Relational Frames and Their Ethical Implications in International Negotiation: An Analysis Based on the Oslo II Negotiations

In: International Negotiation
HooblerDepartment of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-121, USA

Search for other papers by Hoobler in
Current site
Google Scholar
DonohueDepartment of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-121, USA (E-mail:

Search for other papers by Donohue in
Current site
Google Scholar
View More View Less
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution


Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):



In a recent set of papers, Donohue and colleagues used Relational Order theory to describe the relational context that evolved during the first Oslo negotiations held in 1992–1993. However, many relational shifts have developed between Palestinians and Israelis since Oslo. The question is have these shifts established a context that allows for the parties to bargain in good faith? Negotiations conducted to satisfy political agendas that are likely to fail because of stressed relationships between the parties make it difficult for parties to bargain in good faith. Relational Order Theory was used in the current article to better understand the relational context leading to the 1995 Oslo II accords and thus, the ethical sanction of the negotiations. Editorials and interviews from Palestinian and Israeli leaders leading up to the negotiations were analyzed to determine the extent to which the relational context was more affiliation-oriented or more focused on power and domination. The results indicate that the relational context leading up to Oslo II shifted dramatically over the course of several months as parties shaped their perspectives on the negotiations. However, the competition for power expressed by the exchanges suggested a less ethically defensible context for negotiations. The ethical implications of forcing negotiation in the face of a fairly aggressive relational context are discussed.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 487 70 13
Full Text Views 174 13 1
PDF Views & Downloads 96 23 4