Negotiation in International Relations
| Autor | Alexandra García Iragorri |
| Cargo | Doctoral Candidate Political Science the Pennsylvania State University. Assistant Professor Universidad del Norte. Law School |
| Páginas | 92-102 |
Page 92
This paper discusses the notion of negotiation in Intemational Relations. Extensive work has been done conceming war and violent confrontation, particularly on how to avoid or prevent it, but not as much has been done concemingnegotiationas away of preventing or ending war1. Traditionally, negotiation is included as a parallel process that takes place during war, but it is seldom granted more than a mention. In intemational relations when we think of negotiation what comes to mind is diplomacy and treaty negotiation. However, a detailed examination of war, treaty negotiation, diplomatic activif:ies, and in general the basic aspects of intemational relations, allows to notice that negotiation between actors is always presento Even during war, at certain point while violent confrontation is takingplace, officialsofthe differentparties will attempt to find a negotiated solution to the confrontation.
Based on this, it is possible to explore several questions regarding negotiation in international relations. Por example, is it possible to talk about a theory of negotiation? ls negotiation studied in a systematic way? ls negotiation in international relations different than internal negotiation, or negotiation in general?
In this paper, negotiation will be studied through two works that are well accepted within the discipline2: Pred C. lklé (1964) How Nations Negotiate, and Zartman & Berman (1982)The Practica/ Negotiator. Thesetwo works are eighteen years apart which makes the comparison even more interesting allowing us to determine if there has been any variation in the study of the concepto
In order to answer these questions, 1 start by discussing each work independently and then offer cornments regarding the study ofnegotiation in intemational relations.
Negotiation is a subject on which much has been said and written that seems self-evident until examined more closely. To reso/ve conflict and avoid the use offorce, it is said, one must negotiate (ls this a/ways the best way to sett/ePage 93 conflict? ). Negotiation requires a willingness to compromise (Why?), and both sides must make concessions (According to which law?). Neither side can expect to win all it wants (Not even if its objectives are modest?). Ilboth sides negotiate in good laith (Who judges «good laith»?), they can always find a lair solution (And what is «1air»?). If there is conflict about many issues, the less controversial ones should be solved first because agreement willlead tofurther agreement (Or will the postponed issues become harder to solve?). A negotiator should never make a threat he is not prepared to carry out (What is wrong with successful bluffing?). Each side has its minimum beyond which it cannot be moved (But how about moving the opponent's mínimum?) (Iklé, 1964, 1-2).
Iklé' s questions setthe frame for discussing what should be understood as negotiation, whenis it appropriate, and how should it be handled. It also makes the reader doubt about what he/she may have seen as proper characteristics of an adequate negotiation process.
This work is mostly centered on diplomatic and political aspects of the cold war, and on the many differences in negotiation style that may be identified between the Soviet Union and the United States. Iklé is focused on the study ofthe process and effects ofnegotiation between governments. His main interest is on how to relate the process of negotiation to the outcome (Iklé, 1964).The author defines negotiation as: a process in which explicit proposal are put lorward ostensibly lor the purpose 01reaching agreement on an exchange or on the realization 01a common interest where conflicting interests are presento
From this definition we see that the author identifies two elements that need to be present in order for a negotiation to happen: common interest, and conflict over that interest. If one of the two is absent, we do not have what to negotiate for, or about. The author divides common interest in substantive common interest and complementary interest; the former indicates that the parties will share the same object, or want to benefit from the same arrangement. Complementary interest means that the parties want different things, and the only way to obtain them is through each other; they need each other's collaboration and agreement (Iklé, 1964).
In general, it could be said that the expected outcome of a negotiation is an agreement. However, this will be too simple of a statement. For the author it is importémt to realize that even though for certain type of agreement negotiation is necessary, it is also true that some outcomes arePage 94 not always agreements. For Iklé, explicit agreement is only part of the outcome of a negotiation. Other outcomes could be tacit understanding between parties, clarification of points of disagreement, reorientation of national objectives, new commitments to third parties, and propaganda effects.
According to llclé, we are able to identify five objectives or purposes of negotiation:
-
Extension agreements - prolonging existing arrangements.
-
Normalization of agreements - to put an end to violent conflict, or to reestablish diplomatic relations.
-
Redistribution agreements - demand for change on one's own favor, at the expense of the other.
-
Innovation agreements - settingnew relationships or obligations among the parties.
-
Effects not concerning agreements - propaganda, intelligence or dissuading the opponent.
This division, Ildé contends, is not always present in reallife negotiations. Most parties have a mixture of objectives or purposes in mind, although one of the objectives may have priority. Moreover, it is also the case that parties may have differentpurposes even if they are in the samenegotiation.
The author givs particular attention to the last objective - effects not concerning agreement - and calls them side effects. Sometimes parties will enter a negotiation process without having in mind to reach an agreement; theirinterest lays more on accomplishing other objectives like, maintaining contact, substituting for violent action, intelligence, deception, propaganda, and impact on third parties.
...
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba