This issue of Negotiation Journal features four articles, each of which sheds light on important, but underdeveloped aspects of negotiation theory and practice. These articles focus on the role of precedents in negotiations, the role of advisors in negotiations, the roles of focal points and turning points in negotiations, and the impacts of third‐party private actors on peace negotiations. We think of our field as a mature one, with established theories, so it is instructive — and, we hope, motivating for next generation scholars — to see that many domains remain uncharted.
In “Toward a Theory of Negotiation Precedent” Larry Crump finds little in the way of scholarship that has looked directly at precedents in negotiation, although their use clearly offers both advantages and disadvantages. Negotiation scholars know very little about how precedents are used in negotiation and even less about how they are established. Crump provides a wealth of research questions with the goal of building a theory of negotiation precedent and also makes suggestions about laboratory and field research designs.
The gaps in the negotiation literature on precedents may reflect a broader need to expand research at systemic or institutional levels of analysis. Crump's primary focus is on international trade treaty negotiations, where scholarship proceeds at both mezzo and macro levels of analysis. In labor negotiations, which can also be examined at these levels of analysis, we have seen the gradual collapse of pattern bargaining in many parts of the world, to the point where it was outlawed in Australia (even if that prohibition is hard to enforce). At the same time, some evidence suggests that patterns are emerging in the case of Chinese collective bargaining. As Crump rightly points out, there is much work to be done in building and applying theory on precedents in negotiations, and this scholarship will have relevance in a wide range of negotiation contexts.
Jeswald Salacuse examines “The Effect of Advice on Negotiations,” focusing on “How Advisors Influence What Negotiators Do.” This article pulls back the curtain on the crucial role of advisors in negotiations. Combining prominent historical examples from international relations with data from a survey of members of the European Union secretariat, Salacuse focuses on three potential models for the advisory role: director, servant, or partner. Interestingly, the senior members of the EU secretariat staff work hard to minimize their visibility in public, but privately most report they see themselves as partners.
These advisors provide expertise and continuity, which can be especially valued because of the high turnover of country representatives. Using role theory, Salacuse explores the tensions facing advisors and principals. Indeed, this article could well be assigned in advance of a class debate on the role of advisors in negotiations settings. While the focus in this article is on international relations, it would be interesting to replicate the survey with advisors in other contexts in order to advance theory on this crucial and often invisible aspect of negotiation.
In their article, Daniel Druckman and Valerie Rosoux connect “Focal Points and Turning Points in Negotiation” through a comparative analysis of four cases in international relations. They begin with Thomas Schelling's theory of focal points, which are essentially each party's best guess about what the other party expects, and often function as points of agreement. (Interestingly, focal points are also mentioned by Crump in his article on precedents).
They then consider the relationship between focal points and turning points in negotiations; turning points are events or decisions that change the trajectory of a negotiation, often signaling the end of a stalemate. As the authors note, these “points” are very different from one another, but can precipitate each other. Their case analyses help clarify how each can precede the other, often with beneficial consequences. Some focal points lead to turning points, while others do not. The case of the Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement that sought to end the civil war in Burundi is an example of a negotiation in which a partly shared focal point did not precipitate a turning point, and the agreement itself has not been completely successful.
Interestingly, the article presents an example of a qualitative focal point (the concept of ubuntu or “human kindness” in the negotiations that preceded South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process). This is consistent with Schelling's original construct, although the concept is more often used with respect to round numbers, mid‐points, and other quantitative factors.
Like Druckman and Rosoux, Claudia Hofmann and Carolin Goerzig also analyze four efforts at peace building, this time in the Middle East. In “Influencing Negotiation Willingness in the Middle East: The Potential Contributions of Private Actors,” they compare official and non‐official initiatives to end the intractable conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In particular, they consider the role that private actors, such as former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, can play in promoting cohesion among internally conflicted parties — in this case, the Palestinians. Cohesion, they argue, is a critical component of negotiation willingness.
The articles in this issue all concern important international negotiation issues (war reparations, peace agreements, trade treaties, etc.) using a range of research methodologies (literature review, case analyses, surveys). And the authors all call for research in additional settings, a call that we echo here.
As I indicated in the January issue, the editorial transition at Negotiation Journal will be characterized by simultaneously staying the course in focus, format, and approach, while also supporting continuous improvement. In this spirit, we have reviewed our submission categories. Most will not change, but some we believe would benefit from adjustment. The following categories will not change: In Theory, In Practice, On Teaching, State of the Art, and Case Analyses. We plan to rename Research Reports as Research Articles (because these are generally more than reports); Review Essays will now be known as Book Review Essays (because literature reviews would fit elsewhere); and our Columns will now appear under the heading of Perspectives (because we don't have regular columnists).
I encourage readers to look to additional editor's notes in future for other possible changes. And, as always, we encourage readers to let us know what they think.
