談判作為和平解決糾紛與爭端的一種方法，似乎是無人可以懷疑的，但是透過深度的反省，我們可以了解其實「談判」也常常是糾紛和爭執的來源。因為談判者既有集體的壓力，又有自身的風格，加上立場、利益、目標等複雜的因素，因此談判是一種解決問題的手段，而不是解決糾紛的保證。經由深度的反省，我們可以合理地提出談判的原型～對話，作為談判的前置努力和談判後之後續生發。 本文特別將對話區分為四種類型，從對話到建設性對話，以便作為化解敵意，消除敵對，建構和平的另一種可能。特別在高達美（Gadamer）式對話和文本對話的階段，目的就在於發現自己的偏見，透過反覆的對話，消除自己的盲點，從而創造一種從對話學習，從對話成長的機制。 中共與達賴喇嘛之間紛爭了四十年，各方都呼籲雙方儘快進行談判；事實上，中共和達賴也多次釋放「談判」的氣球，然而雙方有接觸而無談判，而且有越來越僵持的趨勢，去年還傳出雙方的接觸管道已經中止，因此我們可以斷言，雙方在可預見的未來不可能有談判，即使展開談判也不可能有結果。是以我們以為雙方消除敵對，解除仇恨的方法不是談判，而是透過開放性的對話，特別是雙方的學者在無壓力的情況下對話，由於學者，因此在心態上是學習，這就有可能開創以學為宗旨的對話，我們以為尋求途徑，也許能為中共與達賴之間尋求一個意想不到的結果。

Negotiation is a peaceful way to settle dispute and nobody will doubt its function. But if we make a deep examination of negotiation itself, we can find that in most cases negotiation can be a problem for the negotiations. During the negotiations all negotiations have their own positions and goals to be defended or asserted. In this essay it is suggested to use a constructive dialogue to be a pioneering effort. The situation of constructive dialogue will encourage every member to try to reflect his position and goal though mutual communication. This is no end for communication to learn from each other’s viewpoints. There is no pressure for communication to sign any agreement. It’s a learning process for self-reflection. U.S. president Bill Clinton instigated Beijing to negotiate with the Dalai Lama. But it is too hard to be successful, because the problem between Beijing and Dalai Lama is too complicated due to religion, ethnicity, historical explanation, territorial identification and so on. Even if they began to talk, it would be just like the negotiations between the Taiwan Straits: there would be no result at all. But if we try to encourage them to have dialogue with each other, may be we can expect a different consequence.

談判;對話;建設性對話;西藏問題;中共;達賴喇嘛;互動

negotiation; dialogue; constructive dialogue; Tibetan issue; Communist China; Dalai Lama; interaction