Conceitos de “negociação”

ZARTMAN, Negotiation and Conflict Management: essays on theory and prac-

tice. New York: Routledge, 2008.

Theoretical studies on negotiation

Since its inception, States have undertaken actions that involve, to one extent or
another, negotiation and bargaining with one another. Nevertheless, analytical
studies on process of negotiation only date back to about some forty years,
being therefore very recent.
This field of research emerges out of a standpoint which takes on a somewhat
critical meaning of the traditional view on diplomacy, that which sees it as a
matter solely pertaining to nation States.
Nowadays, not only central States, but subnational states and actors as well
(being public or private agents) take on some roles in what could be called
broadly as diplomatic issues. More broadly, these issues could well be assumed
as relating to issues over international negotiations.
International Relations theories, broadly speaking, acknowledge the existence
of these new international actors. The recently emerging stream of studies on
internacional negotiations approximate themselves from this new perspective
in analysing new international actors in their capacities to pursue their own
interests facing counterparts in the international arena.
In other words, tradicional studies on diplomacy, even though certainly preserve
their importance, cannot account for properly addressing a clear distinction
between diplomatic (State) affairs and negotiation affairs more broadly.
As a theoretical object, this new field of research has more and more become a
complex theme which resonates this tendency.

1
Polysemy of Diplomacy and Negotiation
The endeavour of undertaking systematic approaches to whatever it is we are
going ot study begins with the concern of precision in the use of concepts.
There is a implicit distinction between studies in diplomacy and negotiation
studies, although in the past these terms have been used interchangeably.
It is important to distinguish between them. Diplomacy, tought of as an ability
or even as an art, denotes specifically political actions to pursue national interests
through formal means and courses of interaction amongst representatives of
nation States. Practices in this realm are prescriptive.
Great classic authors on diplomacy, from Thucydides (4th century BC) , Machi-
avelli (1532), de Callières (1716), up till Nicolson’s “Diplomacy” (1964, Oxford
University Press), have accumulated suggestions for effective behavior on the
part of diplomats.
Historians of diplomacy have described the application of these principles on
specific cases. None of these classics have envisioned analysing the dynamics
and processes of negotiation, nor in an abstract manner, neither in a rigorously
comparative manner.
Interestingly enough, renown contemporary authors such as Hans Morgenthau,
Politics Among Nation (1960), Raymond Aron, The Anarchical Order of Power
(1966), Arthur Samuel Lall, Modern International Negotiation (1966), Fred
Charles Ikle, How Nations Negotiate(1964) also have sought establish, either
by using new methods or by confirming existing ones, those same presciptive
principles for diplomatic action.
These contemporary authors were able to bring about new findings, benefitting
from new approaches over multiple aspects, but their studies are still attached
to the perspective of studies over diplomacy and its principles.
In summary, the theoretical perspectives over studies in diplomacy provide for
some useful insights for professional diplomats, but nonetheless they offer little
help in analysing theoretically the process of negotiation.

Negotiation as distinct from Diplomacy

The implication from the contrast and distinction suggested above between
diplomacy and negotiation is that it presents us with something new. The studies
on negotiation, in order to become more and more systematic and replicable,
ought to engage in some analytical precision.
Although analytical precision is a relevant analytical aspect of the study of
negotiation processes, it is crucial to mention that the negotiation process is a

2
human process and as such it remains susceptible to failure due to human aspects.
On of the main aspect involving negotiation process is *communication**.
Communication is an important corollary to negotiation
process.
There are a few challenges to building efficient communication though.

Communication Difficulties and obstacles

* Parties’ suspicion
* Information incompleteness
* Secrecy breach or leaks
* Indirect outside pressure

For a comprehensive analysis on negotiation, a few main questions must be

addressed.
1. Who are the parties negotiating?
2. How are divergent viewpoints combined to produce a common agreement?
3. What oucomes are desired? Expected? Accepted? Rejected?
4. When will the outcomes turn into effect?

Factors Aspect Dimension

Contextual Who Actors
How Practices

Factual What Outcomes

When Outcomes

In order to productively egage in both the process of negotiation and the

knowledge of the process as a whole, it is very important to further decompose
the relevant aspects on any negotiation into a myriad of analytical questions,
since
the combining of divergent viewpoints is an exercise in “the
process of affecting the policies of others with the help of
(actual or threatened) . . . deprivations [or gratifications]
for non – conformity,” i.e., power (Lasswell and Kaplan
1951, p.76; cf. Bacharach and Baratz 1970)

Limiting the How in negotiation process

This perspective of limitation strengthens the existing divergent positions and

aims at combining them through a limitation of alternatives.

3
It is recurrently true that divergent positions are combined by limiting alterna-
tives. Therefore, the process of negotiation implies a process of defining and
reducing alternative positions until a certain (up until the reaching of a unique)
combination is reached that is considered acceptable to all parties.
It is usually a collective decision-making process
with discrete sides, since a decision is “a choice
among alternative modes of action” (Rossi 1958,
p. 364).
The value of such a conceptual viewpoint is that it focuses on choices and the
means of arriving at a result, thus approximating the real process pursued by
the participants.
Its limitation is that is does not indicate any dynamic in the process of negotiation;
although this approach answers “how”, it does not tell why one particular means
of limiting alternatives is chosen over another (except in some form of the
commonplace observation that one means seems to be “most applicable”).

Ways of limiting
Grouping alternatives
Promise/prediction 1) To make one Either by promising
alternative appear more additional side effects
attractive than others
Or by predicting
benefits inherent in the
favored alternative

Promise/prediction 2) To make one Either by

alternative appear threatening
less atractive than sanctions if it is
others chosen
Or by warning of
inherent or
associated
deprivations

Threat/warning 3) To make one Either through the use

alternative appear to be of commitmments
already chosen
Or through the use of
obligations

Threat/warning 4) To make some Either by fait

alternatives appear accompli
to be already
eliminated

4
 Ways of limiting
Grouping alternatives
Or by simple
incapacity

Converging the How in negotiation process

This second approach to the question of the “How” to achieve reconciliation of

divergent viewpoints in a negotiation process sheds light on strucutral aspect.
The emphasis falls on the search for convergence of positions.
Instead of focusing on the unlimited field of sub-
stantive alternatives and analysing how they are
reduced to a certain and unique combination, the
second approach takes the initial positions as a
starting point and asks how they are brought into
convergence.
The convergence approach has its focus moved.

Focus moved from. . . . . . towards

analysing the unlimited substantive analysing the initial parties’ positions
alternatives and reducing it to a as the starting point and brining to
unique combination convergence

The advantages of this conceptual approach lie in its ability:

1. to show which side gave in most or moved furthest from its original position
2. to indicate clearly the relationship of one party’s moves to those of the
other
The disadvantages of this conceptual approach lie in part on the facts that:
1. convergence analysis may give a false impression of the negotiation process
because, alone, plays down the substantive arguments in order to bring
out negotiation procedure
2. substantive matters entangled in negotiation processes may not be, and
commonly are not simply reducible to quantitative terms
We may point to five different ways to arriving at convergence, as shown in the
table below.

5
Ways of arriving at Circumnstances of
convergence Description occurrence
Simple coincidence A proposal from one It takes place most
party may be accepted frequently at the
by the other of both beginning and the end
parties may discover of negotiations.
that their initial
proposals are identical

Concession One party gives in Partial concessions

to the other are common, where
one party moves
unilaterally toward
the position of the
other without
actually reaching it;
full concessions with
least reciprocal
concession are
rarest

Compensation or A party that has Compensations are

counterconcessions received a concession more likely to happen
explicitly makes one of by means of
its own in return, but interchangeability
on another matter between those
fields/realms of
activities in which each
negotiator perform
better or are stronger at

Compromise Also known as joint In general,

concession, whereby convergence
both parties give through compromise
some ground to presuposes the
arrive at a point discretionary
somewhere between acceptance of
both of their initial certain terms
(or latest) positions signaled by the
counterpart, having
in mind the party’s
own resources

6
Ways of arriving at Circumnstances of
convergence Description occurrence
Understanding In understanding, the Paradoxically, this last
convergence is bypassed mean of arriving at
and the debate goes on convergence is exactly
to implement ambiguity not getting to a
convergence. It may
happen often when
negotiators
cammitment to the
issue under negotiation
tends to be maximum,
plus all parties’
interests are at greater
stake, and the parties
resist to move towards
other party’s direction.

References
BACHARACH, P; BARATZ, M. Power and Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1970.
LASSWELL, H; KAPLAN, A. Power and Society, New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1951.
ROSSI, P. Community Decision-Making. In YOUNG, R (ed.). Approaches to
the Study of Politics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1958.
ZARTMAN, I W. Negotiation and Conflict Management: essays on theory and
practice. New York: Routledge, 2008.