A turning-points analysis of 34 cases of international negotiation is performed in three parts: precipitants (external, substantive, or procedural), process departures (abrupt or nonabrupt), and immediate and later consequences (escalatory or de-escalatory). The cases are divided into three types according to issue area: security, political (including environmental), and trade or economic negotiations. The results are summarized in terms of paths to outcomes: security negotiations are characterized primarily by external precipitants leading to abrupt departures in process that typically turn the talks in the direction of agreements; process departures or turning points in political and trade talks are usually precipitated by either substantive or procedural decisions made by the negotiators that also lead to agreements. Implications of the findings are discussed in terms of the risk-averse and reactive orientations taken by governments in the area of security policy. They are also discussed in the context of strengths and limitations of the comparative analysis approach and in relation to analyses of 11 cases of domestic negotiations in the airlines industry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bacchus, W. A.1973. The relationship between combat and peace negotiations: Fighting while talking in Korea, 1951-1953. Orbis17:545-574.
2.
Bendahmane, D. B. , and J. W. McDonald, eds. 1986. Perspectives on negotiation: Four case studies and interpretations. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute.
3.
Bennett, A. , and A. L. George. Forthcoming. Case studies and theory development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Bercovitch, J. , and J. Langley. 1993. The nature of the dispute and the effectiveness of international mediation. Journal of Conflict Resolution37:670-691.
5.
Bercovitch, J. , and R. Wells. 1993. Evaluating mediation strategies: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Peace and Change18:3-25.
6.
Cameron, M. A. , and B. W. Tomlin. 2000. The making of NAFTA: How the deal was done. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
7.
Chesek, P.1997. A comparative analysis of multilateral environmental negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation6:437-461.
8.
Coddington, A. 1968. Theories of the bargaining process. Chicago: Aldine.
9.
Cross, J. 1983. A theory of adaptive economic behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Douglas, A.1957. The peaceful settlement of industrial and intergroup disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution1:69-81.
11.
Druckman, D. 1980. Social-psychological factors in regional politics. In Comparative regional systems, edited by W. J. Feld and G. Boyd. New York: Pergamon.
12.
Druckman, D. 1983. Social psychology and international negotiations: Processes and influences. In Advances in applied social psychology, vol. 2, edited by R. F. Kidd and M. J. Saks. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Druckman, D.1986. Stages, turning points, and crises: Negotiating military base rights, Spain and the United States. Journal of Conflict Resolution30:327-360.
14.
Druckman, D.1990. The social psychology of arms control and reciprocation. Political Psychology11:553-581.
15.
Druckman, D.1993. The situational levers of negotiating flexibility. Journal of Conflict Resolution37:236-276.
16.
Druckman, D.1997a. Dimensions of international negotiations: Structures, processes, and outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation6:395-420.
17.
Druckman, D. 1997b. Negotiating in the international context. In Peacemaking in international conflict, edited by I. W. Zartman and J. L. Rasmussen. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
18.
Druckman, D. , and R. Harris. 1990. Alternative models of responsiveness in international negotiation. Journal of Conflict Resolution34:235-251.
19.
Druckman, D. , J. L. Husbands, and K. Johnston. 1991. Turning points in the INF negotiations. Negotiation Journal7:55-67.
20.
Druckman, D. , J. Martin, S. Allen Nan, and D. Yagcioglu. 1999. Dimensions of international negotiation: A test of Iklé's typology. Group Decision and Negotiation8:89-108.
21.
Faure, A. M.1994. Some methodological problems in comparative politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics6:307-322.
22.
Frei, D. , and D. Ruloff. 1989. Handbook of foreign policy analysis. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
23.
Gulliver, P. H. 1979. Disputes and negotiations: A cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.
24.
Hopmann, P. T. 1996. The negotiation process and the resolution of international conflicts. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
25.
Iklé, F. C. 1964. How nations negotiate. New York: Harper & Row.
26.
Jervis, R. 1983. Security regimes. In International regimes, edited by S. D. Krasner. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
27.
Keohane, R. O.1986. Reciprocity in international relations. International Organization40:1-128.
28.
McDonald, J. W. , and D. B. Bendahmane, eds. 1990. U.S. bases overseas. Boulder, CO: Westview.
29.
Pew Case Studies in International Affairs . 1999. The ISD compendium of case study abstracts and indexes. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.
30.
Pruitt, D. G. 1981. Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press.
31.
Rosenthal, R. 1984. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Snyder, G. H. , and P. Diesing. 1977. Conflict among nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
Stern, P. C. , and D. Druckman. 2000. Evaluating interventions in history: The case of international conflict resolution. International Studies Review2:33-363.
34.
Strauss, A. 1978. Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
35.
Tomlin, B. W. 1989. The stages of pre-negotiation: The decision to negotiate North American free trade. In Getting to the table, edited by J. G. Stein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States . 1942. United States-United Kingdom-Switzerland War Trade Agreement. vol. III, pp. 376-3401. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.
37.
U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States . 1946. United States-Portugal Airfield Talks. Vol. V, pp. 962-91022. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.
38.
Zartman, I. W.1975. Negotiations: Theory and reality. Journal of International Affairs9:69-677.
39.
Zartman, I. W. 2000. Ripeness: The hurting stalemate and beyond. In International conflict resolution after the cold war, edited by P. C. Stern and D. Druckman. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
