Séance 2-Theories

Theories of Negotiations

Typology of Negotiations

Two key types:

• Bilateral vs Multilateral negotiations.
• Distributive vs Integrative negotiations.

Bilateral negotiation

• Involve two actors seeking a mutually acceptable outcome.
• Characterised by interdependence despite unequal resources.
• Defined by formal equality.
  • That’s the point of the system: sovereignty, UN charter→ basically respecting each country.
• Ex: Armenia-Azerbaïdjan.
  • There is an international system composed of states. As an actor, it is possible to talk to others. When you have a lot of actors, it is not possible to do bilateral negotiations constantly. Some problems are global.
  • Armenia wanted to bring in allies (e.g: France), the powerful one being Azerbaïdjan which didn’t want to.
  • Multilateralising a conflict by bringing in the UN among others can also help draw a resolution or enforce peace.

Multilateral negotiations

• Multiple actors, multi-issue agenda, cultural diversity.
• Strategies include sequencing, persuasion, coercion, alliance-building.
  • Weaker states often prefer multilateralism.
• Often take place in international organisations.
• Foster diffuse reciprocity through repeated interaction.
  • See each other more→ understand each other (liberalism)→ more liberal approaches emerge between countries.
• Ex: Paris Agreement (2015).

Distributive vs. integrative negotiation

• Distributive = Fixed pie, win-lose, coercion, salami tactics.
• Integrative = Expand the pie, win-win, creative problem-solving.

Distributive negotiation

• Win-lose, zero-sum outcomes.
• Parties act as adversaries.
• Information is withheld to maximise gains.
• Examples:
  • Marketplace haggling.
  • Territorial disputes (e.g., India–China border conflict).
  • Trade tariff negotiations (e.g., US–China trade war).

Integrative negotiation

• Win-win, positive-sum outcomes.
• Parties collaborate as partners.
• Emphasis on information sharing and creative solutions.
• Examples: (Multilateral negotiations).
  • Peace agreements (e.g., Camp David Accords).
    • Each wanted something different, both got what they wanted as it wasn’t incompatible. There were two pies, in a way.
  • Climate negotiations (e.g., Paris Agreement).

The Orange story

Key negotiation concepts

• The world of Negotiation theory is filled with popular concepts: Starting Point, Reservation Point (bottom line), Target point , Formula-detail, Institutional Context, Failed/Just Outcomes ….
• Amongst the most popular concepts, are:
  • Zone of potential agreement (ZOPA) is the bargaining range where two or more negotiating parties might find common ground. The parties must have a common image of the outcome they want to achieve and the ZOPA typically includes at least some of the ideas and interests of each party to get there.
  • Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) is the best and most advantageous alternative course of action for a negotiating party if negotiations fail and an agreement is not reached.

Theoretical Approaches to Negotiation

All these concepts derive from theories/approaches! Such as:

1. Principled approach (interests VS positions)
2. Structural approaches (power asymmetries, hard power).
3. Strategic approaches (game theory, bargaining).
4. Sequential/process-based analyses (phases of negotiation).
5. Constructivist approaches (norms, values, culture).
6. Behavioural & psycho-cognitive approaches.
7. Historical sociology approaches.

Be careful:

• Dont get overwhelmed.
• Dive in→you can get lost.
• Each theory is just a different pair of glasses, depending on your needs as negotiators or students trying to make sense of negotiation.
  • E.g: Cold War from realism (assured mutual destruction) or liberalism (interdependence economically and mutual profit from cooperation) to explain lack of war in Europe.
  • The meaning of things such as power changes greatly and so does the conception of our world.

Principled approach: Getting to Yes

The Harvard Method

Developed by Fisher and Ury (1981). Four key principles:

1. Separate people from the problem.
2. Focus on interests, not positions.
   • Position: manifestation of an interest in a concrete manner.
   • Interest: underlying motivation, concern, and importance.
3. Generate options for mutual gain.
4. Base outcomes on objective criteria/standard.

Principled negotiation in practice

• BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement).
• Managing relationships and emotions.
• Use of perception, empathy, active listening.
• Ensures fair, sustainable agreements.
• Ex: Camp David Accords (shared interest: regional stability. But interest as security + recognition (ISR) VS reagining Sinai Peninsula territory (EGY)).

Limits of principled negotiation

• Describes the world as it should be, and not as it is.
• Oversimplification: does not take into consideration complexity of parties (States are not unitary actors).
  • Interests can then change, unless you assume that cultural norms exclusively shape them (they also change either way).
• Relies on anecdotal evidence. Not much science behind it.

Structural approaches

• Negotiation reflects underlying power relations. Emphasises the role of economic, military, and political resources in shaping outcomes.
• Realist/neo-realist parallels.
• Key Authors: Hans Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger.
• Example: U.S.–China trade negotiations where economic and military power shaped outcomes.

Strategic approaches

• Focus on rational decision-making, game theory, and bargaining models. Strategic approaches use mathematical models to predict negotiation outcomes.
  • Trying to predict whether the Soviet Union would or wouldn’t make more missiles if the USA did as well, e.g.
• Use of game theory models.
• Highlights rational choice.
• Key Authors: John von Neumann, John Nash, Thomas Schelling-
• Example: Cold War arms race and negotiations modelled as a Prisoner’s Dilemma.

Game theory in negotiation

• Developed by John von Neumann (1920’).
• The Prisoner’s Dilemma illustrates cooperation vs defection.
• Analysis of strategic decision-making and conflict of interests among the players.
• Result of the decision-making depends on the other players’ decisions.
• Strictly formalised by means of mathematical models.
• There are other games such as the chicken game:

Limits of game theory

• Assumes rationality, overlooks trust and emotions.
• Explains outcomes but not values or norms.
  • Everyone doesn’t think following the same system basically.
• Highly systematic but free of any consideration of process as practised in negotiation.
  • E.g.: deciding to wait for new elections in a state before negotiating with it.
• Negotiation also requires concessions, trust, and face-saving.

Sequential/Procedural approaches

• Analyses negotiation as a process with distinct phases: preparation, bargaining, and implementation.
• Negotiation as a sequence of concessions.
• Breaks negotiation into stages, allowing for targeted strategies at each phase (Ripeness theory, mutually hurting stalemate (MHS)).
• Each concession signals intent and encourages reciprocity.
• Key Authors: I. William Zartman.
• Example: Colombian peace talks.
  • Reduce arms violence, many actors→big implementation phase.

Limitations

• Reality often more non-linear with overlaps and deadlocks.
• Risk: purely regressive bargaining vs creative solutions.

Constructivist approaches

• Normative, legitimising, and socialising aspects.
• Highlights the role of norms, values, identity, and social context.
• Negotiation is seen as a process of social construction.
• Constructivist approaches argue that negotiation outcomes are shaped by social context and collective identities.
• Negotiation builds its own culture of norms, ideas or gender.
• Interests are socially constructed, not fixed.
• Power is not just a mechanical transformation of ressource.
• Example: Lybia Intervention (2011). Adler Niessen & Pouliot , Negotiation as practice/Ars vivendi.

UNIGE ACofIN