Departures in Negotiation: Extensions and New Directions

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2009

Two substantial traditions of negotiation scholarship provide different perspectives on the factors that generate outcomes. One of these traditions is found in the work of conflict resolution (CR) theorists. They place their bets on the role played by the negotiation process. Another is found in the work of many international relations (IR) researchers. They prefer studying the role played by the larger contexts surrounding negotiation. This clash of perspectives is due, at least in part, to a prevailing focus on either micro (CR) or macro (IR) level variables. We confront these perspectives in this

Negotiation Journal, 2004

1995

This article provides a step by step illustration of diplomatic negotiations.It is an essential guiding tool for students in the field of international relations with a particular remit to Diplomacy.The document is delivered in simple English and in an easy to understand format to facilitate convenient readership. The author is a postgraduate student at the Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies in Nairobi.

Negotiation Journal, 2009

This article celebrates the achievements made by the community of negotiation researchers. Looking back on what has been accomplished, the article addresses three questions: How have we thought about negotiation? How have we studied it? And what have we discovered through conducting research? Of particular interest are counterintuitive findings about processes at the negotiating table, around the table, and away from the table. Building on these contributions, the article looks forward by asking: What are some avenues for further research? The article concludes optimistically by noting that there will be even more to celebrate at the journal's fiftieth anniversary.

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2008

Negotiation is a dynamic process in which negotiators change their strategies in response to each other. We believe mutual adaptation is best conceptualized as an emergent process and is a critical determinant of negotiators’ abilities to identify mutually beneficial solutions. We argue that three factors drive the process of negotiation and influence the quality of agreements: alignment of negotiators’ strategies across individuals (strategy sequences), alignment of negotiators’ strategies with the negotiation‐wide dynamic (phases), and congruence of negotiators’ goals.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012

Negotiation is a process based on strategic choices. Each participant must fix carefully its objectives and decide what are the most appropriate ways and means in order to attain those. While in practice negotiation is always a mix of cooperation and competition, these two elements correspond to different approaches of the relationship and also different and quite incompatible orientations in term of strategy. The techniques, tactics and arguments employed by the negotiators in both cases will have different related effects and in the end will produce different and initially undefined outcomes. The choice of a strategy can be influenced by many factors, from the negotiator's power to the level of trust, the stakes or the concern for the other party's outcome. Drawing on concepts from several disciplines, our intention in this paper is to clarify, in a specific negotiation, the aspects and elements of the relationship between the determinants of a strategic choice and its effects on the capacity to reach an agreement which fulfil the participants' expectations and objectives. This should allow uncovering new hypotheses for experimental research.

"When is 'Enough' Enough? Uncertainty in Negotiation," in: I.W. Zartman (ed.) How Negotiations End, (Cambridge University Press, 2019), pp. 238-255, 2019

The book chapter analyses the positive role of ambiguity in the closing phase of negotiations. It looks at the Gorbachev/Kohl/Baker 1990 “NATO non-enlargement” negotiations, the Minsk agreements on eastern Ukraine, and the Iran nuclear deal as cases of “constructively ambiguous” compromises.

Negotiation Journal, 2009

A number of studies have shown that certain events that occur during a negotiation can alter its course. Referred to as turning points, these events are precipitated by actions taken either outside or inside the talks, having consequences for outcomes. This article reports the results of two experiments designed to examine the impacts of both types of precipitating actions. Focusing on external actions, the first experiment showed that crises --as opposed to breakthroughs --produced more agreements in the context of positive social climates (high trust, low power). Fewer agreements were achieved in negative social climates (low trust, high power). Focusing on internal actions, the second experiment showed that more cooperative precipitants (factors inducing change) were identified in positive social climates. Outcomes were also influenced by the climate: Positive climateshigh trust, cooperate orientations -resulted in more agreements. In both experiments, the social climate mediated the effects of precipitating factors on negotiation outcomes.

The concept of ‘ripe moment’ is an important principle in diplomacy practiced by states in the international community. Diplomats and politicians like Machiavelli, Richelieu and Gucciardini advised on and practised this concept religiously. Although not exactly so called, it was, according to Guicciardini’s ricordi para 78, expressed as the ‘proper moment’ (Berridge 2000 pp. 87). Logically, not many people will contest the saying ‘doing the right thing at the right time’, thus the concept of ripe moment in life event seem universally accepted. The diplomats aforementioned held the principle that diplomatic negotiations were only worthwhile when and if there are indications that the negotiations will end in a desired outcome. Thus, identifying the moment for successful negotiation remains very significant in diplomacy. This paper aims at a critical analysis of ‘ripe moment’. It presents a case study where the concept has worked effectively as anticipated, as well as present instances where the concept has not been absolutely productive. This paper examines the possibility to engineer or rather catalyse ‘ripe moment’ as well as recognising and seizing the ‘ripe moment’ in diplomatic negotiation towards achieving the expected outcome. Furthermore, it contests the conventional conceptualisation of ripe moment to include only state actors by having a view into the future of diplomacy. Keywords: International relations, Diplomacy