International Negotiation Process and Strategies

MEDIATION is largely known as an assisted or managed form of negotiation. A negotiating process can be modified or extended by the interference of a third party whose primary interest lies in facilitating an agreement. Intermediary participation is designed to create dynamics necessary to overcome or remove obstacles in the structure of interaction. It would improve efficiency in a situation in which a reluctance to expose preferences produces Pareto inferior solutions. When direct negotiations face stalemate, mediation can be introduced to bring about a settlement that could not otherwise have been achievable – such incidents include peace accords in ending brutal civil wars and other protracted violent conflicts (e.g., Burundi, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Northern Ireland, etc. in the mid 1990s and early 2000s) as well as long-simmering interstate conflicts (e.g., the 1978 Camp David Peace Accord between Egypt and Israel; the settlement of territorial disputes between Argentina and Chile in 1984).

A mediator has diverse degrees of interest in the conflict and its outcome, but is, in general, endowed with an ability to shape both the context and substance of negotiation through process control, although a final decision on acceptance or rejection of the outcome is left with disputants. This chapter reviews various roles of mediators in controlling negotiators’ interactions and, by doing so, the outcome as well. It examines change in bargaining dynamics through assistance in communication, along with restructuring the agendas and drafting proposals. Our main focus will be on the way changes in the number of parties as well as the control of information flows bring about structural alterations in direct interactions between negotiators. As interference in communication channels forms the core of the mediation dynamics, we will also investigate its impact on strategic games played by both a mediator and disputants.

Intermediary functions

Missed opportunities for agreement might be ascribed to communication links fraught with misunderstanding and misperception. The supply of alternative and additional information would be effective in overcoming cognitive limitations such as discounting an opponent's conciliatory moves, reduction in each disputant's fear, prejudices and stereotypes. By keeping the communication flow balanced and productive, negotiation becomes viable in situations where there would otherwise be an impasse.