–they engage in negotiation bc they feel this is the best way for them to get what they want
-people claim what they want without considering what need it fulfills
-now you don’t want to yield for a second reason (to fulfill your need AND to save face)
-GC’s want to return for the wealth, status and history
-TC’ want it to keep majority status
-can still operate under ‘positional bargaining’
-can still operate under ‘positional bargaining’
-hard and soft
-hard on the merits, soft on the people
2. Focus on Interests and not on Positions
3. Generate a Variety of Possibilities/Alternatives
4. Insist on Using Objective Criteria
b. Determine the issue and work collaboratively to solve the problem
b. Positions are irreconcilable whereas interests/needs are not irreconcilable
c. Sometimes part of one side’s needs brings forth parts of another’s need
i. If what you want is respect, the more I respect you the more you respect me (respect is not a scarce resource)
d. Positional bargaining is hard between two sides, and impossible in a multi-lateral situation
i. There is one way to satisfy a position
ii. There are multiple ways to satisfy a need (multiple avenues for solutions)
b. Before addressing the issue, explore different possibilities for what you want
c. Generating alternatives can help parties decide what the best course of action is, also offers more avenues for a solution
i. When Thanos bought the carpet for cheaper (he wanted to pay less, the vendor wanted to get more – he devised an alternative solution by having Thanos bring him more customers so vendor could get more money while Thanos paid less)
ii. The pie is not FIXED; you can EXPAND the pie
b. “objective criteria” may be defined differently from situation to situation and from party to party
c. Fischer and Ury Example: perceptions of fairness
ii. UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): involved all UN members to get together and decide seriously
iii. India (represented the third world) wanted to mine in the deep seabed; if a company wanted to build a mining site, a company would have to pay that country $60M euros for each site (India just proposed this without any research)
iv. The US has many companies that won’t be able to pay that much money to get the rights to develop a site that only *might* return goods
v. There was MIT research on such an issue-and thus an existing model on the economics of deep seabed mining
vi. The Indian proposal was evaluated against this model and it was determined that this would make the development of these sites impossible – that much money would only be returned equally after 5 years; the model even proposed an appropriate amount for companies to pay in these situations
vii. So academic research and objective criteria was used in order to determine the best course of action for resolving this issue was
move from positions to interests
-two sisters who want an orange
-if they talked about their needs, they could both have gotten what they wanted
-EXPAND the pie: move from one orange to two oranges (the fruit and the peel)
-Brainstorm to expand (alone then together)
2. Must be efficient (don’t need tremendous resources for minimal returns)
3. Must improve or at least not damage the relationship of the parties
*these criteria are used to evaluate a kind of negotiation style
2. Takes community interests into consideration as well
3. Resolves conflict fairly
4. Is durable/sustainable: if one party feels tricked or duped the agreement won’t last long
5. If possible, it should improve a relationship
6. Creates goodwill for implementation
7. Creates basis for future cooperation
*objective of a negotiation process is to achieve or reach a wise agreement
2. Establishment of a reasonable time frame for implementation of the agreement.
3. Examination of whether there are sufficient resources (domestic or from donors) for implementation (funds, labor, materials).
4. Creating the institutions necessary for implementation.
5. Coordination mechanisms are in place to ensure cooperation between the parties to the agreement and address problems.
6. Preparation of the Public
-public systematic campaign: Romania wants to join the EU, pamphlets and flyers passed out to the public explaining the benefits
Donors Conference: you get people from IGOs, NGOs, multi-national corporations and present your plan, your needs and the benefits and then those groups decide whether or not to support you
Finances need to be decided before deciding the agreement
-ex: in the northern part of Cyprus, there are people who make money through the existence of 40,000 troops on the island (renting houses to them, contracts for providing for them, food vendors); thus if these troops leave the island this means revenue loss for people who make a living off of them – need to find alternative ways for these people to do business and make their money; by explaining the benefits of being part of the EU and the returns they can get in their participation in the European market.
it is important for the public to see those who sign the deal being in support of it bc this increases the legitimacy of the agreement
-who is going to do what
3. Actual Discussion
a. a good analysis will help you create a better plan
a. Identify your aspiration point: maximum goal for negotiation (Ideally get $200,000 for your house sale)
b. Identify your bottom line/resistance point: worst acceptable (Getting $100,000)
i. Between 100k and 200k is the ZOPA (zone of possible agreement)
ii. Defining a bottom line may restrict you – people may define this without performing an elaborate assessment of the situation: Fischer and Ury say instead of identifying a resistance point, maybe identify their BATNA instead
c. Identity your BATNA
d. **a good plan helps you be a better negotiator
ii. We enter negotiation bc we think we will be better off when it is done, the BATNA is about identifying where we are at if we don’t get a negotiated settlement; identify these alternatives and pick which ones of these is the best
iii. Not a resistance point; it is what we are left with if the negotiation fails
iv. Standard against which any agreement needs to be evaluated (will I be better off without this agreement, or is this settlement a good thing)
v. Determine the other party’s BATNA also, bc comparing BATNAs helps you determine who is more powerful and who needs the negotiation more
-think through those alternatives and see if you develop these and maybe make them better
-out of this list, pick the most attractive one, this is your BATNA
-offered $150,000 for the house by Lana
-response to this offer will depend on how it compares to your BATNA
-if Peter has already offered $170,000, then you have a better BATNA
-what if you only have one offer and it’s for $90,000
-based on my ‘bottom line’ I may not accept this
-however, based on my BATNA, I may accept this if I have no other offer (can’t leave the house on the market forever hoping to get a better offer
-even though my resistance point isn’t even met, my BATNA doesn’t allow for many other solutions
-what if there is another offer to develop the house into a small school
-in 2 years we will have such and such revenues
-this is a considerable BATNA: I don’t get the money I want immediately, but in the end I may get more money than just the $90,000
ex: Turkey wants to join the EU. They will have to sort their differences out with the Greek Cypriots bc Cyprus is already part of the EU and each EU member state has the power to veto the accession of a potential state. For Greek Cypriots, they are in a more powerful position bc their BATNA is better: they are not as in a rush to fix things with Turkey because their BATNA is that they are already part of the EU. Turkey has less negotiating power bc they NEED Cyprus in order to be accepted into the EU. Their BATNA is less attractive than a negotiated settlement.
-In positional bargaining, BATNA may be used to prevent a settlement: Cyprus says, “well my BATNA is better so I don’t HAVE to do what you want.” (to Turkey)
-Burton’s criticism: striking deals that don’t necessarily address the needs for people on the ground bc they are not involved in the process
-pro: has lot of legitimacy and resources
BOSNIA: three govs trying to make a deal under the pressure of Holbrooke, this process failed to invite the whole societies to move forward and engage constructively (no mechanisms to provide for this participation)
-more room for creativity and innovation
-more participatory, includes more levels of people
-con: not as much legitimacy or resources
-more sustainable solutions
-legitimizes the PROCESS and increases the ownership as is it not imposed from the top-down
-can create pressure from the bottom-up, especially in a democratic society that runs on elected governments
-HARRY POTTER society demanding Fair Trade Chocolate
-third party enters a dyadic relationship making it a triadic
-hopefully this third party comes with some kind of expertise
a. Power mediative suggestions, influence and pressure groups to come to certain deals
b. Holbrooke: prototype of an manipulative mediator
4. National Ownership
5. International Law and Normative Frameworks
6. Coherence/Coordination/and Complimentarity
7. Quality Peace Agreement
(1) understanding of the context, (2) the skills to carry out the process, (3) find the necessary financial, political, administrative and logistical support to carry out the mediation process
a. Parties may give their consent incrementally: they may seen the mediator as illegitimate at first; at this point the mediator needs to convince them
a. *mediation efforts that only involve armed groups bc they make the most ‘noise’, the process will only be rewarding troublemakers – so others who want to be included may be encouraged to engage in violence so as to be taken seriously; so effective strategies should be strategic in including civil society as well as all other relevant and AFFECTED parties by including their voices
a. 1st Gulf War v 2nd Gulf War: two initiatives received differently by international community
A QUALITY AGREEMENT
a. Address past wrongdoings AND looks forward to the future/includes provisions allowing for a common vision for the future
b. Is durable/sustainability: find ways to elicit commitment of both parties
c. Addresses the root causes of the conflict
b. These mediators have a good reputation and status and are accepted by all parties
c. They are close to the context and are better able to understand the specificities and particularities and more likely to take into consideration the needs/values of the people involved
d. Carter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the US is the closest ally to Israel and they are accepted by Palestine bc Palestine believes the US can get Israel to do more than other third-parties can; Palestine hopes the US can encourage Israel to be more reasonable in their demands and can encourage Israel to accept a reasonable proposal
-When negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to lock themselves into those positions.
-Their ego becomes attached to their position giving a new interest to ‘saving face’
-As more attention is paid to positions, less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties. Agreement becomes less likely.
-In positional bargaining you try to improve the chance that any settlement reached is favorable to you by starting with an extreme position, by stubbornly holding to it, by deceiving the other party as to your true views, and by making small concessions only as necessary to keep the negotiation going.
-Dragging one’s feet, threatening to walk out, stonewalling, and other such tactics become commonplace. They all increase the time and costs of reaching agreement.
-Each side tries through sheer will power to force the other to change its position.
-Anger and resentment often result as one side sees itself bending to the rigid will of the other while its own legitimate concerns go unaddressed.
Competitiveness approach is less efficient even when a solution is reached, for it will take longer to agree.
But it does not necessarily lead to an all negative situation, because countries have many goals and some may be complementary.
2) Obstructiveness, may try coercion.
3) Unable to work together.
4) Repeated rejection of ideas, reduces confidence of parties.
5) Parties seek to enhance own power.
6) Stimulates view that solution can be imposed.
-accommodate the agreement
-meets the interest of the parties
There is high interdependence among goals of the 2 parties.
2) Attitudes: Should respond positively to beneficial actions, negatively to unbeneficial.
3) Inducibility: Willingness to be helpful to another’s actions if they are helpful to you, reciprocation
2) Less obstructive, more helpful.
3) Sense of basic similarity in beliefs.
4) Responsive to other sides needs.
5) Coordinated effort, work together to resolve.
6) Willing to enhance other sides capabilities.
2. Overvalue your assets.
3. Over estimating your position.
4. Not knowing what you really want.
5. Committing yourself too tightly for a deal.
6. Inadequate preparation
-prevent lack of ownership: low sustainability
-prevent increase in violent actors to be ‘heard’
-include terrorists: the better our communication, the better our chances of exerting influence (minimize legitimacy of that group by including low level actors)
2. Vision of a Solution (How much better off people will be)
3. Recognition and dialogue (Parties legitimate)
4. Equal power balance of parties in Negotiations (Unrealistic and this never happens; Most assume the GCC is the stronger side, but they have to deal against Turkey who has 40,000 troops)
2. know your batna: flexible for exploration
3. make the most of your assets: improve your batna with creativity means more power for you
Get access to
Guarantee No Hidden