Contenu du sommaire : Dossier spécial : 4e Biennale de la négociation

In 2001, a new round of multilateral negotiations has been launched in Doha (Doha Development Agenda, “DDA”). Hosted and managed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) has stalled and no time limit is set for its completion. The negotiation is based on mechanisms that aim to simplify a complex negotiation process, which involves multiple actors dealing with many issues. The article shows that the current rules nor simplifies the negotiation process, nor enlarges a too narrow negotiating space what makes the success all the more uncertain than internal institutional constraints hanging over the leading countries like the United States are now harder than in 2001. Under these conditions, the principles of negotiation as the “package deal” or the consensus rule proved too demanding. The article concludes by offering some ideas to improve the negotiating rules.

This paper sheds light on the complexity of international negotiations, giving the example of two case studies: the dispute on hormone-treated beef and that of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in the WTO (World Trade Organisation). We shall demonstrate the similarities and differences of these two disputes (negotiations to avoid conflicts, existence of parallel rules and outcome of conflicts). We shall finally propose a theoretical framework enabling us to understand the complexity of these negotiations through the concept of parallel institutions and indeterminate goods.

This is an analytical paper with many illustrative examples taken from international negotiations. I aim to demonstrate how in course of the negotiation process with its different stages underlying power relations can take different forms as to symmetry and asymmetry. Five analytical aspects are attributed to symmetry/asymmetry power relations determining the negotiation process. Whereas at the start of international negotiations, symmetry/asymmetry relates to the national potential each negotiating partner can count upon; during the negotiations symmetry/asymmetry is transformed into a process variable depending on the adequate means employed and at the final stage the terms refer to outcomes as comparative utility. In case a third party intervenes as a mediator a fourth form relates to equidistance between the third party and the conflicting parties. It can be assumed that the more relations become symmetric during the negotiation process the more they have the tendency to lead to a stable outcome. This analytical model does not form a coherent development in time but singles out aspects that may occur at each of the stages.

Research and teaching of negotiation
The teaching of negotiation has led to great creativity in teaching tools allowing the students to learn by doing. These teaching intended to create realistic contexts, have been exploited by research which has struggled to find observations from real situations negotiations. This article shows the process of co-construction between research and teaching. It describes how the dyadic approach was used to create an educational tool which itself opens new perspectives for research in negotiation.

The instrument of “BATNA” appeals three main critical observations: it is poorly conceptualized; it suffers from a problem of measurement and anticipation; it has static and ethno-centered connotations and visions on negotiation. The author therefore proposes to better conceptualize the notion of alternative in negotiation and to practically equip the negotiators with different evaluation models.

In this paper, I asked the question to know what would be the link to be established between both meanings of the word compromise: common and analogical. It is the answer to this interrogation which drove me to the epistemological considerations developed below, the ambition of which is to build two operating concepts to make understandable the multiple realities of the compromise.