The right way of handling a dispute, put simply, is open honest communication. As far as metaphors go. I'm going to pretend that communication is a bridge.
But honest communication is hard because it leaves you vulnerable, which means that you need a modicum of trust as a prerequisite. It takes a lot of work to build a bridge, which means that if you finish all the supports and foundation on your side, but the other side simply hasn't and won't, you just wasted a lot of labour and materials.
Which in turn means that you need to intentionally put yourself out on a limb by describing exactly what you feel when a dispute arises. Much like the bridge, even if you would be a sucker by building your lines of communication up without knowing that the favor would be returned, without someone initiating this step, no one would ever build anything. More than that, it also means you need to be honest enough to accept what you are being told. You can't stand and prevent traffic across the bridge, because that means there's no effective bridge in the first place.
Communication is also custom; it builds upon prior communications and methods of talking. In that manner not only is it custom but it is also customary. You build a framework within which you and your partner can exchange ideas. The problem in many instances is that people don't build up a history of frank communication. Instead they build one up on scraps of other conversations. Put simply, early bridges between two points are shoddy; You toss a plank of wood over a chasm and then share the very little stuff that this flimsy bridge can hold. As you keep tossing wood on it, the structure gets stronger, but fundamentally you're still using a bunch of wooden planks. When these structures fall apart, and they do, they can be repaired with more scraps and peace can return, but only to break apart at some future time. The alternative is sequentially redesigning the bridge; by luck or by effort, sometimes you'll change the materials you're using. Maybe beside that wooden plank bridge you build one made out of stone. Now you can trade more things safely. Maybe further in the future you decide you want a permanent link and make a steel span. Now you can have high traffic exchanges.
That's the problem with looking at the issue through the optics of a particular conflict; it has nothing to do with the implicit trust created through prior conversations and as such doesn't really deal with the real issue. A conflict is kinda like someone trying to carry something heavy across your bridge. If your bridge is kinda garbage, it might snap in two and both of you are going to be unhappy about that. If your bridge is stronger, it might damage the bridge, but not completely destroy it. If your bridge is ironclad, it might not budge at all.
That's kinda the way I look at it.