Air Education and Training Command
Download
1 / 19

Air Education and Training Command - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 390 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: Shopping

Air Education and Training Command. Sustaining the Combat Capability of America’s Air Force. International Negotiations. I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e. 1960s Games Theory Influence (Thomas Schelling, Anatol Rapoport, Fred Charles Ikle).

Related searches for Air Education and Training Command

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha

Download Presentation

Air Education and Training Command

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Slide1 l.jpg

Air Education and Training Command

Sustaining the Combat Capability of America’s Air Force

International Negotiations

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e


1960s games theory influence thomas schelling anatol rapoport fred charles ikle l.jpg
1960s Games Theory Influence(Thomas Schelling, Anatol Rapoport, Fred Charles Ikle)

  • non-zero-sum or “mixed motive”

  • Realization of common interest while conflicting interests exist

  • Theorizing evolved into two approaches

    • One that emphasizes the competitive nature of the negotiations process

      • Effort to advance the interest of one party relative to its rivals—win-lose (bargaining) or zero sum

    • One that highlighted the more cooperative effort to enlarge the joint interests of both parties simultaneously

      • A more cooperative effort to enlarge the joint interests of both parties simultaneously—win-win (problem-solving)


Bargaining paradigm l.jpg
Bargaining Paradigm

  • Initial offers

  • Commitments made to certain positions

  • Promises of rewards and threats of sanctions

  • Concessions made

  • Retractions of previous offers and concessions

  • If concessions making overcomes pressure to diverge, agreement comes somewhere between opening offers

  • Alternately, stalemate or breakdown of negotiations

  • Inequality may lead to asymmetrical outcomes

  • Virtually all cases result in compromise


Bargaining paradigm4 l.jpg
Bargaining Paradigm

  • Fits with realist interpretations of international politics

  • Emphasizes competitive nature of relations among sovereign nation-states

  • Threats result in defensive positions that threaten others


New problem solving paradigm anatol rapoport l.jpg
New Problem-Solving Paradigm (Anatol Rapoport)

  • Again from game theory

  • Building on assumptions of traditional bargaining framework

  • Joint search for “empathetic understanding” and “domain of validity”

  • Real or perceived conflicts of interest arise


Bargaining or problem solving paradigm richard walton and robert mckersie l.jpg
Bargaining or Problem-Solving Paradigm(Richard Walton and Robert McKersie)

  • Bargaining

    • Interests are in basic conflict

    • Each tries to win largest possible share (value claiming)

  • Problem-solving

    • Parties may enlarge the benefits available (value creation)

    • Both may gain

    • “Win-Win” negotiations

    • “Principled Negotiations” (Roger Fisher, William Ury, Bruce Patton)

      • Negotiations based on interests rather than on bargaining positions

      • Understand the problem and then arrive at formula to guide bargaining


Bargaining paradigm7 l.jpg
Bargaining Paradigm

  • Focuses on states as represented by group of negotiators who have to achieve specific national interests

  • Interests—fixed and unitary

  • Task is to maximize those national interests

  • Interests are mapped on bargaining situation as “preferences”

  • Outcome evaluated according to amount of “utility” produced


Bargaining paradigm8 l.jpg
Bargaining Paradigm

+

A

B’

E

b’

a

b

a’

0

Bargaining Space

B

A’

-

Horizontal axis = issue dimension

Vertical axis = gains (+) and losses (-)

relative to nonagreement (0)

A---A’ = A’s preference curve

B---B’ = B’s preference curve

a = A’s preferred outcome

a’ = A’s minimum acceptable outcome

b = B’s preferred outcome

b’ = B’s minimum acceptable outcome

E = point of “equitable” solution, where

gains of both parties relative to

nonagreement are equal


Bargaining power l.jpg
Bargaining Power

  • Parties with greater capabilities can generally make their threats and promises more credible

  • Parties have different capacities to actually carry out rewards and punishments

  • Goal is to reach agreement just inside the opponent’s point of minimum acceptability


Progress in bargaining l.jpg
Progress in Bargaining

  • Best = concessions by one party are reciprocated by concessions by the other party

  • One party must risk introducing the first concession

  • Parties may try to reinforce their position by making firm commitments to particular positions

  • If one party is successful in making its commitments credible, then the others have only a choice between

    • accepting agreement on the terms announced by the first

    • Rejecting those terms and creating a stalemate


Breaking stalemates in bargaining l.jpg
Breaking Stalemates in Bargaining

  • Threats and promises

    • Promises of rewards more likely to yield concessions

    • Counterthreats or counterpromises may increase the likelihood of a deadlock

    • If stalemate broken, likelihood that outcomes will be asymmetrical and perceived unfair

  • Third party intervention

    • May create simultaneous concessions

    • May coordinate concession

    • Bargaining most likely to be effective

    • Rarely used in international-negotiations


Outcomes of bargaining l.jpg
Outcomes of Bargaining

  • Reciprocity required

  • Tendency toward sub-optimal agreement

  • Frequently asymmetrical

  • Tactical maneuvering inherent in bargaining makes “fair” outcomes extremely difficult

  • Conflictual behavior lessens cooperation


Problem solving l.jpg
Problem-Solving

  • Goal is to solve common problems to benefit everyone

  • Reframing

  • Intertwined issues—security, political, economic, social, cultural

  • Assumes power to implement agreement

  • Creates value

  • Different interests lead to creative solutions


Process of problem solving l.jpg
Process of Problem-Solving

  • Diagnosis

  • Formula

  • Detail

  • Often “track two” diplomacy


Benefits of problem solving l.jpg
Benefits of Problem-Solving

  • Agreements that are more efficient, equitable, and stable

  • Focuses on basic needs of parties

  • Identifies elements of conflict

  • Requires parties to emphasize

  • Creating norms that facilitate an atmosphere of cooperation

  • Works well with neutral third party

  • Promotes agreements that are usually more enduring


Bargaining vs problem solving l.jpg
Bargaining vs. Problem-Solving

  • Fundamentally different ideal types of negotiating process

  • Appropriate approach depends on

    • nature of issue

    • Preexisting relationship among parties

    • Background factors for context of negotiation


Bargaining l.jpg
Bargaining

  • Two or relatively few parties and a single or a few issues along a continua

  • Payoffs are easily divided among the parties

  • Nature of the problem may not present many options

  • At least one of the parties pursues inflexible tactics

  • Power asymmetries constitute an important factor


Problem solving18 l.jpg
Problem-Solving

  • Absence of bargaining space

  • Multiple and complex issues are linked

  • Multiple parties whose preferences are different and crosscutting

  • Intense emotional involvement by parties


Criteria for evaluating outcomes l.jpg
Criteria for Evaluating Outcomes

  • Empirical—which approach best describes and explains how the negotiation process is actually conducted

  • Normative—which negotiation process is likely to be most efficient and produce the best possible agreements under varying conditions

  • Four criteria

    • Agreement

    • Efficiency

    • Equity

    • Stability


ad
  • Login