Principled Negotiations and Complex Peace Processes: Reflections on connecting theory to practice—Part II
Document Type
Blog Post
Publication Title
Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program
Publication Date
2018
Abstract
(Excerpt)
In the first installment of our reflection on the pedagogy of principled negotiation, we began our consideration of the practicalities of applying theories of interest-based negotiation to peacebuilding.
We turn now to the concept of negotiation process. Agenda-setting can be a highly chaotic and challenging aspect of peace negotiations. Sometimes, this aspect of the process can hold a great deal of importance to parties, as the agenda can impact both the substance of negotiations (which is critical, and often highly political), as well as how the negotiation framework and its participants are viewed by constituents. The outcome of an agenda-setting processes can also impact how the negotiation framework is perceived by the international community, whose support may be sought by certain parties in the peace process. Sequencing as expressed through agenda-setting can be one particularly impactful factor in this regard. For instance, negotiating disarmament and demobilization without a prior agreement on governance could in theory be more likely to lead to the current government remaining in power rather than a transition in leadership (depending on the context). And, for an opposition group, the image of engaging in negotiations to lay down weapons or withdraw from combat without securing a new governance structure may be viewed by their base as lack of commitment to the highest priority of the opposition (or indeed, as “surrendering” militarily to the opposing party). Furthermore, in some cases parties do exploit early disarmament by other parties so as to enact a swift military solution to a conflict, and therefore premature agreement on this issue may obviate the peace process entirely—or, at the least, the risk of this outcome may cause certain parties to refuse to negotiate on this topic until other agreements and guarantees have been put into place. Indeed, peace processes world-wide have seen parties falter, and even withdraw from the peace process entirely, due to disagreements over the agenda. This delicate process may require a significant investment of time in order to lay a sufficient foundation for complex talks. In Syria, for instance, the first two years of the UN-led Geneva process focused almost exclusively on setting a broad agenda for negotiations. In applying interest-based negotiations to peace processes, technical advisors can benefit from careful attention to the fact that the process for agenda-setting can sometimes raise particularly thorny and resonant questions, which may require a thoughtful resolution before digging into substantive negotiations.
Comments
Available at: https://hnmcp.law.harvard.edu/hnmcp/blog/principled-negotiations-and-complex-peace-processes-reflections-on-connecting-theory-to-practice-part-ii/