Negotiation stages

1. Negotiationstages G.R.Berridgescheme: • Prenegotiation • Around-the-tablenegotiation • Diplomaticmomentum • Packaging agreements • Following up

2. Prenegotiation

3. PrenegotiationDefinition 2 contendingviews: • prenegotiationis an initialphase or stage in the process of negotiation (Zartman & Berman 1984) • prenegotiationis a separate processthatstructures the actualprocess of negotiation (Stein 1989).

4. PrenegotiationDefinition Prenegotiations, despitetheirmisleadingname, are the first stage of negotiations (Berridge)

5. PrenegotiationStages Brian Tomlin’s five-stage model of prenegotiation • Problemidentification • Search for options • Commitment to negotiate • Agreement to negotiate • Setting the parameters

6. PrenegotiationFunctions • Making the extent of the risk of undertakingnegotiationclearer • Assisting and coming to terms with the costs of concessions and agreement • Convincing the other party thatconcessionswill be required • Estimating and consolidating the internalsupport by each of the parties • Selecting and discardingalternatives • Buildbridges from conflict to conciliation

7. PrenegotiationStages (Berridge) • Agreeing on the need to negotiate • Agreeing agenda • Agreeing procedure • Venue • Delegations • Timing

8. Prenegotation1. Agreeing the need to negotiate In manycases, persuading parties to a conflict to commit to a negotiatedsettlementiseven more complicated, time consuming, and difficultthanreachingagreement once negotiationshavebegun.

9. Prenegotiation1. Agreeing the need to negotiateThe diagnosticphase • Negotiationis appropriate whendecisions must be unanimous • Negotiationis appropriate whenthereisneither authority normajoritybutwhenunanimityis the decisionrule • Negotiationis appropriate when new solutionshave to be invented to replaceunacceptableoldones or new oneshave to be createdwhen new problemsarise

10. Prenegotiation1. Agreeing the need to negotiateThe diagnosticphase • Negotiationis appropriate whenthereis a change in the structure of affairs and a new order must be created or problemsmanaged in itsabsence • Negotiationisappropiatewhenpropitiouschangeshavetakenplace

11. Prenegotiation1. Agreeing the need to negotiateThe diagnosticphase • The moment ispropitious for negotiationwhenbothsidesperceivethattheymay be better off with an agreementthatwithoutone • The moment ispropitious for negotiationwhenpower relations shifttowardsequality: when the formerupperhandslips, or the formerunderdogimproveshis position • Negotiationis appropriate whenall parties to the dispute have a veto over itssolution (double veto)

12. Prenegotiation1. Agreeing the need to negotiateThe diagnostic phase • Negotiations are appropriate whenthey deal with a new outcomethat can be createdonlyjointly • Expectedoutcomes: the maximum thatone party feelsit can realisticallyobtain from the other party • Oneparty’s“security position”: one’s party estimate of the costs and benefits itwouldencounterwithout an agreement • Negotiations are also appropriate whenthey deal with an exchange of outcomesthat can only be decideduponjointly

13. Prenegotiation1. Agreeing the need to negotiate • Statessometimesengage in prenegotiations (and evensubstantivenegotations) merely in order to buy time or obtain a good press for beingconsideredaccomod • ating) (“playingit long”) • Statesequallyconvincedthat a stalemateexists (eachhas a veto over the outcomepreferred by the other) • Statesequallyagreethatnegotiationis the only way forward • Statesequallyprepared to acknowledgethis • Statesequallyable to devote the time and resourcesneeded to launch a negotiation

14. Prenegotiation1. Agreeing the need to negotiateThe diagnosticphase • Will, perception and equality • Proposalsas «positive exercises of power» • Promise («volitionalgratification») and/or prediction («non-volitionalgratification») • Negative equivalents: threats and warnings (to be avoidedif possibile)

15. Prenegotiation1. Agreeing the need to negotiateThe diagnosticphase Preparation • Review and be wellbriefed in the facts of the problem, its cause, history, itschanges and evolution • Look intoprecedents and referentsgoverningsimilar situation • Know the context and perceptionsthatgivemeaning to the situation and itscomponents • Try to list and understand the stakes and interests of each side • Be aware of the affectiveelements in both parties’ viewpoints of the situation, and of the emotionalcomponents of the other party • Think of alternate solutions on thesebases • Whilesuchstudies are going on at home and contacts are beingmadeto persuade the other party about the negotiability of the problem, talks can alsobegin in order to hear the otherparty’spoint of view

16. Prenegotiation1. Agreeing the need to negotiate • If the existence of a stalemateisaccepted, the parties have to acknowledge: • The parties haveimportant common interests – for example, avoidingnuclear war – aswellasintereststhat divide them • Thatdisasterwill be inescapableifnegotiations are notgrasped • Thatthereis a possiblesolution. Thismight involve the suggestionthatnegotiation of the dispute in question be linked to another in which the parties are also on opposite sides, thusincreasing the scope for trade-offs

17. Prenegotiation1. Agreeing the need to negotiate • Leadership of bothsidespoliticallysecure • Leadersnotsuspected of appeasement • Avoidingincidents (liketerroristattacks)

18. Prenegotation1. Agreeing the need to negotiate • Management of domesticpolitics • International coalition building

19. Prenegotation2. Agreeing the agenda • Agenda content (hiddendangers) • Notgiving the impressionthatone party alreadyconceded on a point • Notallowing a propaganda victory to one side • Notpermitting a formaldiscussion on an issuethatone party hasalreadyrefused to deal with

20. Prenegotation2. Agreeing the agenda Agenda «Boudariessetting» (agenda too large or toonarrow)

21. Prenegotiation2. Agreeing the agenda Agenda order Couldimplyearlyconcessions from one side Makingearlyconcessionsconditional on receipt of laterones

22. Prenegotiation3. Agreeing procedure • Format • Venue • Delegations • Timing

23. Prenegotiation3. Agreeing procedure Format • Indirect or directnegotations («face-to-face»)? • Ifindirect, whatrole for mediators, facilitators? Solution of «proximitytalks» (intermediaryemployed, butdelegationswould base themselves in more o lesscloseproximity to eachother) (e.g. discussionsheld in TurkeybetweenIsrael and Syria in 2007) • If more than 2 parties, parallelbilateraldiscussions? Multilateral conference? Combination of both? «Confessionals»? • In multilateraltalks, sometimesdecision are taken in subcommittee, butwhatrole of plenary conference?

24. Prenegotiation3. Agreeing procedure Venue • In friendlyrelationship: home or away (ourEmbassythere of theirEmbassyhere) • In tense relationship: neutralground, meeting «halfway», alternating home venues (rotating, whenthere are more thantwo parties)

25. Prenegotiation3. Agreeing procedure Venue • Symbolicimportance • Practicalconsiderations

26. Prenegotiation3. Agreeing procedure Delegations • Level (ministerial, official, mixed) • Composition (problem of non-recognition) • Size (sometimes problematic)

27. Prenegotiation3. Agreeing procedure Delegations (Composition) • Whowill and willnot be involved in the negotiationsprocessmayultimatelyhave an impact on anydecisionsreached in the eventualnegotiations. • In some cases the participants in the negotiationsproceedings are obvious and thusthereislittlediscussion on thisissue. (e.g., in the NAFTA prenegotiations, the issueinvolvedonly the USA and Canada whowere to take part in bilateraldiscussions). • However, there are alsotimeswhereby the selection of participantsproves to be lessstraightforward.

28. Prenegotiation3. Agreeing procedure Timing • When should negotiation commence? • Other commitment of key player • Practical arrangements • Time for preparation of briefing papers • Appropriate consultations

29. Prenegotiation3. Agreeing procedure Timing: dates • Conflicting international agenda (2001: WTO Doha - FAO Rome - Asia-Pacific economic forum) • Bitter memories ("Bloody Sunday" in Northern Ireland; 14 May [1948] anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel, for the Arabs) • Independence days or national holidays (13 June for Portugal, problems for European Election date)

30. Importance of prenegotiation • Prenegotiationsmattersbothwhen parties get to the table and whenthey do not. Itmattersbecause the processprovides the participants with significantopportunity for learningaboutboththemselves and aboutothers. • The learningwhich can occurduringprenegotiationsproves to be invaluable for the parties involvedeither for eventualnegotiationsresulting from the prenegotiations or simply for diplomatic relations. • Itprovides the parties an opportunity to gain new information, learn new technologicaltechniques, and gain a general betterunderstanding or the cause and effect of conflict, thus the ability to reframe a situation.

31. Importance of prenegotiation • Evidencesuggeststhat the greater the reduction of uncertainty and complexitythroughboundaries, participation and agenda settingthe more likelythattherewill be a smoothtransition of getting to the negotiationsstages with successfuloutcome. • Furthermore, itwouldseemthatprenegotiations are important due to the factthattheyallow for a greateridentification and clarification of concessions and the opportunity to gain greater and more coherentdomesticsupport.

33. Around-the-tablenegotiation

34. Around-the-tablenegotiation «Turningpoint of Seriouseness»: the perception by each side that the other side isseriousaboutfinding a negotiatedsolution – thatis, that the otheriswilling to «lose» a littleto «win» a littleratherthanwin or loseall in a non-negotiatedapproach

35. Around-the-tablenegotiation • More formal stage • More public awareness

36. Around-the-tablenegotiationThe formula stage • Broadprinciples of settlements • Guidelines • Framework for agreement • Set of ideas • Examples: one country, twosystems(Hong Kong); UN Security CouncilResolution 242/1967: land for peace ; high-levelagreements on Cyprus 1977 and 1979: landfor federation

37. Around-the-tablenegotiationThe formula stage Recipe for a good formula: • Simplicity • Comprehensiveness • Balance • Flexibility

38. Around-the-tablenegotiationThe formula stage Types of formula: • Deductiveapproach or • Step-by-stepapproach

39. Around-the-tablenegotiationThe formula stage • Linkage: trading of concessions on unrelated or onlyremotelyconnectedissues • e.g. Angola-South Africa-US-Cuba on Namibia in early1980s; Cuba Missile Crisis in 1962 (no nukes in Cuba and withdrawal, at a later stage, of US missiles from Turkey)

40. Around-the-tablenegotiation The details stage The details stage is a strong candidate for the dubioushonour of beingcalled the mostdifficult stage of all

41. Around-the-tablenegotiationsThe details stage Problems • Large teams of negotiators (inter-agenciesfight) • Definition of the terms: case of the Soviet understandingof «strategicweapons» • Participations of specialists: people of lower authority of thoseinvolved in the negotiation in the formula stage • Attempts to redraft the formula in one’s party advantagethrough «small prints»

42. Around-the-tablenegotiationThe details stage Some techniques • «Constructiveambiguity» refers to an agreementat some lessspecificlevel of principle or generalitythan the disputed item per se • «Functionalequivalents»: the essentialcharacteristics of the item under dispute becomes the focus ratherthan the item itself (apples for oranges) • «Set aside»: the parties can agree to leave out of their formula one single issuethatsimplydoesnotfitinto an otherwiseacceptablesolution. «Moment of truth»