Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weaknesses of cross cultural negotiation
The importance of negotiation strategy
The importance of negotiation strategy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Negotiations are the less costly means to resolve a dispute. They are an intermediary step that gives people or states an opportunity to achieve their goals through peaceful means. Negotiations give us an understanding of our position and that of our enemies. They make us aware of our strengths and weaknesses and they clarify the enemy’s intentions, interests and their potentials. Knowing that war is a certain outcome of a dispute, wouldn’t it be more convenient to first engage in peaceful talks and negotiations? Even though we might have the necessary resources to win the war, would we still be as better off as if we would solve our disputes through negotiations? We would still lose lives and incur material costs if we go to war, regardless if we are on the winning or losing side. Why then would we not advocate using negotiations to resolve disputes? Why do we need to go to war when there is another way to resolve a dispute? Overall, “war does not determine who is right - only who is left.” (Bertrand Russell) And “who is left” should not be the ultimate goal of our society. It is attaining justice and fairness for all that should concern us. History shows that negotiations might fail due to the difference of the justice and fairness definitions. The Melos- Athens conflict proved that negotiations might only be a step that delays war, rather than a peaceful way out of the dispute. However, reality and experience indicates that the outcomes of negotiations are subject to circumstances, timeframe, and people’s ideologies. People’s mentality has changed and they have become more open-minded, tolerant and more educated to understand that war is the last resort of solving a dispute. Reality and circumstances have also changed and war... ... middle of paper ... ...ption of fairness, but at least they are a better option than that of going straight to war. This is why we should advocate using negotiations to resolve disputes. We should encourage dialogue to prevent further escalation of disputes, be that in the Ukrainian context or Iraq’s war if we could go back in time. We should encourage peaceful ways to resolve tensions and crisis because a miscalculated decision to go to war might initiate a Third World War and who knows what will happen then or how many lives will be lost. We can give thousands of reasons to advocate the usage of negotiations, but there are very few if no reason at all that would advocate against it. If we all believe in justice and fairness, no matter how diverse our definitions might be, I believe there is no need for war. And if each of us holds this belief than I doubt there will be any future ones.
War termination and the decision of when to negotiate peace are rarely effectively planned before a war. The Russo-Japanese War is one of a few historical exceptions. The Russo-Japanese War provides three enduring lessons about war termination in a conflict fought for limited aims. First, the most effective war termination plans are created before the war. Second, continued military and political pressure can effectively improve your position to negotiate peace. Third, common interests and compromise are required for durable peace.
Many disagreements would arise in the negotiation process of the Camp David 2000 Summit that would eventually lead it to be unsuccessful. Disagreements such as the division of territory, the dispute over Jerusalem, Security and Refugee arrangements arose in the negotiation. Unfortunately this paper cannot explain all of the disagreement, it will mention some.
Between the period of 1820-1861 there was a number of political compromises done in order reduce the sectional tension between the North and the South. While each of the compromises created helped the issue that the country was facing at that time, they did not help overall. The compromises were only a temporary fix for the country’s problem of sectionalism. Therefore while political compromises were effective in reducing the tension between the North and the South it did not help in preventing the civil war.
Throughout history, negotiation has been a powerful tool used by world leaders to avoid violence and resolve conflict. When negotiation succeeds, all parties can feel that they have achieved their goals and met their expectations, but when negotiations go awry, countries and relationships can be damaged beyond repair. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is a primary example of this type of failure, which was one of the catalysts to the start of World War II and Czechoslovakia’s loss of independence. The Czech people were greatly overlooked during this agreement process, which still in some instances affects the country today. The 1930s were a challenging time for Europe and the powers within it due to the aftermath of WWI and the worldwide economic depression.
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
US Presidents have made it a goal during their term(s) in office to establish a good relationship with foreign countries and even try to improve upon existing connections with our allies. Some believe it is to prevent conflicts between the countries while others dispute that it is a threat assessment by the United States to pick and choose their friends and enemies. Preventing conflict between two democracies or countries that practice democracy is called Democratic Peace Theory. However, research has begun to show that Democratic Peace Theory is ineffective and needs to be brought to an end as a model for how international relations are formed or destroyed. Democratic Peace Theory needs to be abolished as a support for forming foreign policy between democracies because of the burden placed on both parties to come to an agreement but still stand proud and victorious as a country without conceding anything.
The topic for my real world negotiation is to come to an agreement with my supervisor for a promotion as well as an increased salary. I currently work as a student assistant at the student services Planning, Enrollment Management, and Student Affairs (PEMSA) department. My goal is to increase my hourly pay from $10.15 to $12.70, a 25% increase. Having worked in this department for three years, I have taken on tasks not part of my job description such as processing return mail, data entry, and supervision.
We have to understand as to why war is such a reoccurring event in the history of nation-states and also the nature of international affairs and the determining factors which cause action, reaction, cooperation, hostility and peace between states in the international system. War has always been a conflict between countries through the use of weapons. When nations decide to go on war against each other, millions of money are spent and it, and not only money and materials are wasted but it also cost hundreds to even millions of lives. Then, most of the time, not only military die but innocent people are also the ones losing their lives. The kill of people for whatever reasons such as power or race...etc, and then because nations do not think in the say way and do not have the same view of the world is not right. This is why peace is the contrast of war. Peace is mostly described as a quality that operates harmoniously and keeps a society or a relationship safe. This means that hostility does not exist, because safety of the nation-states,and their international relationship on social and economic matters are important, and the equality and good justice is trusted.
On the one hand, war is a terrible thing that can happen in this nation, but pacifists will tell you that it isn’t worth the death of innocent lives. “Pacifists hold that war is wrong because killing is wrong.” This is understandable. War and violence should not be an excuse for conflicts. Negotiating problems could be more helpful than violence and war. Negotiating would be more effective than war because it will help prevent the situation from getting worse and will help find a solution to the problem or issue. Talking to the enemy would shock them, since they would be expecting for us to fight back. Instead of returning with ruthless violence they have towards us, this nation should maintain its superior position and meet them with acts of kindness and gentle words “Negotiation, mediation, diplomacy—these would be the means of settling international disputes, not the sacrifice of human lives."
In an ideal utopian world, I would like to believe that the views of war conform to the bargaining model; this means that potential gains and losses are weighed against the outcome to decide to go to war through communication and bargaining. War occurs because there is a dispute between two parties in trying to obtain something. This can range from territories, borders, reverence or religious dominance, just to name a few. On many occasions, conflicts brew before wars take place. Therefore, there is always a period of time when bargaining takes place or is able to take place. If the theoretical bargaining model was effectively used, a bargaining range would exist where both parties are better off cumulatively by avoiding war. The prisoner’s dilemma model would work very well in this situation because if two parties were at war, the winning party would obviously have the most to gain, but due to the uncertainty, refraining from war would be the best option.
During this course, I have learned a lot about negotiating. We learned about almost every negotiating technique there is. We learned about cross-cultural negotiations, body language, Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), variables in negotiating, and many more. Before this course, I did not know that much about negotiating. I thought that negotiating was just about trading or convincing someone to give you what you want and you did not care about the other side, resulting in a win-lose. I now know that negotiating is about getting what you want, but also giving the other side what they want as well to result in a win-win. This paper is about how I am going to improve my negotiating skills over the next six months. In order for me to improve my negotiating skills, I believe I need to improve the following skills- my body language, communication, planning, and my interpersonal communications. By improving those skills, I can become an effective negotiator.
Negotiation is an important strategy and plays an indispensable role for people to solve the problem in our lives. It is a good way to make both parties find acceptable solution by each parties use tactics to persuade another party to approve his or her viewpoint. The application of the advanced negotiation skills definitely not only brings success in our daily life but also improve people’s work ability. This essay will show my natural preferences for different types of influence tactics which have been utilized in in-class, the understanding of the negotiation and analyze how to use proper tactics at different situations which are based on the role-play activity in tutorial.
Negotiations always occur between parties who believe that some benefit may come of purposeful discussion. The parties to a negotiation usually share an intention to reach an agreement. This is the touchstone to which any thinking of negotiations must refer. While there may be some reason to view negotiations as attempts by each party to get the better of the other, this particular type of adversarial negotiation is really just one of the options available. Among the beginning principles of a negotiation must be an acknowledgment that the parties to a negotiation have both individual and group interests that are partially shared and partially in conflict, though the parameters and proportions of these agreements and disagreements will never be thoroughly known; this acknowledgment identifies both the reason and the essential subject matter for reflection on a wide range of issues relevant to a negotiation. (Gregory Tropea, November 1996)
Mediation is a way to solve a dispute without having to resort to court procedure which sometimes could turned out to be rigid, formal and time consuming especially when it needed a lot of paperwork and the possibility of adjournment which could consume years. Besides that, unlike in court, mediator as a third impartial party did not acted as a judge who decides on the resolution however, the mediator will help the parties to explore the needs and issue which before preventing them from achieving a mutual resolution and settlement. The mediation process gave the authority towards the parties to agree with each other and open up the chance for the parties to meet with a resolution at the end of the mediation session.