Negotiation
● A highly efficient bargaining tool to exchange information and settle disputes without
violence.
Mutually Hurting Stalemate:
● An impasse where neither side can win, and both suffer high costs from continuing to
fight.
The Win-Set:
● The range of potential agreements acceptable to both negotiators and their domestic
constituents.
Credible Commitment:
● Fear that the opponent will cheat or withdraw after a power shift.
Spoilers:
● Rogue factions that use violence to destroy trust and fail agreements.
● Negotiations only involve the primary parties; third party actors not directly involved in
the conflict remain out of these talks.
● Negotiation may involve more than two disputants (e.g., some or all disputants in a
multiactor conflict), may be conducted informally (e.g., through ambassadors or
representatives as part of repeated discussions), and can occur at all phases of a
conflict—before the outbreak of violence, as a mechanism to end violence, or after the
end of fighting to set the terms for conflict management in the long run.
Negotiations involve a three-stage process,
1. incorporating the decisions to negotiate
2. to offer concessions
3. and to implement any agreement reached
When it is successful, negotiation is a more efficient conflict resolution tool (over violence).
● First, successful negotiations avoid the death and destruction that violence uses to
communicate salience, convey commitment, and exert leverage.
● Second, effective negotiations maximize long-term benefits while reducing negative
externalities in the disputants’ relationship.
● Third, by avoiding the anger and pain that conflict produces, successful negotiations also
frame the future relationship between contending sides.
Despite their advantages, negotiations also carry some characteristics that can complicate their
effectiveness.
● First, they suffer “first-mover” problems (i.e., disincentives for one side to advocate
negotiations), particularly among disputants who have already resorted to violence.
, ○ A prior history of dialogue and successful negotiations between disputants can
reduce this obstacle, as can the assistance of a third party willing to initiate talks
and encourage disputants to the table
Kirschner (2010) finds that civil wars last longer when disputants fear that the other side will
cheat on a potential agreement’s terms.
Negotiators can overcome credible-commitment problems by including fear-reducing or
cost-increasing provisions in agreements.
● Such provisions might include introducing peacekeepers to monitor compliance or
ensure the protection of disarmed groups; denying access to arms imports to make a
return to conflict more difficult; or creating power-sharing arrangements so that (former)
disputants have joint control over military and security forces.
○ Each of these illustrative provisions makes cheating on an agreement’s terms
more difficult; in so doing, they lower the likelihood that disputants will take
advantage of one another, thereby reassuring them and opening the space for a
settlement to emerge (Mattes and Savun 2009).
○ However, these provisions also complicate negotiations, creating chains of
preconditions. A government, for example, might refuse to negotiate with a rebel
group until the latter disarms; meanwhile, the rebel group refuses to disarm
without negotiations that will secure its members’safety.
Effectiveness of international negotiation
Depends on the nature of the conflict:
1. Low-intensity conflicts (almost equal in power) are easier to negotiate
2. High-intensity conflicts (power
Social-Psychological Approach to Negotiation/Bargaining
● Is the proposition that outcomes are determined by the interaction of some past, present,
and future events, mediated by the structures where bargaining takes place.
● The Social Psychological Approach to conflict management takes place in three
Complex interactions of variables
● Antecedents - inputs, and variables that exist prior to engaging in bargaining and
negotiation
● Concurrent - describes the comprehensive range of factors that categorize the
conditions and process of a particular negotiation situation, e.g., the Oslo and Camp
David Accords
● Consequent dimension - draws attention to the nature of the outcome and the parties’
perception of it.
● The questions are: How can we more effectively manage conflict between individuals
and other actors? What information do we need to manage conflicts between individuals
more effectively?
● A highly efficient bargaining tool to exchange information and settle disputes without
violence.
Mutually Hurting Stalemate:
● An impasse where neither side can win, and both suffer high costs from continuing to
fight.
The Win-Set:
● The range of potential agreements acceptable to both negotiators and their domestic
constituents.
Credible Commitment:
● Fear that the opponent will cheat or withdraw after a power shift.
Spoilers:
● Rogue factions that use violence to destroy trust and fail agreements.
● Negotiations only involve the primary parties; third party actors not directly involved in
the conflict remain out of these talks.
● Negotiation may involve more than two disputants (e.g., some or all disputants in a
multiactor conflict), may be conducted informally (e.g., through ambassadors or
representatives as part of repeated discussions), and can occur at all phases of a
conflict—before the outbreak of violence, as a mechanism to end violence, or after the
end of fighting to set the terms for conflict management in the long run.
Negotiations involve a three-stage process,
1. incorporating the decisions to negotiate
2. to offer concessions
3. and to implement any agreement reached
When it is successful, negotiation is a more efficient conflict resolution tool (over violence).
● First, successful negotiations avoid the death and destruction that violence uses to
communicate salience, convey commitment, and exert leverage.
● Second, effective negotiations maximize long-term benefits while reducing negative
externalities in the disputants’ relationship.
● Third, by avoiding the anger and pain that conflict produces, successful negotiations also
frame the future relationship between contending sides.
Despite their advantages, negotiations also carry some characteristics that can complicate their
effectiveness.
● First, they suffer “first-mover” problems (i.e., disincentives for one side to advocate
negotiations), particularly among disputants who have already resorted to violence.
, ○ A prior history of dialogue and successful negotiations between disputants can
reduce this obstacle, as can the assistance of a third party willing to initiate talks
and encourage disputants to the table
Kirschner (2010) finds that civil wars last longer when disputants fear that the other side will
cheat on a potential agreement’s terms.
Negotiators can overcome credible-commitment problems by including fear-reducing or
cost-increasing provisions in agreements.
● Such provisions might include introducing peacekeepers to monitor compliance or
ensure the protection of disarmed groups; denying access to arms imports to make a
return to conflict more difficult; or creating power-sharing arrangements so that (former)
disputants have joint control over military and security forces.
○ Each of these illustrative provisions makes cheating on an agreement’s terms
more difficult; in so doing, they lower the likelihood that disputants will take
advantage of one another, thereby reassuring them and opening the space for a
settlement to emerge (Mattes and Savun 2009).
○ However, these provisions also complicate negotiations, creating chains of
preconditions. A government, for example, might refuse to negotiate with a rebel
group until the latter disarms; meanwhile, the rebel group refuses to disarm
without negotiations that will secure its members’safety.
Effectiveness of international negotiation
Depends on the nature of the conflict:
1. Low-intensity conflicts (almost equal in power) are easier to negotiate
2. High-intensity conflicts (power
Social-Psychological Approach to Negotiation/Bargaining
● Is the proposition that outcomes are determined by the interaction of some past, present,
and future events, mediated by the structures where bargaining takes place.
● The Social Psychological Approach to conflict management takes place in three
Complex interactions of variables
● Antecedents - inputs, and variables that exist prior to engaging in bargaining and
negotiation
● Concurrent - describes the comprehensive range of factors that categorize the
conditions and process of a particular negotiation situation, e.g., the Oslo and Camp
David Accords
● Consequent dimension - draws attention to the nature of the outcome and the parties’
perception of it.
● The questions are: How can we more effectively manage conflict between individuals
and other actors? What information do we need to manage conflicts between individuals
more effectively?
