Review of The Process of Reconciliation and Its Importance

Reconciliation is a difficult term, and there is very little agreement on its definition. This is because reconciliation is both a process – a means to achieve a goal and a goal itself – something to achieve. A great deal of controversy arises from confusing these two ideas. The main goal of reconciliation is a long term aspiration, something essential to aim towards, perhaps even an ideal state to look forwards to. But the process is a present tense way of dealing with how exactly things are – building a reconciliation process is the means to work, practically and effectively, towards that final goal – and is not of much value in itself.

There are multiple occasions where reconciliation could be used as a word for the betterment of the situation. The focus of our committee is on reconciliation after widespread and sustained violent conflict. Typically, what is often called a post-conflict situation: war has been brought to an end, a settlement has been reached, but a new regime is struggling to build up a new society out of the dust of the old one. [1][n1]

There are very simple but profound few steps to break this process of reconciliation down in order to understand the complexities of it.

• It is not only a process: it is a long-term process. There is no quick-remedy to reconciliation. It takes its own time and its pace can certainly not be dictated.
• It is also a very deep process: it includes a coming to terms with a vague reality which asks for changes in our aspirations, our attitudes, our feelings and emotions, perhaps even our beliefs. Such major change is an often painful challenge and cannot be imposed or rushed.
• Lastly, reconciliation is also a very broad process. It applies to each one of us. It is not just a process for those who inflicted the suffering. The attitudes and beliefs that propagate violent conflict spread much more through a community and must be analyzed at that broad level.

Especially in the immediate after math of a negotiated settlement to a violent conflict there is nothing simple at all about the reconciliation process, it can appear to be a hindrance to more important priorities. It is in fact very tempting, especially to politicians, to concentrate on the political process with the urgent political pressures to establish the newly agreed democratic structures, resource pressure and time pressure.

Indeed, they may not see how to involve reconciliation in the mass of all the work ahead of them. Thus, reconciliation can be slowed and delayed until other preferences are completed, or reconciliation can also be reduced to a quick commission of enquiry that will take into account the painful past and rapidly move on. Everyone wants to get on, to get away and to move fast from the past as quickly as possible.

Works Cited:

1. Stone, R. (2019). The Modern Law of Contract. Routledge.
2. McKendrick, E. (2017). Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
3. Cheshire, G., & Fifoot, C. H. S. (2012). Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's Law of Contract. Oxford University Press.
4. Beale, H., Bishop, W. D., & Furmston, M. P. (2019). Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
5. Elliott, C., & Quinn, F. (2018). Contract Law. Pearson Education.
6. Burrows, A. (2011). A Casebook on Contract. Oxford University Press.
7. Collins, H. (2014). Collins on Contract. Oxford University Press.
8. Poole, J. (2017). Textbook on Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
9. Adams, M. (2019). Law for Business Students. Pearson Education.
10. Stone, R. (2018). The Anatomy of a Contract. In Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 227-247). Edward Elgar Publishing.