Consensus Arbitration: A Negotiation‐Based Decision‐Making Process for Arbitrators

In reaching their decisions, arbitrators are currently expected to act like judges by listening fully to both sides and then withdrawing to write the final and complete decision. But because of some key differences between their roles, I argue, arbitrators and judges should exercise completely different styles of decision making. Unlike judges, who make decisive rulings in order to enforce the law, arbitrators are empowered and chosen by the parties themselves to handle specific disputes or govern continuing relationships. Instead of shifting a negotiated process into an authoritative one, arbitrators have the capacity to solicit input from parties as they craft the award. Under a new model of arbitration that I call “consensus arbitration,” arbitrators would facilitate negotiation between the parties but retain the power to break impasses with partial, incomplete decisions, behaving more like facilitators than judges.     

Explaining and Forecasting Leaders' Decisions: A Poliheuristic Analysis of the Iran Hostage Rescue Decision

In an increasingly dangerous world, forecasting national leaders' decisions during crises is a central concern of policy analysts. But with a wide range of specific military responses available to leaders, pinpointing a likely decision can be difficult. This essay argues that the poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making is a useful tool for aiding policy analysts in forecasting the decisions of national leaders. The theory's emphasis on a noncompensatory decision dimension facilitates the elimination of many of the possible decision alternatives, reducing uncertainty. Then, surviving alternatives are weighed against additional, nontrivial dimensions, producing a likely decision. As an illustrative case, I examine Carter's decision to implement the hostage rescue mission, demonstrating that Carter ruled out alternatives that failed to satisfy criteria on the noncompensatory decision dimension—reelection. The president's final choice was selected from the remaining alternatives according to its ability to simultaneously maximize net benefits with respect to military and strategic concerns. Following a comparison of the analysis with compensatory models of decision making, I suggest a general forecasting framework rooted in the poliheuristic theory. The theory can be applied to international crises provided that policy analysts obtain information concerning (1) the leader's noncompensatory decision criteria, (2) the set of alternatives that satisfy those criteria, and (3) the expected net benefits of the remaining alternatives on other dimensions (i.e., the military and strategic dimensions).     

Conflicts of decision-making processes between Clean Development Mechanism and project financing

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects are believed to be financially unviable without additional revenues from CDM in the form of saleable certified emission credits; this is an important premise to be verified in the CDM approval process. However, in financing a CDM project, it is crucial for financiers and investors to ensure that the project is viable without CDM revenues. Thus, there are clear conflicts in the processes and priorities between the CDM approval in theory, and financing and investment decisions in practice. Considering the post-CDM frameworks, this article uses a case study of Bhutan’s Dagachhu hydropower project, the world’s first cross-border CDM project, to suggest practical lessons learnt.     

Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations

A half-decade after the first systematic applications of prospect theory to international relations, scholars continue to debate its potential utility as a theoretical framework. Key questions include the validity of the experimental findings themselves, their relevance for real-world international behavior that involves high-stakes decisions by collective actors in interactive settings, and the conceptual status of prospect theory with respect to rational choice. In this essay I assess theoretical and methodological debates over these issues. I review work in social psychology and experimental economics and conclude that challenges to the external validity of prospect theory-based hypotheses for international behavior are much more serious than challenges to their internal validity. I emphasize the similarities between prospect theory and expected-utility theory, argue that hypotheses regarding loss aversion and the reflection effect are easily subsumed within the latter, and that evidence of framing effects and nonlinear responses to probabilities are more problematic for the theory. I conclude that priorities for future research include the construction of hypotheses on the framing of foreign policy decisions and research designs for testing them; the incorporation of framing, loss aversion, and the reflection effect into theories of collective and interactive decision making; and experimental research that is sensitive to the political and strategic context of foreign policy decision making.     

Salience and sanctions: a principal-agent analysis of domestic win-sets in two-level games—the case of British European policy under the Blair government

The two-level approach is often criticized for its failure to provide thorough theoretical guidance to the empirical task of establishing the boundaries of governmental win-sets. Addressing this deficit, the article builds upon principal-agent theory to deduce two determinants of win-sets: the salience of a foreign policy issue for a government's domestic principals and the credibility of these principals' threats to sanction their governmental agent for its policy on this issue. To illustrate the analytic utility of the framework, the article puts forward a case study on British European policy under the Blair government. It is argued that the major patterns of New Labour's policy on Europe can be accounted for by shifts in the domestic salience of the European issue and in the ability of principals to credibly sanction their agent's European policy making.     

The politicization of international economic institutions in US public debates

Recent research has noted a trend of increased “politicization” of international politics, i.e., decisions of international institutions are increasingly debated and contested within civil society. What is lacking so far are explanations for this trend. In this paper we derive four potential explanations and empirically test them. The first two, society-centered, hypotheses focus on the process of socio-economic modernization on the one hand and civil society structures on the other. The second pair of polity-centered hypotheses focuses on the decision-making power of international institutions and on their legitimacy. We measure politicization on the basis of a quantitative content analysis of US quality newspaper articles about four decisions of different international institutions in the issue area of international taxation. Our finding is that politicization is driven by the increasing decision making authority of international institutions rather than by the lack of legitimacy of their procedures or the factors emphasized by society-centered approaches.     

Chinese Choices: A Poliheuristic Analysis of Foreign Policy Crises, 1950–1996

This paper uses the Poliheuristic Theory (PH), developed by Mintz, which incorporates both psychological and rational choice components in a synthesis of these previously isolated approaches, to explain decision making in Chinese foreign policy crises. China is an interesting initial case for this project for two reasons. One is its importance as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and rising superpower. The other is China's reputation as a nearly unique "black box"—an especially challenging case—with regard to decision making in foreign policy crises. Taken from the authoritative compilation of the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) Project, the nine cases (with available data) in which China is a crisis actor span the period from 1950 to 1996. A comparative analysis of Chinese decision making in times of crisis is used to test hypotheses derived from the PH. The hypotheses focus on how decisions are anticipated to occur over two stages. Principal expectations are that the non compensatory rule, which places priority on political considerations, will determine viable alternatives at the first stage, while choices more in line with expected value maximization or lexicographic ordering will characterize the second stage.     

Democratising Transitional Justice: Transitional Trade-offs and Constituting the Demos

I argue that transitional justice should be democratised and to realise this goal I propose a method by which people can be enfranchised to make such choices. By showing that transitional justice options often involve trade-offs, I lay the groundwork for my democratic account of transitional justice. This article balances three democratic principles, including collective self-determination, the all affected interests principle and the protection of individual rights that are necessary to vote, to argue that victims and potential victims should constitute the transitional justice demos. I propose a new institution that would balance international and local control of transitional justice decision making, and choose the demos. This article does not attempt to construct a theory of how to resolve tensions in transitional justice decisions. Conversely, exactly because these tensions are often present, I develop a theory of who should be empowered to make transitional justice decisions and how their powers should be constrained.     

Decision Making in Autocratic Regimes: A Poliheuristic Perspective

This paper applies the poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making to non-democratic states. Poliheuristic theory asserts that state leaders assign primary importance to their political survival; however, the meaning of "the political" varies dramatically from country to country. Furthermore, the types of actors who hold leaders politically accountable also vary between countries. Consequently, leaders often pursue vastly different means of ensuring their political survival. The author uses the common distinction between single-party, military, and personalist autocracies to show that apparently arbitrary differences in autocratic leaders' political concerns actually vary in systematic and potentially predictable ways. Because this argument is generalized to non-democratic states as a whole, it has important implications for the ways in which democratic states craft their policies toward autocracies.     

Clarifying Decisions: Assessing the Impact of Decision Structures on Foreign Policy Choices During the 1970 Jordanian Civil War

This study examines situation versus personality effects on foreign policy decision making. It proposes that while both factors are important in explaining decision outcomes, the relative importance of each in a given circumstance is a function of the structural constraints imposed by the policy decision environment. Following Maoz (1990) and Maoz and Astorino (1992b), a decision-game theoretic framework is used to "reconstruct" policy decision problems in order to study individual and environment effects concurrently. The substantive focus is the ten decisions that comprised the major events of the 1970 Civil War in Jordan. The decision reconstructions are used to rate these decision tasks according to the presence and degree of structural constraint. Although it represents a preliminary test, the decision analysis indicates that in structurally constrained decision settings, policymakers tended to respond in accordance with environmental clues, while response variability and evidence of simplifying decision heuristics was greater in more fluid decision settings.     

Negotiating group decisions

Conclusion The research on negotiations, coalition formation, and group decision making suggests numerous ways to improve the quality of group decisions ranging from selection and training of group members, development of norms to maximize the amount of relevant information considered by the group, and the selection of an approach to integrate that information. In thinking about managing the process, it is useful to consider what may be done at the time a task force or team is formed, what needs to be done prior to decision making, and what may be done to integrate information and preferences to make high quality decisions. Table 5 organizes the ideas discussed in this article by stages.An interesting question is how overtly a group leader or member may act in managing this process. Groups themselves do not seem to engage in much deliberate planning. They often jump into their tasks only to back off and plan when they find themselves hopelessly frustrated, such as in the MIS task force in our example. Most groups do not have the luxury of team-building training—learning techniques to reach high quality group decisions in a simulated environment. So, it is often up to individual group members to direct the group to use processes that will produce high quality decisions. Jeanne M. Brett is the DeWitt W. Buchanan, Jr. Professor of Dispute Resolution and Organizations at the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, III, 60208.     

Ethics, Foreign Policy, and Liberal Wars: The Role of Restraint in Moral Decision Making

Can morality be a basis for making foreign policy? What happens when it is? The dangers in using morality to justify violence are discussed in the light of the just war tradition and liberalism. An ethical case for the importance of restraint in moral decision making, especially with regard to unnecessary but desirable wars within liberalist approaches to foreign policy, is presented.     

Environment and climate mainstreaming: challenges and successes

This paper examines mainstreaming environment and climate change into development policy, planning, and budgeting. It looks at why we should integrate environment and climate and outlines challenges and successes. One result is that governments’ progress pro-poor and equitable development. Governance gains are important too: co-benefits include more transparent decision making and better cross-government working. Ultimately, the impact of mainstreaming has increased awareness, changed perceptions, and improved the way inter-sectoral decisions are made, especially in climate adaptation. This supports countries to achieve their sustainable development ambitions – lessons which could be applied to a post-2015 development agenda.     

Applied Decision Analysis: Utilizing Poliheuristic Theory to Explain and Predict Foreign Policy and National Security Decisions

In recent years, more than 40 articles and chapters have utilized Poliheuristic Theory to analyze critical decisions made by foreign leaders and U.S. presidents. In this paper, I introduce the Poliheuristic Procedure—a series of steps that one can use to explain or predict decisions by world leaders. Subsequent articles in this Symposium present examples of poliheuristic analyses of decisions made by Presidents Carter, Clinton, Gorbachev, Mussaref and Saddam Hussein. These case studies provide strong support for Poliheuristic Theory: leaders use a two-stage process in making decisions: they first use simple heuristics to eliminate alternatives based on the avoid-major-political-loss principle, and then use more analytic calculations in selecting an alternative from a subset of surviving alternatives.     

The Unconscious Conscience: Implicit Processes and Deception in Negotiation

Deception is pervasive in negotiations, and proponents of bounded ethicality propose that the decision to use deception reflects the influence of (unconscious) implicit processes. In this article, we empirically explore the bounded ethicality perspective. In the first experiment, we found that an implicit association between business and morality interacted with the competitive and cooperative characteristics of a negotiation to influence both negotiators' attitudes toward deception and their intentions to use deception. But in a second and third experiment, we found that these did not interact to influence negotiators' actual deception decisions. The results of our studies provide important insights into the deception decision process and complicate our understanding of bounded ethicality.     

Question wording and mass policy preferences: The comparative impact of substantive information and peripheral cues

Understanding the dynamics of mass political behavior requires attention to the mechanisms and processes citizens use in evaluating political affairs. At its structural core, a political appraisal has much in common with most of the other decisions individuals must make each day. Consequently, insight can be gained by examining political judgments from the perspective of those psychological theories concerned with information processing and decision making. More specifically, because the American citizen typically must maximize cognitive efficiency when evaluating political phenomena, those psychological mechanisms that facilitate expedience and simplicity in decision making are likely to operate on a great diversity of political judgments. Hence theoretical perspectives concerning the role of heuristic principles of judgment may be of considerable utility for the study of mass political behavior. One such perspective, the heuristic‐systematic model, is discussed. The tenets of the heuristic‐systematic model guide quasi‐experimental examination of the influence of variance in question wording on public support for the Reagan defense build‐up. Results indicate that source cues enable individuals to apply source evaluations when forming policy assessments but that the impact of source cues is overwhelmed when individuals are simultaneously exposed to relevant policy information.     

The effects of uncertainty and sex in a crisis simulation game

We conducted an experimental test of spiraling behavior, sex differences, and uncertainty in a simulated crisis situation. We investigated the relationship between weapons acquisition and the likelihood of engaging in aggressive behavior, such as going to war. The sample included 100 male and female subjects who participated in a crisis simulation in same‐sex dyads; each student was instructed to role play the leader of a country in conflict with another leader over a nearby island replete with newly discovered oil resources. Participants were randomly assigned to stimulus materials that manipulated the certainty of the information they received about their partner's force structure. In four cycles of decision‐making, each participant made procurement decisions, took an action related to the conflict, including decisions about going to war, completed questionnaires on characteristics such as the hostility and trustworthiness of themselves and their opponents, and wrote messages to the other member of the pair. The results of the study demonstrate a strong relationship between weapons acquisition and hostility. In addition, we found large and robust sex differences, showing that men are much more likely than women to acquire weapons and engage in aggressive behavior at every stage. There was no effect of uncertainty on either arms procurement or aggression.     

The Impact of Institutionalized Ideas in Coalition Foreign Policy Making: Turkey as an Example, 1991–2002

This study is an attempt to fill an important gap in three distinct yet closely related fields: international relations (IR), comparative politics (CP), and foreign policy analysis (FPA). On a more general level, the study examines the conditions under which domestic ideas influence foreign policy. More specifically, it investigates the role of institutionalized ideas that are represented at the highest levels of the decision-making structure in foreign policy decision outcomes. The theoretical framework advanced in this study calls for three interrelated steps to be taken in examining the relationship between ideas and state action: (1) a clear conceptualization of ideas, (2) a careful analysis of the institutionalization of these ideas, and (3) a methodological exploration of the discord among political actors who represent them. The framework proposes that coalition governments present a potential venue for analyzing and operationalizing how the "battles of ideas" at the decision-making level affect foreign policy choices. The study finds that institutionalized ideas are highly influential in shaping foreign policy choices in coalition government settings when several conditions are fulfilled. These conditions are categorized into three subheadings: (1) reasons to enter into coalition governments, (2) nature of coalition governments, and (3) characteristics of parties. The findings of this study contribute to general IR, CP, and FPA literatures on the role of ideas, coalition government foreign policy making, and comparative foreign policy. The study also contributes to the literature on Turkish politics by entering coalition policy making in Turkish Foreign Policy and showing that Turkish political parties are important actors in foreign policy making.