Introduction
With the North Korean negotiations in retreat, the trade war with China raging, the Iran Deal unraveling, and the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada still not ratified, there seems to be a pattern of failed negotiations.
This pattern should compel us to ask “why?” and to carefully examine current American foreign policy negotiation and dispute resolution strategies.
A useful framework with which to begin this inquiry is to explore the three different approaches to negotiation and dispute resolution. They are: power- based; rights-based; and interest-based.
The Power-based Approach
The term “Power-based negotiation” is somewhat of an oxymoron, because when power is used in a negotiation environment, it is usually not used to negotiate a resolution, but rather to impose. The more powerful party imposes and enforces their demands on the weaker party, using threats, intimidation and force, often because they can.
A familiar example of using power as a negotiation tactic is the imposing of sanctions on North Korea to enforce America’s demand for total, irreversible and verifiable denuclearization. Another common example is military action.
Although there are certainly situations which call for a power-based approach, for example where there is an immediate existential threat, it should nevertheless be used with great caution and restraint in other situations. Often parties, when subjected to a power-based approach will be resistant, defensive, resentful, and will perceive themselves as being bullied. This approach, when used exclusively, very seldom produces the desired acquiescence.
The Rights-based Approach
Another approach to the resolving of disputes is a rights-based approach. One party believes he is in the right and the other party is in the wrong, or one party feels she is innocent while the other is to blame.
Read more —>
With the North Korean negotiations in retreat, the trade war with China raging, the Iran Deal unraveling, and the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada still not ratified, there seems to be a pattern of failed negotiations.
This pattern should compel us to ask “why?” and to carefully examine current American foreign policy negotiation and dispute resolution strategies.
A useful framework with which to begin this inquiry is to explore the three different approaches to negotiation and dispute resolution. They are: power- based; rights-based; and interest-based.
The Power-based Approach
The term “Power-based negotiation” is somewhat of an oxymoron, because when power is used in a negotiation environment, it is usually not used to negotiate a resolution, but rather to impose. The more powerful party imposes and enforces their demands on the weaker party, using threats, intimidation and force, often because they can.
A familiar example of using power as a negotiation tactic is the imposing of sanctions on North Korea to enforce America’s demand for total, irreversible and verifiable denuclearization. Another common example is military action.
Although there are certainly situations which call for a power-based approach, for example where there is an immediate existential threat, it should nevertheless be used with great caution and restraint in other situations. Often parties, when subjected to a power-based approach will be resistant, defensive, resentful, and will perceive themselves as being bullied. This approach, when used exclusively, very seldom produces the desired acquiescence.
The Rights-based Approach
Another approach to the resolving of disputes is a rights-based approach. One party believes he is in the right and the other party is in the wrong, or one party feels she is innocent while the other is to blame.
Read more —>
