Negotiation process and activities

Unless both sides win, no agreement can be permanent. Jimmy Carter, 2002 AS PROGRESS may not necessarily be linear, the potential for negotiations evolves along vastly different trajectories. Nonetheless, the participants should have an overall, even if vague, notion of how the process is likely to proceed. The whole sequence of negotiations can be envisaged as a developmental process of testing the ground, agenda formulation, proposal making, bargaining and closure. In illuminating the main characteristics of different negotiation stages, this chapter looks at specific negotiating activities that encompass proposal exchange, issue redefinition and conceptualization, exploration of an overall structure of the deal, and a search for implementing details. The nature of the dispute is initially defined through issue clarification at the agenda phase. Once having voiced a commitment to key issues, each side has to turn their attention to narrowing the differences before any prospect for settlement emerges. This transition serves as a preliminary to final bargaining. More specifically, these preliminaries constitute a search for a viable range of alternative settlements through a serious study of trading possibilities, and honing a bargaining formula. Jostling for position may precede the eventual ironing out of differences. The points of difference may be narrowed by concession-making. Thus a shared sense of the approximate range of possible terms is essential to deal structuring and detailed bargaining. As vividly illustrated, for instance, in Greek debt talks with Eurozone countries and the US–Iranian nuclear deal-making attempt in 2015, the whole process does not stop at the conclusion of an agreement, spilling over into implementation, demanding either associated negotiation or renegotiation for new or improved terms. Prenegotiation stage As part of prenegotiation dynamics, each side measures the other's capabilities and desires. Then the first step is a decision as to whether or not to negotiate at all. In general, each party should feel compelled to see the need for negotiation; it can be created by various events and other circumstances. The example of Panama's negotiation with the United States below demonstrates how a weaker party can take advantage of a catalytic event to force a much stronger party to see the need to redress their grievances.