Cognitive Maelstroms,Nested Negotiation Networks,and Cascading Decision Effects: Modeling and Teaching Negotiation Complexity with Systemic Multiconstituency Exercises

Negotiation practitioners today struggle to manage complex political, economic, and cultural disputes that often involve an array of intertwined issues, parties, process choices, and consequences – both intended and unintended. To prepare next‐generation negotiators for these multifaceted challenges, negotiation instructors must keep pace with the rapidly evolving complexity of today's world. In this article, we introduce systemic multiconstituency exercises (SMCEs), a new educational tool for capturing this emerging reality and helping to close the experiential learning gap between the simulated and the non‐simulated environment. We discuss our pedagogical rationale for developing The Transition, a seventy‐two‐party SMCE inspired by the complex conflicts in Afghanistan and Central Asia and then describe our experiences conducting multiple iterations of this simulation at Harvard University. We argue that SMCEs, in which stakeholders are embedded in clusters of overlapping networks, differ from conventional multiparty exercises because of their immersive character, emergent properties, and dynamic architecture. This design allows for the creation of crucial negotiation complexity challenges within a simulated exercise context, most importantly what we call “cognitive maelstroms,” nested negotiation networks, and cascading decision effects. Because of these features, SMCEs are uniquely suited for training participants in the art of network thinking in complex negotiations. Properly designed and executed, systemic multiconstituency exercises are next‐generation teaching, training, and research platforms that carefully integrate negotiation, leadership, and decision‐making challenges.     

From Lab Experiments to Real Negotiations: An Investigation of International Iron Ore Negotiations

Negotiation researchers have conducted a large number of experimental lab studies to identify the factors that affect negotiation outcomes, but it remains unclear whether those results can be generalized to real‐world negotiations. To explore this question, we analyzed the dynamic international iron ore annual negotiations that took place from 2005 to 2009. We found evidence that supports two important findings from previous experiments. Specifically, we focused on the impact of negotiators’ best alternatives and first offers on negotiation prices using multiple case study analysis. We found that iron ore prices increased more when the gap between the previous year's negotiated price and the price on the alternative spot market, a public market in which commodities are traded for immediate delivery, was larger, which suggested that buyers were sensitive to the strength of this alternative, supporting the literature on the role of alternatives. We also found that the first offer price significantly influenced the final price. Our findings extend two important experimental findings from the negotiation literature to large‐scale business negotiations in the real world.     

Why Do We Respond to a Concession with Another Concession? Reciprocity and Compromise

All negotiation processes involve an exchange of concessions, and compromise is an agreement based on mutual concessions. Hence the questions investigated in this article: Why are concessions in negotiations always reciprocal? Why do negotiators follow this rule? And why do negotiators achieve these concessions through a process that we call compromise? Is there a connection between conceding and promising? In this article, I examine the structure of concession making and compromise through sociological, anthropological, and etymological lenses to better illuminate this critical negotiation component.     

Confrontations on the Issue of Terrorism Between Iran and the U.S. after 1979

The issue of terrorism has been a significant source of influence on the relationship between Iran and the U.S. since the Islamic Revolution. Iran's friendship with extremist groups that are designated as terrorist groups by the U.S. State Department is seriously challenging America's foreign policy. This article attempts to explore the prospect of confrontations on the issue of terrorism between Iran and the U.S. through a detailed analysis of their different interpretations and mutual recognitions of terrorism and through an in-depth analysis of the measures each party has taken regarding this confrontation. This article argues that the confrontation between Iran and the U.S. regarding the issue of terrorism is not strictly about terrorism. Rather, it is also about the conflicts of policies that result from different security interests and political values. Resolving the issue of terrorism depends on the reconciliation of the relationship between Iran and the U.S. Without mutual trust between the two nations, Iran will continue to support extremist groups in order to increase its influence against the external and internal pressures it is currently under, and the U.S. will continue to contain Iran's regional ambitions and seek changes in its behavior.     

Hard‐Core Toughie: Donald Trump’s Negotiations for the United States Presidency

This paper examines the negotiation tactics employed by Donald Trump in his 2016 presidential campaign. Drawing on data from multiple sources (interviews, debates, articles, books), our analysis begins with a brief overview of Trump’s personality and philosophy, which offers a basis for understanding his general negotiating approach. We then highlight six competitive tactics and four principles of persuasion that Trump employs, with specific examples of how he used them during the campaign with his primary negotiating counterparts – the other candidates, the Republican Party, the press corps, and the American electorate. Finally, we discuss some of the implications of his negotiating approach and preferred tactics in dealing with domestic and international issues as president of the United States.     

核出口控制的国际规则制定:美国在多边谈判中的行为模式

美国向来被视作国际核不扩散机制的主导者。然而,尽管积极倡导实行核出口控制,美国却未能始终对该领域的国际规则制定施加影响。在核供应国集团中,相较于利益诱惑与威胁这一动用物质实力的谈判方式,美国更倾向于为规则主张的正当性提供辩护,以此推进核供应国集团准则的修改。不过,基于核不扩散规范的此种辩护,也未能保证美国达成其目标。多边谈判中两种参与谈判的行为方式分别为“议价”与“论辩”,在现有研究中对其给予了理论上的区分。在大多数情况下,美国在两种谈判方式之中选择“论辩”。对美国这一选择倾向的分析,从成本导向的理性选择着眼。此外,为解释在正当性论辩这一谈判方式之下影响谈判结果的要素,提出了基于利益分配关系的心理机制。案例分析聚焦卡特、老布什、小布什三届政府在核供应国集团中发起的四次准则修改行动,四次行动在谈判方式的选择和谈判结果上呈现鲜明对比。文章旨在深入认知大国在多边规则制定中的权力及其界限。国家行为体对于正当性论辩的关注及其在论辩中面临的困境,在规则与规范之争趋于激烈化的国际安全领域,都是日益普遍的现象。     

论反劫持谈判过程(上)

从中外反劫持谈判的活动来看,这种谈判可以相应地划分成有着相互联系的四个阶段。每个阶段中自有不同的侧重点、实现的具体任务、活动的特征、注意的问题．谈判者如果能做到。中有数、控制有方,就会在各个阶段中发挥出惊人的谈判作用．实现比武力解救更好的效果.     

论环境行政处罚裁量的规制——以生态环境治理体系现代化为框架

面对日益激增的环境风险，立法规制局限、司法规制消极、行政规制乏力，难以规制环境行政处罚裁量权的行使，更增加环境行政处罚决定的履行难度。现代化生态环境治理体系构筑的政府、企业、社会公众三元主体结构，为环境行政处罚裁量规制提供了新的框架。在此三元结构框架下，以传统行政理论为基础，可以形成行政自制、协商规制、社会规制，共同作用于在环境行政全过程，规范并制约环境行政处罚裁量的行使。     

集体行动困境的应对之道--以广州市老旧小区加装电梯工作为例

老旧小区加装电梯是一项面向特定空间、特定人群的准公共产品,居民协商是实现这一公共产品供给的集体行动,但居民的个体理性会导致实施时出现集体行动困境。广州是国内较早开展这项工作的城市,通过访谈和政策内容分析梳理广州市老旧小区加装电梯的工作历程,结合集体行动理论分析老旧小区加装电梯面临的协商规模和价值偏好的困境,并在此基础上进一步探讨居民协商集体行动困境的破解之策。广州市的经验不仅为其他城市老旧小区加装电梯提供了借鉴,也为今后通过制度设计促成居民集体行动、推进城镇老旧小区改造工作,形成社区治理的长效机制提供了有益的启示。     

Civic Fusion: Moving from Certainty through Not Knowing to Curiosity

Civic fusion occurs when people bond across passionate difference to solve a shared public problem. It requires bringing people close together under conditions that enable them to bond, even as their polarizing beliefs remain intact. In managing multiparty multi‐issue negotiations, public policy mediators help disparate, passionate parties negotiate actionable agreements. To achieve and sustain civic fusion, interested parties recognize and acknowledge confining assumptions and move through a continuum in which their certainty about each other and their presumed solutions is challenged and transforms to uncertainty and then to curiosity. They connect across common public goals and find mutual understanding and respect for the interests of others as they come to understand and accept the opportunities and limitations that are inherent to their complex situations. A steady stream of new understandings moves people beyond their long‐held perspectives to foster productive negotiations and build innovative solutions. Ultimately, the parties generate sustainable consensus agreements even as they retain their deeply held and often opposing values and beliefs.