Fundamentals of Negotiation
Fundamentals of Negotiation
UN organs such as the GA and the SC—the main focus of this publication—make decisions on a wide range of issues. The deliberations that take place in both bodies can only move forward and produce outcomes if there is agreement between Member States. Sometimes, this agreement is reached by consensus. At other times, it is reached by a majority vote. What we are concerned about in this section is the process leading to a decision by a conference. This process is negotiation.
Purpose of Negotiation
Negotiation is well known and practiced in all fields of human activity. It is a way of settling disputes without fighting, a way of making joint decisions when those who are making decisions hold different views or a way of achieving your own objectives despite other participants having different objectives.
This means that negotiation is a way of coping with disagreement, with varying views and with different objectives. In short, it is a way of coping with conflict.
But it can only deal with conflict in cases where the parties have a sense that they have common interests. If they did not think that they had common interests, they could shout at each other (unproductively) or ignore each other: they would not be interested in seeking agreement.
Negotiation is about finding a way to reach agreement. When agreement is reached, a dispute is settled and a joint decision has been made.
Some individuals or governments are reticent about engaging in negotiation because they fear that they will be forced to accept outcomes that they consider damaging to their interests. Such fears come from a misunderstanding of the process of negotiation. The aim, and the only outcome to which any delegation should agree, is an improvement—from their own point of view—of the situation they face before the negotiations start (or in other words, an improvement over the alternative to agreement). This often falls short of one’s ideal or preferred outcome; but the consideration that should be decisive is that it is nevertheless an improvement on the situation one would face without negotiation—usually because it involves other governments taking actions that you see as helping your interests. Also, it is not unusual for a negotiated outcome to include some elements which one regards as negative (i.e., some of your interests are actually worse off). This can be acceptable if they are part of a package which, overall, you rate as an improvement.
The word compromise (and its translation into languages other than English) can have very negative connotations in everyday speech. To compromise, or put your principles or your nation’s interests at risk, would obviously be bad. But in international negotiation, the word is used to mean “to reduce your immediate ambitions, so as to accommodate the concerns of other parties to the extent needed to make them agree to an outcome that you regard as an improvement.” In that sense, “compromise” is in the interests of both you and the other parties. Conference negotiators often speak of “the spirit of compromise” in terms that indicate they are talking of something positive, desirable and admirable, not abject surrender.
Power in Negotiations
There is a widely held belief among people who know little about international conferences that delegates who represent the most powerful States will be able to impose their wishes. But military, economic or cultural power do not translate directly into an ability to impose one’s will in an international conference. Reality is far more nuanced. The real source of power in international conferences is a combination of several of the following:
- Whether your proposal is attractive to other delegations
- How willing other governments are to conform with your government’s wishes because of bilateral relationships
- How well your delegation understands the issues before the conference and the attitudes of other delegations to them
- How active your delegation is and how hard it actually works
- Whether your delegation is able to show flexibility in meeting the concerns of others
- Whether your delegation can think creatively to produce proposals attractive to many other delegations
- Whether your delegation has clear ideas on achieving certain objectives and a determination to do so
It would be foolish to imagine that the relative real power of governments evaporates when their delegates enter a conference room. A delegation of a large, powerful country has distinct advantages over that from a smaller and less influential country. The value other governments place on their bilateral relationship with the powerful country predisposes their delegation to comply with the wishes of the powerful country’s delegation. Governments of powerful nations are also well placed to brief their delegation well and to staff it with knowledgeable and suitable individuals. They can send many delegates. Sometimes, though, smaller and poorer countries can also brief their delegations well and be represented by capable people. Finally, the power of the country that the delegation represents is not a major factor for most of the other points listed above.
In short, power relationships between nations are relevant in a conference room, but they are far from being the whole story. Less powerful governments are often better placed in the context of a conference room to achieve their objectives than they are in bilateral dealings. It is also important to remember that issues on which the objectives of different governments are strongly opposed to each other are the most difficult ones for conferences to handle and agree upon. Conversely, where governments of both powerful and less powerful countries have objectives that can be reconciled, conferences are well placed to produce results acceptable to all. Thus, the issues that get referred to conferences are primarily those on which the interests on the participants are capable of mutual accommodation. Power struggles are not the point of many conferences nor are they relevant to the outcomes they produce.
Leading Delegations
Typically, on any issue that comes up for negotiation in an international conference, many delegations do not feel compelled to take a particularly strong position. This can be because the question is not seen to have much impact on them or to be one on which they see much benefit in exerting themselves or, as is often the case, because what is proposed seems desirable or at least acceptable to them. Other delegations however may have a strong wish to influence a conference’s decision on the issue and, in a number of cases, some delegations may have mutually opposed wishes.
These delegations—those that aspire to influence the outcome and particularly those that have mutually opposed ambitions—become the leaders and drivers of the negotiation. Each such delegation can only achieve its objectives (in so far as these depend on the conference outcome) by securing the agreement of the conference. They are more likely to be successful if they attempt to resolve the issue together and if they try to meet each other’s aims. They will do even better if they also involve other delegations in the consultations because it may be one of the less involved delegations that actually finds the solution acceptable to all. The delegations that best accommodate differing concerns are “leading delegations,” because they will be followed.
The Interdependence of Negotiators
As long as they are not out to derail a conference, negotiators have important common interests.
Successful negotiation in an international conference often takes the form of a joint effort to achieve as much as possible of each other’s objectives—not withstanding any differences or even conflicts of objectives. Conversely, negotiations in which the participants lose sight of this factor are rarely very productive.
This awareness of the mutual interdependence of the negotiators is the cornerstone of successful strategies in multilateral conferences. Obviously, the more negotiators identify and value their common interest and objectives, the more likely that negotiation will be cooperative and result in agreement. Conversely, the more interests and objectives are seen to diverge, the more likely conflict will overshadow the negotiation process and the more challenging it will be to reach agreement.
Conference Environment
Just as a room full of people who are confused and angry with each other is extremely unlikely to reach agreement on anything at all, the reverse image would be an environment conducive to agreement.
It is therefore in the interests of the PGA and chairs, as well as other officials of the General Committee and Committee Bureaus, and all those who want the conference to succeed, to ensure that the conference environment and mood remains as positive as possible.
This has physical aspects such as temperature, ventilation, access to food and drink and all other factors that affect the comfort of delegates. Conferences, like crowds and individuals, have temperaments and emotions. They can be optimistic, hopeful and cooperative. They can be animated by a strong wish to reach agreement. They can have a sense of momentum carrying them in a particular direction. Alternatively, they can be despairing, irritated or tired. Collective emotions count.
Successful negotiators are aware of these factors, adapt to them and do what they can to create an atmosphere conducive to agreement.
Both time and timing are important. The successful negotiator must have a good sense of how much time will be needed by delegations to consult other delegations, for ideas to percolate and for individual delegations and the conference as a whole to reach the point at which they are ready to make a decision. The successful negotiator will also be able to judge at what moment they should approach another delegate, make an intervention or a proposal and so forth. There are occasions where a degree of discomfort can be deliberately inflicted on delegates to drive them towards agreement but this is a delicate strategy best left to those who know how to use it.