The point of negotiations

#1
Ratings
0 13 0
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
107
Ratings
13
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Do negotiations really work? Often one side doesn't want to negotiate, they only want to win, but in a civilized society I think negotiations should be attempted for the sake of the citizens involved. They usually fail and any agreements are made with the knowledge they may not be seen through.

Most countries will have an intermediary to see the negotiations through, but there is no guarantee that another war will not resurface later on. Who can enforce negotiations? No court can and it's merely on the reputation and honor of the government and leaders involved. That's why negotiating with terrorists will never work, as they can never be trusted to stop.
 
#2
Ratings
0 18 0
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
59
Ratings
18
Country
USA
Location
USA
A great book to read is Getting to Yes by Fisher and Ury is a great read when it comes to the art of negotiation. Before entering into negotiations you have to get an idea of what you want out of the transaction and what the other side is looking for (that is the basic premise). The idea is not to get confrontational while negotiating while working towards a common solution.

In the questions you posed if they really work - they do all the time - diplomats and ambassadors strike deals through negotiations all the time. Negotiating with terrorists a little different because you are not negotiating with a nation-state but with a group of people who are centered around a cause or concept. They tend to only see things one way and if you don't agree you're the opposition. There is no negotiating there.
 
#3
Ratings
0 13 0
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
86
Ratings
13
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
I think Negotiation during war time between 2 enemies is pointless and shows a kind of weakness coming from the party involved in initiating the negotiations. Negotiations before the break of war are ok, But if you decide you want to negotiate with your enemy in the middle of war that sends only one message to them, You are weak and failing and want to try and end this thing before you lose this thing.

If I were a leader of a country i would use it as a tactic to make it look like a weakness, to lead the enemy as if I felt I may lose this battle or even a war with them. then when they least expect it Just throw everything I have at them knowing I have more power, more intelligence on them, and more tactics up my sleeve.

Negotiations only work for as long as the two countries making the negotiations are sitting at the table. In time of war I think paper contracts written before an war situation are ignored and forgotten about. To us its all politics to the people making the decisions its just garbage and a deterrent while at war with a previously negotiated country.

Thats just my opinion tho.
 
#4
Ratings
2 62 0
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
145
Ratings
64
Country
India
Location
India
Negotiations are often one-sided. When your country is occupied by a foreign force, your military and public infrastructure is destroyed, you have no choice to accept the terms dictated to you. So in most cases, it isn't a negotiation, it is an attempt to legitimize an invasion. History and current events provide ample evidence for this.

I think whether negotiations work depends on the intentions of the parties involved, if it is an attempt to merely stir up trouble for an ulterior purpose, as it seems a lot of geopolitics is, it won't. But assuming that there is economic incentive in choosing the peaceful option, I don't see why not.
 
#5
Ratings
0 13 0
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
107
Ratings
13
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
I studied war strategies which is why I posed the question and the answer is that negotiations happen for many reasons, but few are successful, because one party will get more than the other, thus the other side will feel short changed or defeated still.

In light of the ISIS threats, negotiations aren't even possible, so a conflict where there can be no negotiation can never really be solved can it? The result is the destruction of one of the sides.
 
#6
Ratings
0 3 0
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
76
Ratings
3
Country
USA
Location
USA
Negotiations are a great way of communicating with other countries. This is better than going to war with somebody over trivial matters.
 
#7
Ratings
0 2 0
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
10
Ratings
2
Country
USA
Location
USA
If both parties want to come to an agreement I suppose negotiations work. I would suspect that the majority of the time negotiations are used to discover the other sides thoughts and weaknesses. Given that I don't believe negotiations work. Since I don't really believe terrorists organizations want to come to an agreement I don't believe it ever works in that situation.
 
#8
Ratings
0 64 0
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
446
Ratings
64
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
Negotiations will work if you talk about states, institutions and public officials with sovereignty, territory and people to protect - not insurgent groups. You can always give them the benefit of the doubt but most terrorists have unreasonable demands with conditions that aren't favourable to the other party.
 
#9
Ratings
0 17 0
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
142
Ratings
17
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
A great book to read is Getting to Yes by Fisher and Ury is a great read when it comes to the art of negotiation. Before entering into negotiations you have to get an idea of what you want out of the transaction and what the other side is looking for (that is the basic premise). The idea is not to get confrontational while negotiating while working towards a common solution.
Thanks for the suggestion, krazyman. My knowledge on what actually happens during high-level negotiations is laughable and is mostly shaped on what I see in popular media. I'll definitely have to pick up this book and educate myself on the topic!
 
#10
Ratings
0 13 0
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
86
Ratings
13
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
Negotiations are a great way of communicating with other countries. This is better than going to war with somebody over trivial matters.
I agree negotiations would be better than war, but in cases like ISIS I think war is exactly what they want. there are groups here in the Philippines that I think are the same, they call it organized terrorist groups yet none of these groups are in any way organized. I honestly think it is just a bunch of misfit mooches who dont want to really work for money and use kidnapping and ransom tactics to get a paycheck. When money is the idol of your organization and greed is its mascot there is no negotiations that can resolve things, and paying them what they want certainly wont make them go away forever. It just tells them if they push hard enough you will give them the paycheck they need today. But the difference in a real job and terrorism is a real job has recurring paychecks, in order for terrorists (here in the Philippines) to have recurring paychecks they musty keep kidnapping and taking people for ransom. So a 1 time negotiation to resolve the conflict could never work.
 
#11

Redheart

SENIOR MEMBER
Ratings
0 318 0
Joined
Dec 26, 2014
Messages
1,239
Ratings
318
Country
USA
Location
USA
The first step before taking military action against your perceived enemies is to negotiate. Both sides have grievances which they want addressed and failure to fix those issues results in war. But that applies [only] to when there's any conflict between countries.

With terrorists though, the only way to reason with them is blasting them into oblivion because their demands can't be met. Would everyone convert to Islam so terrorists can stop slaughtering innocent people? Definitely out of question. That's why you only negotiate when the other side makes reasonable demands.
 
#12
Ratings
0 13 0
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
86
Ratings
13
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
The first step before taking military action against your perceived enemies is to negotiate. Both sides have grievances which they want addressed and failure to fix those issues results in war. But that applies [only] to when there's any conflict between countries.

With terrorists though, the only way to reason with them is blasting them into oblivion because their demands can't be met. Would everyone convert to Islam so terrorists can stop slaughtering innocent people? Definitely out of question. That's why you only negotiate when the other side makes reasonable demands.
Yes some demands could never be met. There some things a government could not promise, just like your example. Even if a government would love for all its citizens to convert to Islam, they can not force a whole country to do so. Especially a country like USA where we have the freedom of any religion, to worship whoever we want however we want as long as we are not breaking any laws while ding it. There are even some religious groups whoa are exempt from things because of thier religion. It impossible to negotiate with a group when the demands could never be met and i think they do it on purpose.
 
#13
Ratings
0 20 0
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
159
Ratings
20
Country
Romania
Location
Romania
Well you can say negotiation is one sided but in every situation one will have leverage over the other. Negotiation can help both parties obtain the most of their needs by simply communicating. As the posters above raised the problem of being invaded by a foreign army, then there is not much room for negotiations and are only a formality. The invaders already got what they want and stuff like this is made to ease the public and dissipate the appearance of a forced invasion.
 
#14
Ratings
0 6 0
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
80
Ratings
6
Country
USA
Location
USA
A great book to read is Getting to Yes by Fisher and Ury is a great read when it comes to the art of negotiation. Before entering into negotiations you have to get an idea of what you want out of the transaction and what the other side is looking for (that is the basic premise). The idea is not to get confrontational while negotiating while working towards a common solution.

In the questions you posed if they really work - they do all the time - diplomats and ambassadors strike deals through negotiations all the time. Negotiating with terrorists a little different because you are not negotiating with a nation-state but with a group of people who are centered around a cause or concept. They tend to only see things one way and if you don't agree you're the opposition. There is no negotiating there.
I would love read the book you mentioned i am sure it would be a good addition to my collection.
 
#15
Ratings
0 10 0
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
180
Ratings
10
Country
Portugal
Location
Euro
Negotiations usually are just a front for what is happening behind the scenes, usually wars are decided away from the flashes and have dark interests behind them.
 
Top