The subject of interstate arbitration has been largely neglected in the field of international relations, often dismissed as merely an obscure legal process. Drawing on numerous cases, this article argues that interstate arbitration has been a significant strategic factor in settling important international disputes and that its merit as a dispute resolution method should be evaluated not only on the basis of arbitrators’ decisions alone but also on its impact on the underlying diplomatic process between disputants. The author examines the nature of interstate arbitration, traces its historical development, outlines its contemporary processes, and proposes a framework explaining how and when it may be applied to international conflicts between states.

Studies of negotiations often overlook, or at least do not fully account for, the important role played by people who advise negotiators. Often deliberately hidden from view, advisors have important but unrecognized influence on the negotiation dynamic. In this article, I explore the roles and methods of advisors in the negotiation process, drawing on role theory and survey research conducted in 2013 among approximately seventy advisors at the European Union Council of Ministers. I define advice as “a communication from one person (the advisor) to another (the client) for the purpose of helping that second person determine a course of action for solving a particular problem” and consider the nature of this advice and the range of relationships that may exist between advisors and their clients. Advising is much more than the mere transmittal of information from advisor to negotiator and that for advice to be effective a relationship must exist between the two parties. I then identify three models of the advisor–negotiator relationship. The first is the advisor as director, wherein the advisor tends to take control of the negotiating process, directing the negotiator toward actions that she or he should take to achieve success at the negotiation. The second is the advisor as servant, in which the advisor merely responds to the demands of the client for help and guidance in the negotiation. And the third is the advisor as partner, wherein advisor and negotiator jointly manage the process and solve the problem together. Finally, I explore the factors that lead advisors and negotiators to adopt each of these three models, the various advising styles that advisors use, and the differing effects on the negotiation process that these elements may have, drawing on historical examples as well as survey data from the EU Council of Ministers.

Renegotiation of existing agreements is constant in all areas of life. In this article, the author examines the nature and causes of renegotiation and offers guidance to persons involved in the renegotiation process. He identifies three distinct types of renegotiations – post‐deal, intra‐deal, and extra‐deal renegotiation. Each of the three types poses particular problems and opportunities and each requires different techniques to deal with those problems and opportunities.

A survey of 310 persons of different nationalities and occupations asked respondents to rate their negotiating styles with respect to ten factors involved in the negotiation process. These factors included a preference for: a written contract in contrast to relationship‐building as a negotiating goal; an integrative (win‐win) as opposed to a distributive (win‐lose) bargaining approach; and high rather than low tolerance for risk‐taking. Reporting on the responses of persons from 12 countries and eight different occupations, this study finds that, in many instances, persons from the same cultures and occupations tended to respond to these negotiating elements in a similar fashion. Survey responses were also examined with respect to the respondents’ gender. The studty would appear to support the proposition that culture, occupational background, and gender can influence negoating style.