Settlements and Resolutions: Consequences of Negotiation Processes in the Laboratory and in the Field

In: International negotiation: a journal of theory and practice, Band 7, Heft 3, S. 313-338

Abstract

In their 1994 study of divorce mediation, Kressel & his colleagues distinguished between a problem solving & a settlement-oriented style of mediation. The former led to more integrative agreements & better long-term relationships between the parties than the latter. This distinction has been a basis for a multi-method research program on negotiation & mediation processes in international relations. We have been exploring the consequences of a variety of indicators for outcomes & post-agreement relations among parties. In the laboratory, we have identified the way that sources of conflict (values & interests) lead to processes with different implications for long-term relationships. In case studies, we have identified the political conditions that produce short-term settlements, or stalemates followed by further escalation. In small-N comparative case studies, we have shown how negotiation process & context operate together to influence post-settlement relations & system change. We used a comparison of the conflicts in Karabakh & Mozambique & three cases of base-rights talks as examples. In large-N aggregate case comparisons, we developed empirical profiles of types of negotiation (eg, innovation vs redistribution) with implications for outcomes & relationships as well as the role played by turning points in projecting a process toward agreement & changing escalatory into de-escalatory processes. The variables identified by these studies are organized in terms of a framework that connects issues & objectives, background factors, & conditions with processes, outcomes, & implementation. The framework shows how these variables can lead to integrative agreements. 1 Figure, 38 References. Adapted from the source document.