Jusrisprudence

Conflict can be resolved without recourse to law, it can be resolved with recourse to a sharing of true understanding or a true compromise of understanding (where the truth is found by both disputants to be somewhere between their original positions, or a third new place offered to them by a conciliator or their own free inventive spirits;- but their position must be a honestly held one or it is a slight to both parties. So,(unless the disagreement is merely a factual one*);- this is the most important thing to remember, law is an imposition (and therefore a constraint), so it must be used sparingly and as little as possible... This must be determined pragmatically, I would suggest the following set up, but there could be better ones:

Mediators are the first and most basic legal entities. They must percieve which channel of communication is blocked and try to dislodge the blockage so to allow for the communication of truth between the parties. Mediation does not impose understanding, it allows parties to reach a common understanding.

Conciliators are the next level, their task is to suggest forms of a common understanding accepted by both parties.

Arbiters (or judges), impose beauty, because at least one of the disputants is very unconsciouses and cannot curb their own ugliness, their judgments must be scrutinized by the media so the public can understand the judgement.

*If possible and at every stage a litigant should try and commit themselves to principles which would operate for and against them...

I have not thought about criminal law yet...

ok sorry its getting vague even for me, I don't like making a science out of "conflict" because it needs to be organic, or we won't grow... its wrong to impose a static process, one must arrive at a pragmatic process that has inside of it the seeds for its own demise (so that it can be displaced by something better, or because it should be diminished as it is no longer good for people to rely on it)