Negotiation concepts and applications

¶ … bilateral negotiation is mainly characterized by the fact that there are only two parts trying to reach an agreement. The two sides can either have a conflicting negotiation, where they're disputing a certain aspect (it may be an economic dispute or a political matter, for example), or a constructive negotiation, where they are drawing up a cooperation agreement, for example.

B) Internal negotiations are negotiations that take place inside the negotiating team. In general, these types of negotiations are not recommended in public or during the rounds of negotiations between teams, because it may show the other side that there is a certain lack of consensus on the matter, which may destabilize the negotiating position.

Vertical negotiations are negotiations that take place between members of opposite teams that are on different positions of authority. It may be the case that one of the members of lesser importance of one time has the authority to negotiate with someone higher in rank from the opposite team.

Horizontal negotiations take place between members of opposite teams that are on the same position or have the same rank.

C) A coalition is a situation where two or more parts side together for a common objective. Coalition for Iraq would be a present-day example, with several countries joining together for a common objective: democracy in Iraq.

2. A) The most important element that arises and needs to be taken into consideration during an international negotiation refers to the cultural differences between the interlocutors. This means that additional elements need to be considered in an international negotiation, as opposed to a domestic one. Cultural differences imply, for the beginning, a language barrier. It may be the case that a translator needs to be used and, if this is the case, the negotiating process is more difficult, it takes more time as iti is less direct.

Additionally, one needs to consider all the elements related to customs and traditions for each team of negotiators in part. Some people like to be direct and get to the point quickly (the Americans would practice the "time is money" concept in negotiations as well), while for others time is more of a philosophical concept rather than a practical application. The South Americans would, for example, most likely be late at 9 out of 10 meetings, which may end the negotiations before they even start if they are dealing with Germans.

B) The Yalta Conference between the three main leaders of the Second World War, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, may provide a good example. First of all, the negotiating teams were supplemented with numerous auxiliary members, who acted as translators or interpreters. The cultural advisors in each of the teams explained to the leaders every gesture and stratagem that the other parts may have used. The negotiations themselves needed several other meetings between the leaders before an actual concluding and mutually satisfying result could be reached.

3. A) The most important element that a third party can bring about in a negotiation is the element of impartiality. This means that the two party that have reached a stalemate position in the negotiation will trust a third party to mediate the conflicting situation and, perhaps, work out an agreement. So, you may be entitled to use a third party in a negotiation so as to bring new, but at the same time, impartial ideas that may help surpass the stalemate position.

B) The main advantage that should be considered is the fact that a third party is usually not involved and can thus bring an impersonal note to the negotiation process. In turn, someone who is not directly implicated may come up with ideas that the other interlocutors are less likely to perceive, due to their direct involvement in the negotiating process.

The disadvantage of using a third party may come from the fact that, even if the third party is supposed to provide impartial advice and mediation, the two conflicting sides may still regard it as taking sides and treat him with distrust. In this sense, it is best to use a third party upon which no suspicion of impartiality should fall, under any conditions during the negotiation process.

C) As the best example of the use of a third party mediator, we may remember the negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanahyu and the Palestinian leader Arafat at Camp Davis, at the end of the 90s. The U.S. president Bill Clinton acted as the mediator in this case.

The advantages and disadvantages of using a mediator can be clearly seen in this case. The Palestinian delegation always regarded Bill Clinton as being an inch closer to Israel rather than the Palestinian cause. On the other hand, Bill Clinton provided valuable ideas for the two disputing leaders, ideas which may have taken the negotiations out of the stalemate they had arrived to, had there not been the tremendous differences between the two parties.

4. A) The Russian President Vladimir Putin may be deemed as an enforcer from this point-of-view. As a former KGB agent, Putin has learned manipulation techniques and he does not hold back from using them. Additionally, the position from which Putin plays is excellent for such practices. He is the leader of a state that is still the largest in the world, with enormous natural resources and human potential. Additionally, Russia is still one of the greatest nuclear powers. Despite not being one of the two existing superpowers anymore, Russia remains a reputable opponent for anybody.