Contenu du sommaire : Négocier des situations complexes

A major challenge of the age is not to learn to be open to negotiation when confronted by conflicts and problems, but rather how to deal with others who refuse such advances. What to do if they don't want to negotiate?

Canada and Australia championed a negotiation process that led to international treaties to respectively ban landmines and regulate the arms trade. Yet they have also sought to block progress on another treaty, on cluster munitions. These parallel yet distinct negotiating tracks suggest the question, when do states actively engage in treaty-making?To address this, this paper analyzes ten turning points across three phases in each of three multilateral negotiation cycles to compare and contrast the conditions under which Canada and Australia at times contributed to, and at times impeded, treaty negotiation processes.This paper finds that the championing of processes occurred when political leadership, substantive expertise and diplomatic resources were all present. When states attempted to slow down progress or to hollow out the substance of treaties, political leadership was noticeably absent. These findings indicate that negotiations should be analyzed within multi-layered internal and external contexts, from the streets to the world to capitals and over the threshold into diplomatic venues and the corridors, rooms, and tables. Each layer adds meaning and understanding to how treaties are born. The links between layers provide a complete picture that accurately reflects when and how championing and blocking strategies are adopted by these two states.By examining parallel negotiating tracks, this paper provides insights on the conditions under which multilateral treaty-making on the manufacture, use and trade in conventional weapons is shaped by Westminster parliamentary democracies. With many gaps to fill in this area of international regulation, these insights may help smooth the path towards further multilateral treaties.

This paper begins by looking at one of the central approaches to understanding conflict “intractability,” that of Peter Coleman and his group at Columbia in the USA. Through a critical analysis of some of the central elements of this “system dynamics” approach, and through a modification of certain social-psychological and sociological assumptions, a more complete understanding of problems in managing intractable conflicts is suggested.

Collaborative processes in the public sector involve multiple parties at scales ranging from the very local, to city-wide, and to regional. While facilitation/mediation of these processes relies heavily on negotiation theory, much of the literature focuses on two-party (dyadic) interactions. To explore whether multiparty processes warrant special theoretical/practical consideration, we analyze multiparty cases at three scales: a land use dispute in a small Israeli locality; a transportation/land use conflict in a city in Oregon; and a planning effort in the Northeast Ohio region. We find that some negotiation theory elements hold true in multiparty situations, although often at a heightened level of intensity and complexity. However, important qualitative differences call for added research attention. The cases illuminate seven areas typical of multiparty negotiations that warrant further study: interdependent “BATNAs,” long time frames and changing political contexts, multiple sequential and parallel processes, challenges of representation, alliances and coalitions, information and communication flows, and concerns about interventions, agreement types, and decision rules.

In this paper, we identify a type of negotiation beyond the well-documented distributive and integrative categories in which the negotiators transcend the transaction and break away from the paradigms of individualism, which dictates that the only possible way to achieve success is by manipulating others for personal gain, emphasizing selfishness.A negotiation can only be transcendent by recognizing the human dimension of the other, prioritizing being over having, respecting the dignity of others, honouring agreements and maintaining the power of one's word. Negotiations conducted in this manner have the potential to extend benefits to future generations (Chamoun et al. 2016).In addition to defining and identifying the Transcendent Negotiation, a statistical analysis poll, Opinión Pública y Política Fiscal XXXI (Linguaserve IS, 2017) and XXXII (Linguaserve IS, 2017), of 5000 households in Spain from the CIS (Centre of Sociological Research of Spain) was used to discern various social profiles of negotiating agents characterized by four factors (spiritual happiness, negotiating power, interpersonal ethics, and institutional ethics) and two variables (level of interpersonal trust and degree of self-empowerment). Groups with similar characteristics were identified from the statistical analysis and named according to negotiation theory and virtues. The original intent of using this statistical robust survey was to investigate the effect that the four factors and two variables mentioned above have on Transcendent negotiations. The groups were named according to negotiation theory and virtues. These are free riders, passer-by's, pretenders, equilibrated well-positioned, outraged, equilibrated mediocre, and fighters. We observed tendencies from the statistical data group that are in line with the principles of Transcendence negotiation described in this paper.

This article argues that compromise lies at the heart of Paul Ricœur's philosophical project despite the apparent fragmentation of his work. Ricœur conceptualizes compromise, defining it as “shaping intersections of different orders of magnitude,” and differentiates it from the compromise of principle, which is tainted by negativity. Being necessary to build a common life in a society in which conflict is inherent, compromise, for Ricœur, reflects a form of anthropology that is also an “ontology of action.” Compromise testifies both to man's potential as much as to the precariousness of the given word, liable to be betrayed at any moment.

Officially launched on October 6, 2003, an agreement on the European Union and West Africa's EPA negotiation was only reached in January 2014. Despite having already been concluded and disputed by civil society—as one of the stakeholders involved—the Economic Partnership Agreement between the EU and WA has not yet been signed by Nigeria, the heavyweight of the region. Its implementation is thus threatened if we take into account the process of West African regional integration. This paper tries to explain the long-lasting nature of this negotiation, but especially the difficulties surrounding the implementation of the agreement that emerged from it. This paper ends by illustrating the importance of the context of negotiation and the adopted approach. It also draws lessons from the analyses carried out.

The contrat local de santé (CLS) is the instrument available to the regional health agencies (ARS) responsible for organizing the regulation of public action in this field. They are thus invited to recognize and support the capacities of mobilization of territorial communities confronted with the assumption of health issues. Depending on the contribution of these actors, their commitment in this health-ordering endeavor opens up the space for negotiation. The comparative analysis of the elaboration of eleven CLSs shows that the compromises adopted locally attest to the difficulties encountered by the ARSs in extracting themselves from local affairs, imposing their priorities, and regulating this area.

In the digital age, confidential information and rumors spread quickly. Once mobilized, even by stakeholders who are not physically present at the negotiating table, these digital data increase the pressure on negotiators before, during, and after the discussions. This quasi-total transparency of exchanges involves a new approach, allowing for the recognition of weak and absent parties so as to build sustainable agreements; in other words, responsible negotiation, also called global interest-based negotiation.