Search Results

The evolution of the Arab Spring in eight countries is primarily a matter of negotiation. The instances can be broken down into Short Track (Tunisia, Egypt) and Long Track (Syria, Libya, Yemen) Transitions and Short Track (Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain) Reactions. They bring a number of lessons for negotiation analysis, primarily on scope and power, and their deviation from an ideal type model can be explained by the predominance of distributive over integrative negotiation and the imposition of a three-dimensional scene for negotiation and legitimization, with an Islamic dimension overlaying the usual left-right spectrum.

In: International Negotiation

A mutually hurting stalemate is a necessary but insufficient condition for the opening of negotiations, direct or mediated. It is subject to perception, buffered by many insulating ploys even if it seems to exist objectively. Thus, the major challenge for a mediator in most cases is to ripen the parties’ perceptions. In addition to the attitudinal challenge, there are structural challenges posed by other types of stalemates and near-stalemates, which call for not only persuasion but also manipulation by the mediator. The ultimate challenge to a mediator is to move successful negotiations producing conflict management onto the consummating phase of negotiations for conflict resolution. But the first removes the incentive for the second, since it ceases the violence that is the most effective source of pain.

In: International Negotiation

Abstract

Case studies embody a deep knowledge of the subject and can be used to test or generate theoretical propositions for explaining negotiated outcomes. Their value is increased when they are employed comparatively, using a number of instances of negotiation – flawed or successful – in the same conflict or problem or a number of negotiations of different conflicts. While it might appear that statistical studies of large numbers of cases would be even more advantageous, these studies tend to lose the feel and understanding that comparative cases can command. Thus, comparative case studies lie at the crossroads of reality and theory; they present their evidence through the eyes of a knowledgeable specialist and they test it against the hypothetical constructs of a creative conceptualist. The challenge is as high as the payoffs.

In: International Negotiation

Abstract

Negotiation is less taught than might be expected in International Relations (IR) programs. Yet an upper-level university course is needed to address three audiences: future citizens, diplomats, and scholars. Since there is no single theory of negotiations, such a course needs to address the various conceptual approaches, grouped as Behavioral, Processual, Integrative, Structural, and Strategic. Conceptual presentations need to be supplemented with practitioners’ testimonies, simulations, and case studies, the latter using participants’ accounts as well as analyses. Games and a sample syllabus are presented.

In: International Negotiation
In: International Negotiation

Abstract

Negotiating with terrorists is possible, within limits, as the articles in this issue show and explore. Limits come initially in the distinction between absolute and contingent terrorists, and then between revolutionary and conditional absolutes and between barricaders, kidnappers and hijackers in the contingent category. Revolutionary absolute are nonnegotiable adversaries, but even conditional absolutes are potentially negotiable and contingent terrorists actually seek negotiation. The official negotiator is faced with the task of giving a little in order to get the terrorist to give a lot, a particularly difficult imbalance to obtain given the highly committed and desperate nature of terrorists as they follow rational but highly unconventional tactics. Such are the challenges of negotiating with terrorists that this issue of the journal explores and elucidates.

In: International Negotiation

Abstract

This issue contains an examination of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations with an effort to break through the deadlock strategically. It analyzes the past record of failure and addresses the basic problem of asymmetry. Despite the solutions that have been advanced for all the specific issues, it is the forward-looking matter of trust that is the impediment to productive negotiations. The declaration of a Palestinian state and its recognition by the international community are now the basic elements necessary to break the asymmetry of the parties. A second element – allegedly favored by the Trump administration – is to reduce a symmetry by enlarging the playing field to include surrounding states, as proposed in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

In: International Negotiation

Abstract

The current context of increasing entropy in international politics poses challenges for negotiation and negotiation analysis. The current System of World Disorder contains defining characteristics that do not fit well with established negotiation concepts and practice. Following a few decades of progress in conflict management after the bipolar system, major regions of the world have seen dedicated attempts to bring conflicts under control in the current decade failing for lack of ripeness, trade-offs, reframing, mediation and support. New concepts and practices of negotiation are required to deal with the current vacua in international politics and their consequences.

In: International Negotiation

Abstract

This issue contains an examination of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations with an effort to break through the deadlock strategically. It analyzes the past record of failure and addresses the basic problem of asymmetry. Despite the solutions that have been advanced for all the specific issues, it is the forward-looking matter of trust that is the impediment to productive negotiations. The declaration of a Palestinian state and its recognition by the international community are now the basic elements necessary to break the asymmetry of the parties. A second element – allegedly favored by the Trump administration – is to reduce a symmetry by enlarging the playing field to include surrounding states, as proposed in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

In: New Issues in Mediating the Israel-Palestine Deadlock