Deadlocked international negotiations risk prolonged uncertainty and, worse, the possible onset of hostilities. While the negotiation research literature is replete with strategies and tactics that seek positive sum outcomes, there is a paucity of reliable advice for negotiators faced with stalemate on what they can do to avert failure and get back on the negotiation track. This study suggests that international negotiations can learn from the field of developmental psychology about the concept and practice of resiliency. Resiliency is the human capacity to face, overcome and be strengthened by experiences of extreme adversity. It is a basic and powerful human competency that negotiators, faced with impasse, need to master to avert failure and achieve successful negotiation outcomes. If people have the capacity to bounce back from adversity in their personal lives, negotiators in their professional lives should be able to mobilize this capacity to bounce back from impasses, as well. Several propositions based on research findings are examined.
An earlier article examined the conditions under which it is reasonable to negotiate with rogue states. This article extends the argument to non-state terrorist "villains". Despite the risks inherent in negotiating with terrorists, the risks of following a no-negotiation policy are likely to be more deadly. States need to assess terrorist interests and intentions to find if there are reasonable entry points for negotiation and take advantage of these to transform the conflict.
International Negotiation: A Journal of Theory and Practice examines negotiation from many perspectives, to explore its theoretical foundations and to promote its practical application. It addresses the processes of negotiation relating to political, security, environmental, ethnic, economic, business, legal, scientific and cultural issues and conflicts among nations, international and regional organisations, and multinational corporations and other non-state parties. Conceptually,
International Negotiation confronts the difficult task of developing interdisciplinary theories and models of the negotiation process and its desired outcome. Analytically, it publishes a broad selection of original research articles, traditional historical and case studies, and significant contributions to the expanding body of knowledge in the field. In general terms, the journal's practical aim is to identify, analyse, and explain effective and efficient international negotiation and mediation processes that result in long-lasting, flexible, and implementable solutions.
While always open to the submission of unsolicited papers, the journal also encourages proposals for thematic issues that focus on the study of particular problems.
Online submission: Articles for publication in
International Negotiation can be submitted online through
Editorial Manager; please
Metaphorical reasoning can offer new perspectives on familiar or unusual ideas and things. It can be especially useful in providing new insight and understanding into a field, such as international negotiation, that is undergoing an upsurge in activity and rapid change by freeing up old conceptions and enabling creative thought. By cutting across traditional fields of study, metaphors can help to refresh and reframe the study of international negotiation and provide a new point of departure for research and practice. The role of metaphors in the physical and social sciences and how they have been employed to explain international issues is discussed. The remaining articles in this issue are introduced in relation to their metaphorical orientations.
Negotiation is becoming a more inclusive activity. More and different types of actors are taking part at national and international levels to resolve conflicts and seek agreement. At a national level, non-governmental organizations and individual citizens are partaking in mass demonstrations that often evolve into negotiation. At the international level, ngos working through issue networks have been participating more and more in formal negotiations with state parties. By reviewing several cases at these different levels, this article identifies useful questions for future research focusing on the sources of legitimacy and power of these new actors and how they are changing the organization, structure, process and outcomes of negotiation.