Abstract
Abstract This special issue of International Negotiation explores how justice is, and may best be, negotiated when parties adhere to conflicting notions of what it means and requires. “Conflicting notions” refer to the endorsement of different principles or to conflicting interpretations of how the same justice principle is to be applied. It may also involve some party’s adhering to a justice principle, while its counterpart endorses criteria other than justice as the proper basis for the case at hand. A diversity of cases and methodological traditions is used to explore a set of analytical questions: Why do parties adhere to conflicting notions of justice in international negotiations? How do conflicting justice notions affect negotiation dynamics and what are different ways in which they can be handled? Are some ways of handling such notions better than others, in the sense of enhancing the chances of a durable agreement?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
