Ch 3: Around-the-Table

Negotiations

By :Hadaitullah .Baqri E-mail:hadaitbaqri@gmail.com

3. Details Stage: After a successful formula has

been agreed upon, the negotiations enter the most difficult stage where the details have to be filled and mutually agreed. The details may involve many dimensions depending upon the relevant situation of the conflict. Some of the dimensions can be highlighted by examples.

a. Cyprus Formula: In 1970s the formula for

resolving the issue was based on creating a federation, with a bi-communal, bi-zonal constitution. Now the details meant how to agree on involving both communities (the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots) in the composition of the central government and the various agencies (bi-communal). On the other hand, bi-zonal meant to divide the island into two zones, the Turkish Cyprus in the north and the Greek Cyprus in the south. That is, where exactly to draw the line, which posed many sub-conflicts in terms of which regions to include in which particular zone. The details became so difficult to handle that instead of resolving the conflict, it actually escalated the dispute.

b. South Africa, Namibia vs. Angola: In 1988, it

was greed in the formula that South Africa would withdraw its forces from Namibia and let it be an independent country in return for Cuba to withdraw its forces from Angola. Now the details stage became more difficult and complex due to several questions that needed to be settled as part of the details. the date of departure of troops. the date of conclusion of departure. type of withdrawal: front-loaded, end-loaded, or uniform stream. which areas to be vacated first and which areas at the end. Will the number of troops withdrawn by both parties match in proportion at every stage or just in the overall withdrawal.

i. ii. iii. iv.

v.

3.1 Difficulties:
There are many reasons for difficulties in the Details Stage. a. Complicated: The details stage by its nature is complicated. It is sometimes more complicated than the prenegotiations but definitely more complicated than the Formula Stage. It means: i. The Details Stage is more complex, ii. The Details Stage involves larger negotiating teams, iii. Larger teams, in turn, have more disagreements within the teams, iv. The Details Stage sometimes lingers on for a long time, which makes the entire issue even more complicated.

b. Disagreement on Definitions: It is important to

discuss details by making communication between the negotiating teams more effective. Difficulties can arise due to: i. disagreement on definition of terms, ii. lack of common language, iii. misunderstanding,

c. Lower Level of Authority of Teams:

Because negotiations at the Details Stage are more complicated and time-consuming, therefore, usually specialists are involved who are at lower level of authority than those who negotiated at Formula Stage. This requires frequent referral back to higher political authorities which in turn creates difficulties by making the process even more timeconsuming and complicated. This may cause a tougher attitude and hard-line instructions on the part of the higher level political negotiators.

d. Attempt by Either Party to Shift the Balance of Advantage: Any one or both parties will usually
attempt to shift the balance of advantage in the agreed formula in their favor. This may occur in an imperceptible manner, because of the complexity of negotiations at this stage.

Both parties may be afraid of each other of this type of attempt, particularly when the trust between the parties is at the minimum and the sakes are high.

e. The Details Stage is the Last Stage: Just

because this is the last stage, it makes the process really difficult. That is, it is the moment of truth. The details must be such that: i. there are no inconsistencies ii. there is no vagueness iii. the deal should be defensible at home

3.2Negotiating Strategies:
There are three generally used strategies for negotiation: (i) Compromise on individual issues, (ii) Exchange concession on one item with the acquisition on another item, and (iii) a mix of the above two strategies.

a. Compromise on Individual Issues:

This strategy focuses on splitting the difference between the Opening Demands of the parties on one particular issue. Using this strategy, compromise is made separately on each of the items involved in the agenda.

b. Exchanging Points:
This strategy involves giving the other party what it wants on one item and in return getting from the other party what you want on another item. This may involve full concession on the demand or a major part of it. This strategy is called Exchanging Points by Zartman and Berman.

Homanss Theorem:
According to George Homans (1961), this Theorem states that in a negotiated exchange each party is able to get from the other something more than in value than the value of what it surrenders.

Corollary of Homanss Theorem:

In this variant of the Theorem, we have a deal in which one party trades something that it values highly but which it knows it is going to have to surrender anyway, irrespective of whether or not it gets a quid pro quo from the other side.
In principle, both parties can do so. The critical point is the prevention of information from getting to the other party. If information on this issue regarding one party is known to the other party, the position of the first party will be weakened.

c. Factors Affecting Choice of Strategy:

i. ii. iii. iv. circumstances style of negotiators cultural traditions attitude to strike negotiations

d. Attitude to Strike
Attitude to strike at negotiations can vary greatly on a continuum, ranging from very accommodating to very tough.

This has several characteristics:

i.

Extremes of Flexibility and Rigidity are inconsistent with the logic of negotiation. ii. It is believed that it is better to make concessions in one big swoop rather than making incremental concessions, which shows weakness. iii. If incremental concessions are necessary, then the impression of weakness can be avoided by using Tactical Expedients, which are: Making concession contingent on final package. Periodically suspending talks to show the other party that they want to avoid collapse. Raising the question of formula again. Iv A tough attitude will be used only by those parties that believe that they can walk away without major damage to their position.