  Fairness is commonly seen as a property of the global outcome of a system and
assumes centralisation and complete knowledge. However, in real decentralised
applications, agents only have partial observation capabilities. Under limited
information, agents rely on communication to divulge some of their private (and
unobservable) information to others. When an agent deliberates to resolve
conflicts, limited knowledge may cause its perspective of a correct outcome to
differ from the actual outcome of the conflict resolution. This is subjective
unfairness.
  To enable decentralised, fairness-aware conflict resolution under privacy
constraints, we have two contributions: (1) a novel interaction approach and
(2) a formalism of the relationship between privacy and fairness. Our proposed
interaction approach is an architecture for privacy-aware explainable conflict
resolution where agents engage in a dialogue of hypotheses and facts. To
measure the privacy-fairness relationship, we define subjective and objective
fairness on both the local and global scope and formalise the impact of partial
observability due to privacy in these different notions of fairness.
  We first study our proposed architecture and the privacy-fairness
relationship in the abstract, testing different argumentation strategies on a
large number of randomised cultures. We empirically demonstrate the trade-off
between privacy, objective fairness, and subjective fairness and show that
better strategies can mitigate the effects of privacy in distributed systems.
In addition to this analysis across a broad set of randomised abstract
cultures, we analyse a case study for a specific scenario: we instantiate our
architecture in a multi-agent simulation of prioritised rule-aware collision
avoidance with limited information disclosure.
