Negotiation in Internasional Relations

The paper I’d review in this work is written by Alexandra Garcia Iragorri with the
title “Negotiation in Internasional Relations”. The paper studied negotiation from the work
of Fred C. Ikle (1964) How Nations Negotiate, and Zartman & Berman (1982) The Practical
Negotiator. The paper would focus on how negotiation is a thing that could be used as a tool
for nations to either prevent a confict or resolve a conflict.

How nations negotiate

The paper explained the work’s of Iklé which the content had explanation about how
negotiation can work and the things that is needed to hold a negotiation. Acoording to the
paper, Iklé’s work identifies two elements that need to be present in order for anegotiation to
happen: Common interest and conflict over that interest.

Common interest means each parties who hold the negotiation have the same interest
in mind or at least would end up with the same interest once the negotiations over.
Agreement is an important part of the negotiation as it was basically the result of negotiation.
Though for Iklé, explicit agreement is only part of the outcome of negotiation. Other outcome
could be tacit understanding between parties, clarification of points of disagreement,
reorientation of national objectives, new commitments to third parties, and propaganda
effects.

According to lklé, we are able to identify five objectives or purposes of negotiation:

1. Extension agreements - prolonging existing arrangements.
2. Normalization of agreements - to put an end to violent conflict, or to reestablish
diplomatic relations.
3. Redistribution agreements - demand for change on one's own favor, at the expense of
the other.
4. Innovation agreements – setting new relationships or obligations among the parties.
5. Effects not concerning agreements - propaganda, intelligence or dissuading the
opponent.
From one to four of the objectives of negotiation, Iklé focused on the purposes to achieve
some kind of agreeements between the parties whom negotiated though it is not always the
case in every negotiations. We have to notice that each parties who hold a negotiaion might
havea different purposes in mind and could reach an agreement without having the same

1
purpose with the other parties. To reach a particular term of agreement the Parties have three
basic choices:
a) to accept agreement atthe terms we may expect the opponent may settle for - available
terms,
b) to discontinue negotiations without agreement, and with no intention of resuming
them,and
c) to try to improve the «available» terms through further bargaining.
The term of bargaining means each party is able to induce or dissuade the opponent by
the proper use of warnings, bluffs, threats, and cornmitments. The bargaining reputation, the
personality of the actors, domestic affair issues, and the cerl:ainty or uncertainty of the
opponent' s goals, all affect the way an actor may behave during a negotiation. In other
words, these four aspects have an impact on the way an actor may 'manipula te' the
opponent's choices, and can also determine the actor's own choice of action.
In order to make negotiation more effective, the author offers a set of rules of
accomrnoelation that could also be seen as the '12 commandments of negotiation'. According
to Iklé (1964, 87), negotiators need to follow these rules in order to stayin thenegotiation and
to be known as a respecteel actor. These rules are:
1. Never kill a negotiator
2. Avoid disputes about status
3. Adhere to agreed agenda
4. Honor partial agreements
5. Maintain flexibility
6. Reciprocate concessions
7. Retum favors
8. Refrain from flagrant lies
9. Negotiate in Good Faith
10. Avoid emotionalism anel rudeness
11. Expedite and rationalize negotiation process
12. The comrnunity spirit.
Ikle’s work attempts to discuss the link between process and outcome of negotiation. The
book give some explanation about how negotiation works, it offers some ways to influence
other party in the process and outcome of negotiations. Though it does not have enough
detailed explanation yet about how much limitation on how these ways of influence in

2
negotiation works and it’s not explaining about what action to take in each of particular
process in negotiation.

The Practical Negotiator

The book written by Zartman and Berman offers arguments about how negotiators not only
need the experience on their hands but also an understanding about the process of the
negotiation itself as well as the underlying aspects of negotiations. They intent to present to
the reader not only the practical features of negotiation, but also an elaboration of the
concept.
Negotiators, the authors argue, need to be aware that negotiation is a symmetrical process
where every information, tactics, or advice is available to all the parties. It is important to
know that the proces of negotation is not always ended with the same things, each negotiation
ha different process and oucome. Concerning the process of negotiation, there is no way to
tell how to win. The only way known is to do beter on the process.
In order to offer some clarifieation of how the negotiation process works, Zartrnan and
Berman introduce a model that identifies three stages, each with different problems and
behaviors. These stages are
a) diagnose the situation and decide to try negotiations
b) negotiate a formula or common definition of the confliet in terms amenable to a
solution, and
c) negotiate the detail to implement the formula on precise points of dispute.
It was stressed that negotiation doesn’t constantly consist of all of these stages and some
stages could overlap. The models which the author used may not be used in every type of
negotiatons, but it offer the general sequence through which different ways flow.
The first stage which was diagnose the situation and decide to try negotiation leading
to a way which each parties involved in negotiation to reach some kind of situation that allow
negotiation to happen. All of the parties involved have to recognize their sense of need for
negotiation for the process to start. A joint effort is needed to reach the parties interest.
Consistent with their interest on identifying the problems and behaviors of each stage, the
authors state that appropriate behavior during the diagnostic phase involve: to be
knowledgeable of facts of the problem, to have thorough information conceming similar
issues, particularly their precedents and referents, to be clear about the context and
perceptions important for both parties, and to always be able to think altemative solutions.

3
 The formula phase may only be initiated after the parties have agreed on exploring the
possibility of negotiation and have reached what the authors call Turning Point of
Seriousness (1982, 87). Been at this point means that each side recognizes that the other is
serious about the idea of finding a common solution and that both sides are willing to 'give
and take or concede and receive'.
In the detail phase both parties focus their attention on identifying and working out
the details required to implement the formula. During this phase negotiators will be dealing
with concessions, making this stage crucial for the negotiating process.
The author of the paper pointed out that the study of negotiation is a waste of time as
it was no theory and can be studied in different ways. The writer had an adequate argument
considering the fact that negotiation we studied in books is very much different with the real
practical negotiation. A lot of factors could influence the process or/and result of the
negotiations such as the actors, interest, the country, or the politics.
Each process of negotiations have a different play out, there is no specialized way to
win a negotiation. The only difinite thing is how to make it better. Better in a way we can
reduce the damage or loss in negotiation as much as possible. In negotiation, negotiators has
to use a lot and different strategies that would make them able to reach their goals with as less
as possible costs.