Settlements and Resolutions: Consequences of Negotiation Processes in the Laboratory and in the Field

Abstract

In their 1994 study of divorce mediation, Kressel and his colleagues distinguished between a problem-solving and a settlement-oriented style of mediation. The former led to more integrative agreements and better long-term relationships between the parties than the latter. This distinction has been a basis for a multi-method research program on negotiation and mediation processes in international relations. We have been exploring the consequences of a variety of indicators for outcomes and post-agreement relations among parties. In the laboratory, we have identified the way that sources of conflict (values and interests) lead to processes with different implications for long-term relationships. In case studies, we have identified the political conditions that produce short-term settlements, or stalemates followed by further escalation. In small-N comparative case studies, we have shown how negotiation process and context operate together to influence post-settlement relations and system change. We used a comparison of the conflicts in Karabakh and Mozambique and three cases of base-rights talks as examples. In large-N aggregate case comparisons, we developed empirical profiles of types of negotiation (e.g., innovation vs. re-distribution) with implications for outcomes and relationships as well as the role played by turning points in projecting a process toward agreement and changing escalatory into de-escalatory processes. The variables identified by these studies are organized in terms of a framework that connects issues and objectives, background factors, and conditions with processes, outcomes, and implementation. The framework shows how these variables can lead to integrative agreements.