The Adjusted Winner procedure (AW) is a conflict resolution mechanism developed by Steven Brams and Alan Taylor. They claim that their procedure is unique because it produces dispute solutions that are envy-fee, efficient and equitable*. Their procedure provides the parties with a settlement that is based on subjective utility, which means that the parties will receive the portion of the issue(s) they value most.
In this thesis I use the AW procedure on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. I define the territorial issues in the conflict, and present the two sides’ different positions on the different issues. The territorial issues are defined as: the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, settlements, Jerusalem, borders and natural resources. Then I present how the AW procedure can produce a solution that meets the fair division criteria. Four different solutions to the territorial conflict are presented.
The results for outcome 1 and 2 is that the Israelis will win on the issues of the West Bank, water and settlements, while the Palestinians will win on the issue of borders and the Gaza Strip. The issue of Jerusalem has to be split or shared between the two parties as a result of the equitability adjustment.
The results in outcome 3 show what can happen when the parties try to be strategic in their allocation of points. In this scenario the Israelis will win on the issues of the West Bank and water. The Palestinians will win on the issues of Borders, the Gaza Strip and settlements. Also in this scenario the issue of Jerusalem has to be split or shared between the two parties as a result of the equitability adjustment.
In outcome 4 the issues of borders, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, are lumped together as one issue called borders. In this case the Israelis will win on the issues of settlements, Jerusalem and water, while the Palestinians will win on the issue of borders. In this scenario there is no need for an equitability adjustment._______________ *Envy-freeness is defined as a division “in which every person thinks he or she received the largest or most valuable portion of something – based on their own valuation – and hence does not envy anyone else” (Brams and Taylor 1999: 2). A settlement is efficient “if there is no other allocation that is better for some party without being worse for another party”. They define equitability as “both parties think they receive the same fraction of the total, as each of them value values the different items” (Brams and Taylor 1999: 14-15).