A new appraisal-based framework underlying hope in conflict resolution

Hope is a positive emotion that plays a pivotal role in intractable conflicts and conflict resolution processes by inducing conciliatory attitudes for peace. As a catalyser for conflict resolution, it is important to further understand hope in such contexts. In this paper we present a novel framework for understanding hope in contexts of intergroup conflict. Utilizing appraisal theory of emotions and heavily relying on the implicit theories framework, we describe three targets upon which hope appraisals focus in intractable conflict - the conflict, the outgroup, and the ingroup. Next, we describe the importance of developing ways to experimentally induce hope, and utilize the appraisal-target framework to describe and classify existing and potential interventions for inducing hope in intractable conflict resolution.

Integration of semantically annotated data by the KnoFuss architecture

Most of the existing work on information integration in the Semantic Web concentrates on resolving schema-level problems. Specific issues of data-level integration (instance coreferencing, conflict resolution, handling uncertainty) are usually tackled by applying the same techniques as for ontology schema matching or by reusing the solutions produced in the database domain. However, data structured according to OWL ontologies has its specific features: e.g., the classes are organized into a hierarchy, the properties are inherited, data constraints differ from those defined by database schema. This paper describes how these features are exploited in our architecture KnoFuss, designed to support data-level integration of semantic annotations.

Perceptions of a changing world induce hope and promote peace in intractable conflicts

The importance of hope in promoting conciliatory attitudes has been asserted in the field of conflict resolution. However, little is known about conditions inducing hope, especially in intractable conflicts, where reference to the outgroup may backfire. In the current research, five studies yielded convergent support for the hypothesis that hope for peace stems from a general perception of the world as changing. In Study 1, coders observed associations between belief in a changing world, hope regarding peace, and support for concessions. Study 2 revealed the hypothesized relations using self-reported measures. Studies 3 and 4 established causality by instilling a perception of the world as changing (vs. unchanging) using narrative and drawing manipulations. Study 5 compared the changing world message with a control condition during conflict escalation. Across studies, although the specific context was not referred to, the belief in a changing world increased support for concessions through hope for peace.

The Kim Dynasty and North-East Asian security:breaking the cycle of crises?

Purpose—This article considers North Korea and the notion of crisis, by linking historical development over the Korean peninsula to the conflict resolution literature, and investigates why despite a large number of destabilizing events, a war involving Pyongyang has yet to erupt. Design/methodology—This article uses historical data and a framework developed by Aggarwal et al., in order to highlight patterns of interaction between states such as the United States, North Korea and South Korea, organizations such as the United Nations, as well as processes such as the Six- Party Talks and the Agreed Framework. The article then develops a crisis framework based on conflict resolution and negotiation literature, and applies it to three North Korean administrations. Findings—Findings suggest that an open- ended understanding of time (for all parties involved on the peninsula) leads to an impossibility to reach a threshold where full- scale war would be triggered, thus leaving parties in a stable state of crisis for which escalating moves and de- escalating techniques might become irrelevant. Practical implications—It is hoped that this article will help further endeavors linking conflict resolution theoretical frameworks to the Korean peninsula security situation. In the case of the Korean peninsula, time has been understood as open-ended, leading parties to a lingering state of heightened hostilities that oscillates toward war, but that is controlled enough not to reach it. In-depth analysis of particular security sectors such as nuclear energy, food security, or missile testing would prove particularly useful in understanding the complexity of the Korean peninsula situation to a greater extent. It is hoped that this paper will help further endeavours linking conflict resolution theoretical frameworks to the Korean peninsula security situation. Originality/value—This research suggests that regarding the Korean peninsula, time has been understood as open- ended, leading parties to a lingering state of heightened.

The Kim Dynasty and North-East Asian security:breaking the cycle of crises

This article considers North Korea and the notion of crisis, by linking historical development over the Korean peninsula to the conflict resolution literature, and investigates why despite a large number of destabilising events, a war involving Pyongyang has yet to erupt. The paper considers historical data and uses a framework developed by Aggarwal et al. in order to highlight patterns of interaction between states such as the United States, North Korea and South Korea, organisations such as the United Nations, as well as processes such as the Six-Party Talk and the Agreed Framework. The paper then develops a crisis framework based on conflict resolution and negotiation literature, and applies it to three North Korean administrations. Findings suggests that an elastic understanding of time (for all parties involved on the peninsula) leads to an impossibility to reach a threshold where full-scale war would be triggered, thus leaving parties in a stable state of crisis for which escalating moves and de-escalating techniques might become irrelevant.

Hope comes in many forms:out-group expressions of hope override low support and promote reconciliation in conflicts

In conflicts, political attitudes are based to some extent on the perception of the outgroup as sharing the goal of peace and supporting steps to achieve it. However, intractable conflicts are characterized by inconsistent and negative interactions, which prevent clear messages of outgroup support. This problem calls for alternative ways to convey support between groups in conflict. One such method is emotional expressions. The current research tested whether, in the absence of outgroup support for peace, observing expressions of outgroup hope induces conciliatory attitudes. Results from two experimental studies, conducted within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, revealed support for this hypothesis. Expressions of Palestinian hope induced acceptance of a peace agreement through Israeli hope and positive perceptions of the proposal when outgroup support expressions were low. Findings demonstrate the importance of hope as a means of conveying information within processes of conflict resolution, overriding messages of low outgroup support for peace.

Hope in the Middle East:malleability beliefs, hope, and the willingness to compromise for peace

The importance of hope has long been asserted in the field of conflict resolution. However, little is actually known about either how to induce hope or what effects hope has on conciliatory attitudes. In the current research, we tested whether (1) hope is based upon beliefs regarding conflict malleability and (2) hope predicts support for concessions for peace. Study 1, a correlational study conducted among Israeli Jews, revealed that malleability beliefs regarding conflicts in general are associated with hope regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as well as with support for concessions. In Study 2, we established causality using an experimental manipulation of beliefs regarding conflicts being malleable (vs. fixed). Findings have both theoretical and practical implications regarding inducing hope in intractable conflicts, thus promoting the attitudes so critical for peacemaking.

Overcoming schema heterogeneity between linked semantic repositories to improve coreference resolution

Schema heterogeneity issues often represent an obstacle for discovering coreference links between individuals in semantic data repositories. In this paper we present an approach, which performs ontology schema matching in order to improve instance coreference resolution performance. A novel feature of the approach is its use of existing instance-level coreference links defined in third-party repositories as background knowledge for schema matching techniques. In our tests of this approach we obtained encouraging results, in particular, a substantial increase in recall in comparison with existing sets of coreference links.

Stretching the life of Twitter classifiers with time-stamped semantic graphs

Social media has become an effective channel for communicating both trends and public opinion on current events. However the automatic topic classification of social media content pose various challenges. Topic classification is a common technique used for automatically capturing themes that emerge from social media streams. However, such techniques are sensitive to the evolution of topics when new event-dependent vocabularies start to emerge (e.g., Crimea becoming relevant to War Conflict during the Ukraine crisis in 2014). Therefore, traditional supervised classification methods which rely on labelled data could rapidly become outdated. In this paper we propose a novel transfer learning approach to address the classification task of new data when the only available labelled data belong to a previous epoch. This approach relies on the incorporation of knowledge from DBpedia graphs. Our findings show promising results in understanding how features age, and how semantic features can support the evolution of topic classifiers.