Three alternatives to civil court for resolving non-criminal disputes?

What does political philosophy say about a state's need for privacy in resolving disputes?

• To elaborate, for the state to effectively perform it's duties it needs a level of privacy in order to amicably resolve a dispute without fearing public scrutiny. I am in the process of writing a paper on how two rival states resolve disputes. When government officials engage in negotiations to resolve disputes, they portray a 'public' image to the press and a 'private' image to each other which might not necessarily be the same. The wider public views the dialogue between the rival governments in a different way than what actually happens behind closed doors. This role that 'privacy' plays is particularly interesting and I am curious to know what political philosophy has to say about it. In other words, what does political philosophy say about the role of 'privacy' in facilitating an amicable solution between states. Is it important for effective political settlements? How does the use of 'privacy' in such situations relate to the need for public oversight of government and other democratic notions?

• Answer:

  Remember, political philosophy is not exactly the same type of body of knowledge, i.e. facts etc., that a "hard" science like chemistry is. Political philosophy is much more dynamic, with the human "element" (no pun intended) playing a larger role. For example, balancing a chemical equation is independent of the person balancing it; however, the study of political thought, i.e. political philosophy, depends almost entirely on contextual events pertaining to the thinker such as: their personality, upbringing, historical locality, current cultural trends etc. In short, political philosophy is the sum total of peoples' thoughts (this should never be construed as denigrative). What is damaging is to apply demi-god status to our intellectual ancestors based on chronological positioning. A book of bad ideas does not make a system of knowledge, rather an almanac of past rainstorms. This may sound derogative of political philosophy, but it is not. I simply emphasize that it is thought not fact that is being scientifically investigated in political science/philosophy. That being said, a state's need for privacy has an inverse relationship with personal freedom; the freedom of its own citizens and/or those it affects abroad. There are rarely justifiable reasons for secrecy at the state level. If knowledge is a road to power, secrecy smooths the way, but only for those "behind closed doors".