and third-party intervention. Journal of Conflict Resolution 60(7):1251–1277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang YM, Luo Z, Zhang Y (2018). The timing of third-party intervention in social conflict. Defence and Peace Economics 29(2):91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Channel PO (2016). 42 cases of typical meidical disputes since 2016. http://yuqing.people.com.cn/n1/2016/1118/c405625-28880100.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1989). Conflict models in graph form: Solution concepts and their interrelationships. European Journal of Operational Research 41(1):86–100.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993). Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Wiley, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng X (2003a). A decision support system for interactive decision making - part I: Model formulation. Systems Man & Cybernetics Part C Applications & Reviews IEEE Transactions on 33(1):42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng X (2003b). A decision support system for interactive decision making-part II: Analysis and output interpretation. Systems Man & Cybernetics Part C Applications & Reviews IEEE Transactions on 33(1):56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenn P, Lowe D, Speck C (1997). Conflict and dispute in construction. Construction Management and Economics 15(6):513–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Findley MG, Marineau JF (2015). Lootable resources and third-party intervention into civil wars. Conflict Management and Peace Science 32(5):465–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R (2001). Methods of Third-party Intervention. Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, Berlin, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1979). Solving complex conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man & Cybernetics 9(12):805–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1984). Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions. North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia A, Obeidi A, Hipel KW (2018).Strategic advice for decision-making under conflict based on observed behaviour. Applied Mathematics and Computation 332:96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greig JM, Diehl PF (2006). Softening up: Making conflicts more amenable to diplomacy. International Interactions 32(4):355–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han Q, Zhu Y, Ke GY, Lin H (2019). A two-stage decision framework for resolving brownfield conflicts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(6):1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou Y, Jiang Y, Xu H (2015). Option prioritization for three-level preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation, Warsaw, Poland, June 22–26, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard N (1971). Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior. MA: MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgour D, Hipel KW, Fang L (1987). The graph model for conflicts. Automatica 23(1):41–55.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2005). The graph model for conflict resolution: Past, present, and future. Group Decision & Negotiation 14(6):441–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsara RA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2013). Inverse approach in third party intervention. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Manchester, UK, October 13–16, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee DW, Lai PB (2015). The practice of mediation to resolve clinical, bioethical, and medical malpractice disputes. Hong Kong Medical Journal 21(6):560–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebman BL (2013). Malpractice mobs: Medical dispute resolution in China. Columbia Law Review 113(1):181–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore CW (2014).The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict(4ed). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash JF (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 36(1): 48–49.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Nash J (1951).Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics 54(2):286–295.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • NHFPC (2017). National health and family planning commission 2016 annual report on the work of the construction of legal government. http://www.nhfpc.gov.cn/fzs/s3578/201709/713971c7f03d4e94bdc31109754c4c2b.shtml

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng X, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (1997). Representing ordinal preferences in the decision support system gmcr II. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Computational Cybernetics and Simulation, Orlando, USA, October 12–15, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prein H (1987). Strategies for third party intervention. Human Relations 40(11):699–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan PM (1996). Conditions of successful third-party intervention in intrastate conflicts. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40(2):336–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin JZ (1980). Experimental research on third-party intervention in conflict: Toward some generalizations. Psychological Bulletin 87(2):379–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakakibara H, Okada N, Nakase D (2002). The application of robustness analysis to the conflict with incomplete information. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 32(1):14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakamoto M, Hagihara Y, Hipel KW (2005). Coordination process by a third party in the conflict between Bangladesh and India over regulation of the Ganges River. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Waikoloa, USA, October 10–10, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai JF, Lin MH, Hu YC (2008). Finding multiple solutions to general integer linear programs. European Journal of Operational Research 184(2):802–809.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Hipel KW, Fang L, Dang Y (2018). Matrix representations of the inverse problem in the graph model for conflict resolution. European Journal of Operational Research 270(1):282–293.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2007). Matrix representation of conflicts with two decision-makers. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Montreal. Canada, October 7–10, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2008). Matrix representation of solution concepts in multiple-decision-maker graph models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 39(1):96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2018). Conflict Resolution Using the Graph Model: Strategic Interactions in Competition and Cooperation. Springer.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Young OR (2015). The Intermediaries: Third Parties in International Crises. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu J, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Zhao M (2016). Option prioritization for unknown preference. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 25(1):39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanjanian H, Abdolabadi H, Niksokhan MH, Sarang A (2018). Influential third party on water right conflict: A game theory approach to achieve the desired equilibrium (case study: Ilam dam, Iran). Journal of Environmental Management 214:283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao M (2011). Evaluation of the third-party mediation mechanism for medical disputes in China. Medicine and Law 30(3):401–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhong Y (2015). People’s Mediation Skills in Doctor-patient Disputes and Typical Case Analysis. Jindun, Beijing, China, in Chinese.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 71471087, 71071076 and 61673209.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 211106, China

    Zhenggao Wu & Haiyan Xu

  2. Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, A1B 3X5, Canada

    Ginger Y. Ke

Authors
  1. Zhenggao Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haiyan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ginger Y. Ke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ginger Y. Ke.

Additional information

Zhenggao Wu received his M.Mgt. degree in management science from Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China, in 2019. His research interests include conflict resolution and operations research.

Haiyan Xu received her B.A.Sc. degree in pure mathematics from Nanjing University, Nanjing, China, a M.Sc. degree in combinatorics and optimization, and a Ph.D. degree in systems design engineering both from the University of Waterloo. She is a professor of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Her research focuses on Graph Model for Conflict Resolution.

Ginger Y. Ke is an associate professor at the Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. She received her Ph.D. in the Department of Management Sciences from University of Waterloo. Her research interest lies in the areas of logistics and transportation, supply chain coordination, game theory, and conflict analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, Z., Xu, H. & Ke, G.Y. The Strategy of Third-Party Mediation Based on the Option Prioritization in the Graph Model. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 28, 399–414 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-019-5419-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-019-5419-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation