Fluent Essays

In the practice of negotiation, how do you know when a conflict is ripe for intervention? Must provide examples from readings from Weeks (see attached). The purpose of the question is to understand when the process of intervention is appropriate and desirable by the parties - and when it is not.3 pages. Double spaced. Turabian author/date reference list style. Must include 4 sources.Although these sections may beg for enumerated points, please do not use bullet lists or other short-cuts to academic writing. Write in full sentences, not fragments. Position your arguments as the first sentence of the paragraph for clarity. Follow arguments, ideas, main points, etc. with evidence as support, analysis, and a transition to the next point. In other words, follow a basic IRAC structure for each paragraph - issue, rationale, analysis, conclusion.About footnotes and endnotes: For everyone in all programs, you may use footnotes or endnotes - but not to hold sources. Footnotes in Turabian author/date style are meant to hold superfluous information - things youd like your reader to know but they are not critical to your argumentation and support. Sources belong only in the References List and are noted in the text parenthetically as (author date, page).All assignments should be written in Word and uploaded as attachments within the Assignments section of the classroom. Use 12 pt. font and double-space. Insert page numbers. irls613_lesson_1_notes_co1.docx irls613_lesson_2_notes_co1.docx _assignment_rubric_500_600_level.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview Public International Law: Negotiation and Mediation in the Historical Context INTRODUCTION This weeks lesson is an overview of intractable conflict, the basis for our study in international negotiation for the MA in International Relations and Conflict Resolution degree. Although our course also looks at the process of international negotiation, intractable conflicts are the most difficult nuts to crack. Please watch this introduction video by Professor Peter Coleman, “Resolving Intractable Conflicts.” Coleman is an authority on patterns and solutions to the most difficult conflicts within the world system of states. The video is about 26 minutes and will set the tone for the course. After reading the Merrills chapter and the lesson below, move on to the journal article readings for the week. Lesson Topics: • • • • • • What Is International Negotiation? Stages of Negotiation International Negotiation: Process vs. Technique Substantive Arguments about the International Negotiation Process Criticisms of Principled Negotiation Mediation Key Terms • • • • Intractable Conflict Distributive Negotiation Integrative Negotiation Principled Negotiation What Is International Negotiation? It seems like an easy question with a singular definition – but in fact, it’s more complex. On one hand, international negotiation is a “process in which explicit proposals are put forward ostensibly for the purpose of reaching agreement on an exchange or on the realization of a common interest where conflicting interests are present” (Rogoff 1994, 147). But international negotiation also is a primary method of conflict resolution on an ascending scale where resort to violence or institutionalized warfare is the ultimate action. In this course, we’ll be looking at “international negotiation” in the broad sense as a process – all the techniques and approaches used to address conflict. But also in its very specific context, we will consider international negotiation as one of a handful of binding and non-binding methods that practitioners in international relations and diplomacy use today. INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATION PROCESS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Negotiation Mediation Inquiry Conciliation Arbitration Regional Organizations 7. International Courts and Tribunals Rogoff (1994) explains that in applying negotiation as a method of conflict resolution, successful negotiations among or between states usually produce a legally binding international agreement or treaty (Rogoff 1994, 143). Yet several intermediary steps cause negotiators serious issues and sometimes lead to the breakdown of negotiations altogether. To understand how negotiations break down, think of purchasing a home. Before entering into a contract, you first view the house, perhaps meet the owner’s agent or the owner, and then do some careful thinking afterward about what you like and don’t like about the house and the thought of a contract to purchase it. Once you decide to enter into a contract with the seller, you or your agent ask him or her for a certain period of due diligence when you must figure out whether you can get a mortgage (your burden, his or her risk), whether the structure is sound (his or her burden, your risk), and multiple other contingencies that could have a bearing on whether the sale is completed. That in-between period for both parties is made public by taking the house off-market (in the US, removing it from the multiple-listing service), as the parties set out to perform specified tasks within the offer or contract. In international relations practice, complex negotiations may take months, years, or even decades to resolve - with long in-between periods in which violent conflict may erupt. Stages of Negotiation International negotiations follow a similar pattern in that there is a prenegotiation stage, the negotiations themselves, and then the period after the negotiation but before the legally binding agreement goes into force (Rogoff 1994, 143-44). You’ve all read about the League of Nations (1920) as part of the Paris Peace Conference at the end of World War I. While the features of the League were very attractive to President Woodrow Wilson’s sense of idealism and cooperation in foreign policy, Wilson was unable to convince the Senate to ratify the treaty. For the US, it was a matter of the collective security arrangement of the League charter (Article X) that led to the American failure to ratify the treaty (Wolfsenberger 2011, n.p.). While the consequences of the US’s entering into negotiations about the League did not cause any immediate issues, Rogoff explains that just by entering into the negotiating process states may incur legal liabilities in that “international law recognizes the regime of provisional application, although the obligations on states during this period are somewhat enigmatic” (Rogoff 1994, 145). In our example of the Paris Peace Conferences after World War I, the entire peace process contained many negotiated agreements so it is feasible that states could accede to some agreements and fail to ratify others – which is exactly what the US did. But just like signing that contract for purchasing the house, once the intent to negotiate has been formalized, parties are obligated to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the agreement” (Rogoff 1994, 145). Some interesting international law concepts come into play in the study of international negotiation. The first, as alluded to above, is pacta sunt servanda or “the pact must be served.” In international law where the primary actors are states, this means that states are obligated to follow the treaties or agreements to which they accede. States and the decision-makers who run their policies generally do keep the agreements they make. But all treaties have an escape clause – meaning that signatories may withdraw from the treaty with notice as specified in the treaty itself – and negotiations have a similar function in the doctrine of culpa in contrahendo. Based on German legal doctrine dating back to 1861, culpa in contrahendoestablishes “damages should be recoverable against the party whose blameworthy conduct . . . brought about [the contract’s] invalidity or prevented its perfection” (Kessler and Fine, 1964, 401). In our example of purchasing the house, earnest money serves this purpose for the seller. But in international law, the doctrine is not as straightforward. States will be states after all – and as we know from our study of international relations in general – they usually get their way even if that means disregarding principles of customary international law. International Negotiation: Process vs. Technique What’s the difference between international negotiation as a process and negotiation as a technique? Remember at the beginning we mentioned that the term “international negotiation” has a more complex definition? Rogoff suggests that there are two basic views of the negotiation process. Because sovereign states are involved, the process is contentious and there are no legal obligations when entering into negotiations (Rogoff 1994, 147). In this realist perspective, all is fair in love, war, and negotiating – states enter at their own risk and sometimes it’s a zero-sum game. Often this is referred to as distributive negotiation. Conversely, the liberalist view holds that negotiation “is a cooperative undertaking by states to resolve a mutual problem in the common interest” in the context of interdependence (Rogoff 1994, 147) – sometimes referred to as integrative negotiation. But negotiation also is a tool that diplomats and policymakers use along the spectrum of dispute settlement that includes “conciliation, mediation, inquiry, arbitration, reference to some international or regional organizations, or judicial settlement” – basically everything short of violent conflict (Rogoff 1994, 147). The Rogoff article asks important questions: is there a general obligation to negotiate and if so, where are those principles found in customary international law? Merrill (2017) outlines negotiation techniques and follows a structure similar to Rogoff’s outline of the negotiation processes. It begins with the competing conceptions of negotiation and then, one by one, outlines the formal techniques from mediation through arbitration. These are the concepts that we will examine in the first part of the course. Then we will look at how regional and international courts become involved in negotiating processes, specifically the International Court (the World Court), the Law of the Sea Convention (ITLOS), and international trade organizations like the former General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the current World Trade Organization (WTO). Check on learning: Distributive negotiation refers to a cooperative undertaking by states to resolve conflicts, while integrative negotiation reflects a more realist attitude wherein states enter negotiations at their own risk. False Substantive Arguments about the International Negotiation Process Merrills looks at the various forms of negotiation and general arguments for negotiation as a process, paralleling Rogoffs article. Merrills also addresses the limitations of negotiation – demonstrating cases in which parties are not ready (perhaps never will be) to negotiate their conflicts. But as we’ve seen in the past two years, even what seems “intractable” sometimes shows movement. Additionally, with the Iranian nuclear multiparty negotiations in 2015, US and Iranian diplomats worked a two-track bilateral process in the background of the larger agreement for the exchange of prisoners. These are some of the inconsistencies and perils of the negotiation process that the Martinez Reyes article (2014) focuses upon. Martinez Reyes critiques a popular approach by William Ury outlined in the text Getting to Yes (Fisher and Ury 1981). The Getting to Yes approach remains a mainstay of international negotiation curriculum and centers around the concept of “principled negotiation.” Since its inception in 1981, Getting to Yes has been used in boardrooms of major corporations, difficult labor union negotiations, and even civil wars within states. Even today, Getting to Yes forms the crux of technique-driven seminars. (See, for example, Harvard Law School’s Program on Negotiation (PON) Summer Seminar Schedule, an institute where executives go to refine and sharpen their negotiating skills.) To understand William Ury’s approach, watch this TED Talk on “The Power of Listening” from 2015 – about 15 minutes. Criticisms of Principled Negotiations Martinez Reyes argues that principled negotiation actually misleads negotiators and leads to suboptimal results (Martinez Reyes 2014, 3). In your own studies of international relations, you might agree to an extent to Martinez Reyes’ premise. Very rarely do foreign policy behaviors follow outlined principles when important national interests are at stake. Countries always will find a way to meet their interests in the best way possible – and principles get thrown under the bus when they get in the way. Martinez Reyes summarizes Getting to Yes in describing its core principles: separate people from the problem; focus on interests; look for options that produce mutual gain; and use objective criteria based on distributive methods (Martinez Reyes 2014, 4; 17). As you read the article, what are the underlying assumptions of the Getting to Yes method that Martinez Reyes finds invalid? Specifically, what flaws does he see in defining “strategy” and “positional bargaining”? Do you agree with his “integrative” approach to negotiations? Martinez Reyes summarizes Getting to Yes in describing its core principles: separate people from the problem; focus on interests; look for options that produce mutual gain; and use objective criteria based on distributive methods (Martinez Reyes 2014, 4; 17). As you read the article, what are the underlying assumptions of the Getting to Yes method that Martinez Reyes finds invalid? Specifically, what flaws does he see in defining “strategy” and “positional bargaining”? Do you agree with his “integrative” approach to negotiations? Mediation We will also be discussing mediation in this course. As opposed to direct negotiation between two or more parties, mediation is the first step to conflict resolution through third-party efforts. Mediation as a tool looks beyond the parties involved to manage or solve conflict. It involves an outsider to the party but the other” can be an individual, a group, or an organization. Mediation can occur at all stages of conflict resolution. For example, before a conflict erupts, mediation might be pursued through preventative diplomacy. In sustained conflict, mediation could be used in peacemaking activities. After the conflict ends, mediation could be used to help with the reconciliation and transitional justice process (Bercovitch 2004, n.p.). The important feature of mediation is that the thirdparty negotiator facilitates the resolution or process rather than dictates it. The parties are not obligated to follow the mediator’s advice and solutions. In next week’s lesson, we will look at arbitration – a type of binding third-party intervention. Check on learning: Which of the following is not a core principle of the Getting to Yes method? Separate people from the problem. Focus on interests. Identify mutually beneficial options. Prioritize national interests. Use objective criteria. Martinez Reyes summarizes Getting to Yes in describing its core principles: separate people from the problem; focus on interests; look for options that produce mutual gain; and use objective criteria based on distributive methods (Martinez Reyes 2014, 4; 17). Conclusion This week we discussed international negotiation as both a process and a means of conflict resolution. Insofar as international negotiation is a process, it follows defined stages and relates to several international law concepts. States may view negotiation to serve their best interests first or as an opportunity for international cooperation. This and issues arising from principled negotiations may become more significant in dealing with intractable conflicts. References Bercovitch, Jacob. 2004. International Mediation and Intractable Conflict. Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Boulder, CO: Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado. Garrigues, Juan. 2015. “Engaging Armed Groups to End Conflicts.” Lecture, TEDxYouth@AICS. Published January 26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDp2d9blzwk Martinez Reyes, Victor. 2014. “The False Promise of Principled Negotiations.” Journal of Global Initiatives 9, no. 2: 3-18. Merrills, J. G. 2011. International Dispute Settlement, 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogoff, Martin. 1994. “The Obligation to Negotiation in International Law: Rules and Realities.” Mich. J. Int’l L. 16: 141-177. Ury, William. 2015. “The Power of Listening.” Lecture, TEDxSanDiego. Published January 7, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saXfavo1OQo Wolfensberger, Don. 2011. “Woodrow Wilson, the Senate and the League of Nations Fight: Introductory Essay.” Congress Project Seminar at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Published online at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/wolfensberger4.pdf. Wroughton, Lesley, Patricia Zengerle, and Matt Spetalnick. 2016. “In negotiating to free Americans in Iran, U.S. blinked on new sanctions.” Reuters online. January 16. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-irannuclear-prisoners-exclusive-idUSKCN0UU0WS IRLS613 | LESSON 2 Inquiry in the Historical Context INTRODUCTION We continue our look at the historical trends in international negotiation methods. We focus on mediation as a general category of dispute resolution but specifically this week, we will learn more about the process of inquiry. The process of inquiry in international law has undergone significant changes since the USS Maine incident in 1898 including the adaptation of individuals as subjects of international law rather than merely states as principle actors and subjects. The thrust of this weeks lesson is to demonstrate how negotiation principles and practices adapt to changing circumstances. Lesson Topics: • • • • Historical Context and Modern Perspectives Drilling down in the Readings – Different Conceptions of Inquiry Inquiry in 21st Century Reconciliation Processes Srebrenica as an Example Key Terms • • • • Inquiry Inquest Hague Conventions Operation Condor Historical Context and Modern Perspectives The Hague Conventions: Take a look at the contents of the first Hague Convention (1899) that came about as a result of the USS Maine and the Spanish-American War that followed. From 1899 until the end of the Second World War (1945), the historical principles established for inquiry relied on the idea that states should address disagreements through inquiry when diplomatic efforts have failed and the two sides cannot compromise. Remember that these were the days long past the Congress of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1814-15) when European states had purposefully set out to settle international disputes peacefully rather than resorting to war. The nineteenth century had been a great experiment in what John Lewis Gaddis has called the long peace but by 1899, that was beginning to unravel (Gaddis 1986, passim). Not only were Germany and England fast becoming rivals headed into a disastrous naval arms race - exploding in the summer of 1914 with the outbreak of World War I - but growing nationalism and terrorist tactics meant that incidents could quickly erupt into something much greater. On your list of international law conventions and treaties, then, be sure to note these two important Hague Conventions to settle international disputes (1899 and then amended in 1907) - both outlining the necessity of inquiry. Modern Inquiry: There are many current examples of how inquiry has evolved into the 21st century - and your forum discussions ask you to tease those out. What you should remember foremost is that sometime around 194243, when it became apparent that human rights violations were occurring in unprecedented scope and brutality in the context of World War II in both Europe and Asia, the leading internationalists and diplomats of the time dusted off those old Hague Conventions and other documents like the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928). How it could be that world war erupted twice within the span of 30 years, they wanted to understand. All the while, methods of conflict resolution short of war were moving into the modern 20th century where it was much easier to figure out facts based on modern communication developments. Today, of course, if something like the Maine incident happened, formal inquiry would be quite different - and it is. See, for example, post-1945 United Nations cases of inquiry (based on Article 34 of the UN Treaty). Drilling down in the Readings – Different Conceptions of Inquiry In last week’s lesson, we discussed mediation and its limitations. Merrills argued that “mediation may only be able to achieve a partial solution . . . if the parties cling tenaciously to fundamentally incompatible positions – if, for example, they are not prepared to acknowledge that a political solution is what is needed, rather than an endorsement of existing rights” (Merrills 2011. 39). Inquiry is the next logical step after mediation - when the parties have come to an impasse - or in the case of an accident, events have overtaken the existing diplomatic relationship - such as the inquiry among Russia, Ukraine, and the Netherlands after Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 crashed over the U ... Purchase answer to see full attachment