Bernie Mayer is a central figure in conflict engagement. He is a founding partner at one of the pioneering firms in the field, CDR Associates, which became internationally recognized for work in a wide array of conflicts – interpersonal, family, workplace, environmental, governmental and international. A leading practitioner and scholar in the field, Mayer is a prolific author, and teaches at the Werner Institute for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at Creighton University and Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. He has worked across the globe as a mediator, facilitator, teacher, trainer, dispute systems designer and programme administrator.
In this interview, conducted by IJCER’s Managing Editor, Nofit Amir, Mayer speaks of some central tensions he sees in the field: between optimism and realism, conflict engagement and avoidance, mediation and ally roles. In addition, he urges conflict scholars and practitioners to widen the focus of the field.
This interview is the first in a series of interviews that will appear in IJCER.

Book review of Paul Cliteur, The Secular Outlook & Paul Cliteur, Het monotheïstisch dilemma

Book review of Stefano Bertea, The Normative Claim of Law

Jeff McMahan, one of the leading contemporary writers on ‘just war thinking’, argues in the book under review, Killing in War, that one of the central tenets of the ‘ius in bello’, namely the moral equality of combatants, is both conceptually and morally untenable. This results from a reflection upon and a departure from two basic assumptions in Walzer’s work, namely the idea that war itself isn’t a relation between persons, but between political entities and their human instruments and the idea that the ‘ius ad bellum’ and ‘ius in bello’ are and should be kept distinct. This book merits serious reflection. However, the disadvantages of McMahan’s position are obvious. If the rights of combatants during war depend on the justice of their cause, the immunity of the civilians on the side of the supposed ‘unjust’ enemy is seriously endangered.

Professor Schauer covers many topics in this interview. On a general note, the interview covers themes pertaining to his experience in engaging with legal philosophy as a trained lawyer; his views on the present and the future of legal philosophy and how we shall cope with its development; his new book Thinking like a Lawyer; the role of legal philosophers in law and society; and some sincere suggestions to young legal philosophers. It also covers more specific topics, including discussions about his insistence on rule priority; differences between legal principles and rules; his opinion of legal positivism; and the pros and cons of analytical tools like spectrum, continuum and generality.