IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v29y2020i1d10.1007_s10726-019-09648-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Reflections on Three Decades of Development

Author

Listed:
  • Keith W. Hipel

    (University of Waterloo
    Balsillie School of International Affairs
    Centre for International Governance Innovation)

  • Liping Fang

    (University of Waterloo
    Ryerson University)

  • D. Marc Kilgour

    (University of Waterloo
    Wilfrid Laurier University)

Abstract

The fundamental design and inherent capabilities of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) to address a rich range of complex real world conflict situations are put into perspective by tracing its historical development over a period spanning more than 30 years, and highlighting great opportunities for meaningful future expansions within an era of artificial intelligence (AI) and intensifying conflict in an over-crowded world. By constructing a sound theoretical foundation for GMCR based upon assumptions reflecting what actually occurs in reality, a fascinating story is narrated on how GMCR was able to expand in bold new directions as well as take advantage of many important legacy decision technologies built within the earlier Metagame Analysis and later Conflict Analysis paradigms. From its predecessors, for instance, GMCR could benefit by the employment of option form put forward within Metagame Analysis for effectively recording a conflict, as well as preference elicitation techniques and solution concepts for defining chess-like behavior when calculating stability of states from the realm of Conflict Analysis. The key ideas outlined in the paper underlying the current and projected capabilities of GMCR include the development of four different ways to handle preference uncertainty in the presence of either transitive or intransitive preferences; a wide range of solution concepts for describing many kinds of human behavior under conflict; unique coalition analysis algorithms for determining if a given decision maker can fare better in a dispute via cooperation; tracing the evolution of a conflict over time; and the matrix formulation of GMCR for computational efficiency when calculating stability and also theoretically expanding GMCR in bold new directions. Inverse engineering is mentioned as an AI extension of GMCR for computationally determining the preferences required by decision makers in order to reach a desirable state, such as a climate change agreement in which all nations significantly cut back on their greenhouse gas emissions. The basic design of a decision support system for permitting researchers and practitioners to readily apply the foregoing and other advancements in GMCR to tough real world controversies is discussed. Although GMCR has been successfully applied to challenging disputes arising in many different fields, a simple climate change negotiation conflict between the US and China is utilized to explain clearly key concepts mentioned throughout the fascinating historical journey surrounding GMCR.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang & D. Marc Kilgour, 2020. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Reflections on Three Decades of Development," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 11-60, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:29:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-019-09648-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-019-09648-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-019-09648-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-019-09648-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shawei He & Keith Hipel & D. Kilgour, 2014. "Water Diversion Conflicts in China: A Hierarchical Perspective," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(7), pages 1823-1837, May.
    2. Garcia, A. & Hipel, K.W., 2017. "Inverse engineering preferences in simple games," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 311(C), pages 184-194.
    3. Amer Obeidi & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour, 2005. "The Role of Emotions in Envisioning Outcomes in Conflict Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 481-500, November.
    4. Kaveh Madani & Keith Hipel, 2011. "Non-Cooperative Stability Definitions for Strategic Analysis of Generic Water Resources Conflicts," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(8), pages 1949-1977, June.
    5. D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang & Xiaoyong (John) Peng, 2001. "Coalition Analysis in Group Decision Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 159-175, March.
    6. K W Li & D M Kilgour & K W Hipel, 2005. "Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(6), pages 699-707, June.
    7. Inohara, Takehiro, 2016. "State transition time analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 372-382.
    8. Rami A. Kinsara & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2018. "Communication features in a DSS for conflict resolution based on the graph model," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 39-56.
    9. D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2005. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 441-460, November.
    10. Luai Hamouda & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2004. "Strength of Preference in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 449-462, September.
    11. Takahashi, Masao Allyn & Fraser, Niall M. & Hipel, Keith W., 1984. "A procedure for analyzing hypergames," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 111-122, October.
    12. Wang, Junjie & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Dang, Yaoguo, 2018. "Matrix representations of the inverse problem in the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 282-293.
    13. M. Abul Bashar & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour & Amer Obeidi, 2018. "Interval fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 287-315, September.
    14. Haiyan Xu & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2011. "Matrix Representation of Conflict Resolution in Multiple-Decision-Maker Graph Models with Preference Uncertainty," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 755-779, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shawei He & Xiaohui Liu & Xianmei Li, 2023. "A Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Time-varying Attitudes and Its Application to China-US Trade Disputes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 603-631, June.
    2. M. Nassereddine & M. A. Ellakkis & A. Azar & M. D. Nayeri, 2021. "Developing a Multi-methodology for Conflict Resolution: Case of Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 301-320, April.
    3. Ricardo Lopes Andrade & Maísa Mendonça Silva & Leandro Chaves Rêgo, 2023. "A Scientometric and Social Network Analysis of the Literature on the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1061-1082, October.
    4. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & France E. G. Oliveira, 2020. "Higher-order Sequential Stabilities in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution for Bilateral Conflicts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 601-626, August.
    5. He, Shawei, 2022. "A time sensitive graph model for conflict resolution with application to international air carbon negotiation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 652-670.
    6. Yasuhiro Asa & Takeshi Kato & Ryuji Mine, 2022. "Composite Consensus-Building Process: Permissible Meeting Analysis and Compromise Choice Exploration," Papers 2211.08593, arXiv.org.
    7. Liangyan Tao & Xuebi Su & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2021. "Inverse Preference Optimization in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution based on the Genetic Algorithm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1085-1112, October.
    8. Peng, Benhong & Zhao, Yinyin & Elahi, Ehsan & Wan, Anxia, 2023. "Can third-party market cooperation solve the dilemma of emissions reduction? A case study of energy investment project conflict analysis in the context of carbon neutrality," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    9. Sabino, Emerson Rodrigues & Rêgo, Leandro Chaves, 2023. "Optimism pessimism stability in the graph model for conflict resolution for multilateral conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(2), pages 671-682.
    10. Yu Han & Haiyan Xu & Liping Fang & Keith W. Hipel, 2022. "An Integer Programming Approach to Solving the Inverse Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Two Decision Makers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 23-48, February.
    11. Sabino, Emerson Rodrigues & Rêgo, Leandro Chaves, 2024. "Minimax regret stability in the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(3), pages 1087-1097.
    12. Shafi, Ahsan & Wang, Zhanqi & Ehsan, Muhsan & Riaz, Faizan Ahmed & Ali, Muhammad Rashid & Xu, Feng, 2023. "A game theory approach to land acquisition conflicts in Pakistan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    13. Inohara, Takehiro, 2023. "Similarities, differences, and preservation of efficiencies, with application to attitude analysis, within the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1330-1348.
    14. Huang, Yuming & Ge, Bingfeng & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Zhao, Bin & Yang, Kewei, 2023. "Solving the inverse graph model for conflict resolution using a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(2), pages 806-819.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shawei He, 2019. "Coalition Analysis in Basic Hierarchical Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Application to Climate Change Governance Disputes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 879-906, October.
    2. Sean B. Walker & Keith W. Hipel, 2017. "Strategy, Complexity and Cooperation: The Sino-American Climate Regime," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1027, September.
    3. Liangyan Tao & Xuebi Su & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2021. "Inverse Preference Optimization in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution based on the Genetic Algorithm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1085-1112, October.
    4. Giannini Italino Alves Vieira & Leandro Chaves Rêgo, 2020. "Berge Solution Concepts in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 103-125, February.
    5. Yasir M. Aljefri & Liping Fang & Keith W. Hipel & Kaveh Madani, 2019. "Strategic Analyses of the Hydropolitical Conflicts Surrounding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 305-340, April.
    6. Zhao, Shinan & Xu, Haiyan & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping, 2019. "Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents’ heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 621-632.
    7. Meraj Sohrabi & Zeynab Banoo Ahani Amineh & Mohammad Hossein Niksokhan & Hossein Zanjanian, 2023. "A framework for optimal water allocation considering water value, strategic management and conflict resolution," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1582-1613, February.
    8. M. Nassereddine & M. A. Ellakkis & A. Azar & M. D. Nayeri, 2021. "Developing a Multi-methodology for Conflict Resolution: Case of Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 301-320, April.
    9. Keith W. Hipel & Amer Obeidi, 2005. "Trade versus the environment: Strategic settlement from a systems engineering perspective," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 211-233, September.
    10. He, Shawei, 2022. "A time sensitive graph model for conflict resolution with application to international air carbon negotiation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 652-670.
    11. Pournabi, Nima & Janatrostami, Somaye & Ashrafzadeh, Afshin & Mohammadi, Kourosh, 2021. "Resolution of Internal conflicts for conservation of the Hour Al-Azim wetland using AHP-SWOT and game theory approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    12. Huang, Yuming & Ge, Bingfeng & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Zhao, Bin & Yang, Kewei, 2023. "Solving the inverse graph model for conflict resolution using a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(2), pages 806-819.
    13. Felipe Costa Araujo & Alexandre Bevilacqua Leoneti, 2020. "Evaluating the Stability of the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulatory Framework in Brazil," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 143-156, February.
    14. He, Shawei & Marc Kilgour, D. & Hipel, Keith W., 2017. "A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 919-932.
    15. Qingye Han & Yuming Zhu & Ginger Y. Ke & Hongli Lin, 2019. "A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    16. Peng Xu & Haiyan Xu & Ginger Y. Ke, 2018. "Integrating an Option-Oriented Attitude Analysis into Investigating the Degree of Stabilities in Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 981-1010, December.
    17. Jing Yu & Ling-Ling Pei, 2018. "Investigation of a Brownfield Conflict Considering the Strength of Preferences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    18. Haiyan Xu & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2011. "Matrix Representation of Conflict Resolution in Multiple-Decision-Maker Graph Models with Preference Uncertainty," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 755-779, November.
    19. Kedong Yin & Li Yu & Xuemei Li, 2017. "An Improved Graph Model for Conflict Resolution Based on Option Prioritization and Its Application," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, October.
    20. Inohara, Takehiro, 2016. "State transition time analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 372-382.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:29:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-019-09648-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.