1. ACTORS
1.1. Number of actors/ coalitions
1.1.1. The formation of coalition, has the effect of reducing the number of actors back down to two -> familiar and manageable model for the participants.
1.1.1.1. A tight alliance may reduce the range of alternative negotiated outcomes that will be acceptable not only to them but to their coalition partners
1.1.1.2. Coalition ties can allow an actor to rely explicitly or implicitly on the power of allies to enhance a negotiation position.
1.1.1.2.1. A thigt alliance may reduct the range of alternative negotiated outcomes that will be acceptable not only to them but to their coalition partners
1.1.2. Multiparties or multilateral negotiations = increase in the complexity of the negotiation
1.1.2.1. with each party seeking a different outcome, the possibilities of both, delay and failure are enhanced.
1.2. Team cohesion
1.2.1. Involves a leader or chief negotiation that posses specific expertise
1.2.2. Monolithic Model: all the members of a negotiating team are working to advance the same interests and speak with one voice
1.2.3. Heterogeneous model: the assumption that different members of a negotiating team hold different interests, which may be in conflict with one another.
1.2.3.1. there is no real team leader, there is only a nominal agreement on some of the very basic overall objectives of the negotiation.
1.3. Actor capabilities
1.3.1. Conventional wisdom: the stronger actors will better bargain and end up with lion's share
1.3.1.1. strenght is often matter of perception. -> the problem is further confounded by discussion of measurement issues -->
1.3.1.1.1. elements of power: military, economic, political, territorial, demographic
1.3.2. Weaker actors: have less clout and therefore get the shorter end of the negotiation stick
1.4. Actor norms
1.4.1. Some cultures stress the need for clear-cut victory, hile others value the achievement of consensus and a mutually beneficial outcome
1.4.1.1. Negotiating styles:
1.4.1.1.1. Low-context
1.4.1.1.2. High context
1.5. Actor Commitment
1.5.1. The involvement of actors in the negotiation may differ in terms of the commitment to their issues under discussion.
2. ISSUES
2.1. Number of issues/ Bargaining dimensions
2.1.1. Negotiations can be characterized by the number of issues in contention among those actors
2.1.1.1. the addition of actors, increases the number of issues and expands the complexity of the negotiation.
2.1.1.1.1. however, an increase in issue can enhance the probability of successful outcome to the negotiation. -> from a zero-sum situation to a more mutual beneficial one that offers opportunities for each actor
2.2. Issue linkage
2.2.1. Linkage= the inclusion of additional issues not directly related to the issue under negotiation
2.3. Time frame
2.3.1. The actors in a crisis negotiation, often perceive a finite or limited time for response. -> time, in the form of deadline, may be real or artificial:
2.3.1.1. Real deadlines: exists in hostage situations, where treaties are about to expire and where actual or impeding natural disasters require concerted effort on the part of members of the international community
2.3.1.2. Artificial deadlines: flexible. change of travel plans or the rescheduling of meeting between important leaders.
3. PROCESS
3.1. Public or private forum
3.1.1. Sometimes the line between private and public is intentionally crossed, when in an effort to scuttle the negotiations, parties may use selective public leaks -> puts pressure. BUT the more public a negotiation becomes, the less it resembles a negotiation and the more it takes from aspects of a public meeting
3.2. Outcome
3.2.1. Negotiatoins also differ according to whether or not agreements are mandatory
3.2.1.1. The actors may differ in terms of their respective need to reach an agreement in a timely manner or even over whether an agreement is necessary at all
3.2.1.1.1. the actor that appears to need an agreement, is in disadvantage since it may have to make significant concessions in order to achieve goals