It is unusual to find a negotiation not linked to at least one other negotiation. In some domains, such as international trade policy, we can identify negotiation networks with parties simultaneously involved in negotiations in global, multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade policy settings. A single party (i.e., a national government) will manage similar issues in all four settings and also manage these same issues with multiple parties in a single setting. International trade policy is one of many "linkage-rich" environments.This study examines the relationship between two discrete but linked treaty negotiations: the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement of 2003 (SAFTA) and the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement of 2003 (USSFTA). Case analysis identifies five structural factors that enhance the potential and fundamentally shape the nature of negotiation linkage dynamics. If linkage occurs then role theory can be employed to define two functional role types, a link-pin party (Singapore in this study) and linked parties (Australia and the United States). Such theory and case analysis support the development of propositions and help establish guidance for managing negotiation behavior. Key structural characteristics that appear to create linkage dynamics in this study are used to build a four-part structural framework that maps the universe of negotiation-linkage phenomena and determines the fundamental nature of four discrete linkage conditions. This framework also provides descriptive and prescriptive guidance for managing strategy and power in linked negotiations.
This article examines how external events grounded in a negotiation’s relevant environment (i.e., negotiation context) influence negotiation process and outcome. Multilateral, regional and bilateral environments are examined through linkage theory to gain understanding about the impact of external events or context on negotiation process and outcome. Linkages between a negotiation and its context are examined through five trade negotiations: the WTO Doha round (multilateral-global); the Free Trade Area of the Americas (multilateral-regional); EU‐Mercosur (bilateral-regional); EU‐Chile (bilateral); and US‐Chile (bilateral). In addition to developing greater understanding about the strategic relationship between a negotiation and its context this article establishes a theoretic framework that defines the known universe of linkage dynamics. The impact of multilateral environments on the regional negotiation process and outcome is of particular interest, as is the strategic use of bilateral environments in seeking to achieve multilateral geopolitical ends.
Despite considerable research on multiparty negotiation, no prior attempt has
been made to organize and describe knowledge from the various disciplines
represented within this field of study. The present article seeks to offer a
comprehensive understanding of multiparty negotiation. It establishes a
foundation for a multiparty negotiation paradigm by building a coherent
multi-disciplinary framework. Development of this framework begins by
defining fundamental concepts and identifying essential dynamics that
structure the field of multiparty negotiation. This article then describes
the building blocks and boundaries of the field. A review of the three most
developed multiparty negotiation bodies of literature or domains –
international negotiations, public disputes, and organizational and group
negotiations – follows. Similarities and differences between the three
domains are identified, as are points of theoretical integration. This
examination of multiparty negotiation concepts and dynamics, building
blocks, boundaries, and domains constitutes a framework that defines
multiparty negotiation as a field of practice. The article also establishes
a research agenda that will contribute to the development of multiparty
negotiation as an area of study.
This study considers the challenge of operating a regional association that includes combatants and adversaries as members, and the response to such challenges. Conflict type, defined by intensity and duration, is located on the vertical axis, and engagement level (international, regional and bilateral) is fixed along the horizontal axis, to distinguish the conditions supporting confidence-building (one of many peacebuilding approaches). The utility of this framework is examined by applying it to the Union for the Mediterranean – a 42-member association operating in a region where conflict is prevalent (Syrian war, Arab – Israeli conflict, Greece – Turkey conflict, and Algeria – Morocco conflict). The study concludes that confidence-building has relevance to hot and cold intractable conflict but not to contemporary war. Curiously, the intractable conflict literature rarely discusses confidence-building and the Euromed literature does not characterize EU behavior in a confidence-building context. The study builds a research agenda to further examine the confidence-building framework.
“Management of complexity” was identified as a paradigm for negotiation analysis 25 years ago. Substantial progress has been made in conceptualizing complex negotiations since, although less has been accomplished with regard to operationalizing that knowledge so that tools can be developed to manage complex negotiations. This article begins by reviewing five separate theoretical frameworks of negotiation complexity and, through this analysis, identifies six significant characteristics of negotiation complexity: party numbers, negotiator roles, external environment, negotiation process, negotiation strategy, and party relations. Operational tools are identified for each variable. On the basis of this analysis, the article concludes by identifying additional tools that could be developed for managing complex negotiations.
Application of a turning points analysis to detailed chronologies of events that transpired prior to and during two matched cases of multilateral intellectual property rights (TRIPS) negotiations yields useful lessons for understanding negotiation process and effective negotiator behavior. The unfolding negotiation process is traced in the GATT Uruguay Round and prior to and during the WTO Doha Ministerial. Departures from earlier trends in the chronologies merit special attention. A departure is defined as a clear and self-evident change from earlier events or patterns in the form of an impactful decision taken by one or more parties. By coding the causes (precipitants) and effects (consequences) of the departures, we perform a turning points analysis. The turning points analysis, composed of three-part sequences, reveals the triggers and impacts of departures during the extended TRIPS negotiation process. The analyses will allow a comparison of the patterns that unfolded during the two phases of TRIPS negotiations, which will highlight the breakthroughs that occurred during the Uruguay Round and the crises that emerged later, prior to and during the Doha Ministerial. Improving the effectiveness of multilateral trade negotiations depends in part on understanding how critical turning points emerge.
A turning points analysis is used to capture the negotiating dynamics that occur within the structure of the gatt and the wto. Ministerial/Council-level operations and Committee-level operations are distinguished. Within wto Doha Development Agenda negotiations (2001–present), we isolate Ministerial/Council-level data and within gatt, we isolate Committee-level data by examining Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights negotiations conducted during the gatt Uruguay round (1985–1994) and at the wto Doha Ministerial (2001). A detailed chronology of each case is compiled, followed by the identification of precipitants, departures and consequences, which are the three parts of a turning points analysis. We conclude that the precipitants that led to negotiation turning points in the Ministerial/Council environment are exclusively internal and generally procedural. The precipitants creating turning points within the Committee environment are generally internal and substantive. These conclusions have implications for our understanding of international environments and their impact on negotiation process.
Climate change is the largest and most complicated interdependent issue the world has confronted. Yet there is little negotiation and conflict management knowledge within the climate change context. To address this gap, this theoretical article reviews the sparse extant literature and provides a brief overview of the science of climate change public policy. This review establishes a foundation for examining negotiation and conflict management research questions that emanate from current and future climate change negotiations. Such questions are considered for climate change mitigation negotiations and climate change adaptation negotiations. This article demonstrates how the negotiation and conflict management field can make important contributions to the study of interdependency in a context of climate change.