Gränslandet mellan kompromiss och kontrovers

Den norska vargöverenskommelsen som exempel

Abstract

The borderland between compromise and controversy – the Norwegian wolf agreement as an example

In this article, the Norwegian wolf agreement is analyzed theoretically as an empirical example of compromises close to controversy. The starting point is that compromises are processual with both formal and informal aspects. A representative of the process perspective on compromises is Martin P. Golding who claims that the following conditions exist for compromise: ”communication”, ”community”, ”trust”, and ”moral recognition of the other part”. The aim is to investigate how Golding’s conditions for compromises are valid, in the borderland between controversy and compromise. Empirical material regarding the formal aspects of the compromise are official documents, and the informal aspects are investigated through newspaper material. The conclusion is that ”moral recognition of the other part” and ”the form of communication” work linearly as conditions, while ”community”, ”trust” and ”the content of communication” work dynamically and non-linearly.The borderland between compromise and controversy – the Norwegian wolf agreement as an example In this article, the Norwegian wolf agreement is analyzed theoretically as an empirical example of compromises close to controversy. The starting point is that compromises are processual with both formal and informal aspects. A representative of the process perspective on compromises is Martin P. Golding who claims that the following conditions exist for compromise: ”communication”, ”community”, ”trust”, and ”moral recognition of the other part”. The aim is to investigate how Golding’s conditions for compromises are valid, in the borderland between controversy and compromise. Empirical material regarding the formal aspects of the compromise are official documents, and the informal aspects are investigated through newspaper material. The conclusion is that ”moral recognition of the other part” and ”the form of communication” work linearly as conditions, while ”community”, ”trust” and ”the content of communication” work dynamically and non-linearly.