Justice as a Personal and Social Construction 559(Elster, 1992). If the decision procedures are, moreover,
judged as being just, then their acceptance can be expected.
Qualifying Norms of Justice Empirically
If the parties are claiming different principles to apply in the
pending conflict, it can be helpful to show that each party is
applying completely different standards of justice in different
situations and contexts; this shall demonstrate that the parties
accept more then one standard as valid and the debate can be
focused on the reasons that one principle is preferred in the
specific case at conflict. A further possibility of qualifying
principles empirically consists of pointing to the application
of a multitude of principles and their intermixing in various
areas of society. Here we can also point to empirical studies
on institutional distribution procedures in the allocation or
withdrawal of goods in short supply (Elster, 1992) as well as
to Walzer’s (1983) observations that various norms of justice
are used in different spheres of justice.
Communicating the Subjective Implementations
of Justice Principles
If the conflict is not about which principle of justice is to
be applied—that is, if the parties to the conflict apply the
same principle but think they have contradicting justifiable
claims—the justifications of these claims must be finely ana-
lyzed. As an example may few cases of divorce mediation in
which at least one party claims a fair balancing of the former
exchanges. That means that everything must be disclosed—
all resources, all achievements, all sacrifices, all the love and
loyalty invested in the marriage, all burdens borne, and also
all returns. There can be no guarantee that a proper balance
will be reached in a divorce settlement. But just communicat-
ing an understanding for the subjective assessments of the
other party may be a step toward improving the relationship.
Adhering to Principles of Procedural Justice
Mediation requires that the rules of procedural justice will be
observed—the impartiality of the mediators, extensive prob-
ing into personal perspectives and demands, careful consid-
eration of information presented, a respectful and polite
interaction, and so on. In mediation, the decision is made not
by a third party (e.g., a judge), but rather by the parties them-
selves. For the mediation proceedings to be judged as fair, the
mediators’ behavior is important. The mediation is conflict
settlement worked out in common by the parties and the
mediators; therefore, the fairness of the proceedings depends
also on the parties’ behavior.
It is true that one cannot oblige parties to the conflict to be
impartial—an essential principle of procedural justice. But
one can oblige them not only to listen to the positions and
arguments of the opposing party, but also to show with their
own reformulation of those arguments that they have under-
stood the other party’s position. When this action is coupled
with a respectful and appreciative attitude, shown by Lind,
Tyler, and others to be significant, a proper precondition is
created to judge the mediation as fair proceedings. It is easier
to come to an agreement under this precondition, and the last-
ing acceptance of this agreement is more probable.JUSTICE AS A PERSONAL
AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONAlthough the justice motive is universal, divergent views
about justice are indisputable. This becomes evident in
historical changes, cultural differences, and the ubiquitous
debates and conflicts in the private sphere—in the political
arenas as well as in the courtrooms. The debates and conflicts
have two different topics: (a) Which principle or rule of jus-
tice is the right one to be applied?, and (b) What is the right
application of a principle? With respect to the distribution of
a scarce good, it may (a) be debated whether the equality, the
equity, the need, or some other principle is the right one to
apply; and it may (b) be debated who at all is entitled to be
considered for the distribution, who is more or less needy,
who has contributed more, and so forth. The first topic is the
choice of a principle (or a set of principles); the second topic
is its implementation.Justice Appraisals: Intuitions or Moral Reasoning?In many situations we experience and perceive injustices
spontaneously and emotionally (Lerner, 1998). Those who
are outraged have no doubts that justice was violated; that
means they have a sense of justice telling them what is just
and unjust in the specific case at stake. This is not a deliber-
ated, reflected, thoroughly proofed judgment, but rather is an
intuitive appraisal. It may well be that the outrage will disap-
pear when the case is reappraised, when new hypotheses
about the facts are formed and tested (Bernhardt, 2000) or are
offered by credible others, by the offender (Montada &
Kirchhoff, 2000), or by observers (e.g., Zillmann & Cantor,
1977).