Actor Involvement

Who is involved in the negotiations? Many negotiations involve participants other than states or representatives of government agencies. One can distinguish here between governmental and non­governmental actors.

Governmental Actors. Negotiations involving only two governments of roughly equal strength and an equal interest in the subject of negotiation, are likely to have very different characteristics than negotiations involving several governments that differ in strength and degree of interest. Consequently, the following questions should always be asked:

(1) How many governmental actors are involved?

2. What is the state of the relationship between them?

3. How much do they care about the outcome?

4. Is the issue of similar or differing strategic or tactical concern?

Nongovernmental Actors. Participation by nongovernmental actors in negotiations is a common phenomenon. Where it exists, nongovernmental participation may have a profound effect on the characteristics of the negotiations. The factors that may be affected include the following: the purpose of involvement, such as to advance an organizational interest; the number of organizations involved; the type of organizations involved (e.g., international organizations, regional organizations, interest groups, corporations); the intensity of interest; and the ability of those actors to exert influence.

Range of Objectives

Is there a single and fairly specific objective of the negotiation? Or are there multiple objectives, some of which are ill defined and difficult to specify? Are the objectives parallel for the various participants or do they vary in type and in intensity of concern? If, for example, the subject of negotiations is of great importance to one government and of far less importance to another, the task of developing convergence around a formula for settlement will be very different than it would be if both governments were negotiating on a matter that was of equal importance to both.

Bargaining Dimension

What type of bargaining characterizes the negotiation? All negotiation, like all diplomacy, involves bargaining. This statement is far removed from that asserted by Schelling quoted earlier: that diplomacy is bargaining. For example, strategists may have concluded that the primary obstacle to the successful conclusion of negotiations is an atmosphere of distrust, which is the result of serious misinterpretation. In this case, the strategists may advance a settlement formula that is intended to surprise the other side and to shake public perception in other countries about the problem under consideration. An example might be the Soviet proposals made at the Reykjavik meeting of Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in November 1986. This tactic has the potential of leading to image alteration that so reduces the level of distrust as to lead to an acceptance of a settlement formula that, in the previous atmosphere of distrust, could never have been accepted. Probably very few cases approximate this abstraction. But altering public imagery is a frequently negotiating objective, and the employment of tough bargaining techniques may be, if anything, dysfunctional as a result. In other situations, tough bargaining must be employed if the objective is to be achieved. This is particularly the case in adversarial relationships in which the parties have a very good understanding of the other’s purpose. Whether bargaining serves the purpose of advancing the prospects for success for negotiation, therefore, depends on the situation, and it is an issue that should be examined in classifying negotiations.

Second, are negotiations most characterized, by active or by tacit bargaining? Active bargaining occurs when the levers that are most frequently used are those that the target sees as easily

Richard Cottam

manipulable. Examples would be to threaten or to offer an alteration in type of relationship, to threaten to use or to offer to cease using the application of force, and to threaten to cut off or offer an increase in trade involving a much desired commodity. Tacit bargaining occurs when the levers that are most frequently used are those that the target understands are not easily manipulable. Examples here would include making the target aware of domestic public attitudes that most preclude retreat on a vital issue and making the target aware that failure to reach agreement on a formula risks precipitating a serious accidental war situation, which could produce a catastrophe for the negotiating country, as well as for other actors.

Third, what kind of leverage is used most? In particular, is the threat of force prominent or constantly implied in the negotiations? Or is the probability of application of force less likely with another type of leverage, for example, is the threat or the offer to alter the type of relationship more characteristic of the negotiations? Such differences can be important enough to shape negotiations fundamentally.