Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
strengths and weaknesses of cross cultural negotiation
the importance of negotiation strategy
the importance of negotiation strategy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Negotiations are the less costly means to resolve a dispute. They are an intermediary step that gives people or states an opportunity to achieve their goals through peaceful means. Negotiations give us an understanding of our position and that of our enemies. They make us aware of our strengths and weaknesses and they clarify the enemy’s intentions, interests and their potentials. Knowing that war is a certain outcome of a dispute, wouldn’t it be more convenient to first engage in peaceful talks and negotiations? Even though we might have the necessary resources to win the war, would we still be as better off as if we would solve our disputes through negotiations? We would still lose lives and incur material costs if we go to war, regardless if we are on the winning or losing side. Why then would we not advocate using negotiations to resolve disputes? Why do we need to go to war when there is another way to resolve a dispute? Overall, “war does not determine who is right - only who is left.” (Bertrand Russell) And “who is left” should not be the ultimate goal of our society. It is attaining justice and fairness for all that should concern us. History shows that negotiations might fail due to the difference of the justice and fairness definitions. The Melos- Athens conflict proved that negotiations might only be a step that delays war, rather than a peaceful way out of the dispute. However, reality and experience indicates that the outcomes of negotiations are subject to circumstances, timeframe, and people’s ideologies. People’s mentality has changed and they have become more open-minded, tolerant and more educated to understand that war is the last resort of solving a dispute. Reality and circumstances have also changed and war... ... middle of paper ... ...ption of fairness, but at least they are a better option than that of going straight to war. This is why we should advocate using negotiations to resolve disputes. We should encourage dialogue to prevent further escalation of disputes, be that in the Ukrainian context or Iraq’s war if we could go back in time. We should encourage peaceful ways to resolve tensions and crisis because a miscalculated decision to go to war might initiate a Third World War and who knows what will happen then or how many lives will be lost. We can give thousands of reasons to advocate the usage of negotiations, but there are very few if no reason at all that would advocate against it. If we all believe in justice and fairness, no matter how diverse our definitions might be, I believe there is no need for war. And if each of us holds this belief than I doubt there will be any future ones.
No matter how oxymoronic it seems, I strongly agree with the phrase “The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war.”I feel that this relates back to the adage that “the best defense is a good offense”. For me, I view the Cold War as proof that the weapons of war can also be used as instruments of peace.
As a pacifist, I disagree with all wars in theory. I am realistic enough to comprehend that conflict is sometimes unavoidable because, of specific circumstances, understanding and accepting are two very isolated ideas. I hold on to the optimistic perspective that situations can be resolved peacefully as long as all parties are willing to contribute to a peaceful outcome. On a more personal level, my resistance towards war also stems from family members and friends who are and have
“In sailing, you rarely if ever get to your destination by heading straight for it. In between you and your goal are strong winds and tides, reefs and shoals, not to speak of storms and squalls. To get where you want to go, you need to tack – to zigzag your way toward your destination. The same is true in the world of negotiation.” -William Ury
War is a mean to achieve a political goal.it is merely the continuation of policy in a violent form. “War is not merely an act of policy, but a true political instrument....” Moreover, the intensity of war will vary with the nature of political motives. This relationship makes war a rational act rather than a primitive and instinctive action, where war uses coercion to achieve political goals instead of use it only for destruction, and it cannot be separated from each other even after the war has started, when each side is allowed to execute its requisite responsibilities while remaining flexible enough to adapt to emerging
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
Decisions are difficult, especially between two opposing parties determined to get their way. Most likely, some sort of agreement called a compromise is reached. Compromise, a seemingly perfect concept, can be an essential part of success as it resolves conflicts on both an international or personal level and benefits both sides of any argument. However, if this tool is used incorrectly by means of overuse, underuse, or simply wrong timing, that perfection turns into detriment.
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
The first method of principled negotiation is to separate the people from the problem. Although it seems to be quite a simple process, I found a major question came to mind: “What if the people are the problem?”. Being a teenager, I know that sometimes the only reason for conflict is emotions and feelings. A person feels they have been wronged, the other disagrees, and separating the people from the problem becomes virtually impossible. Getting to Yes briefly proposes some solutions to emotion, such as recognizing both side’s emotions, making emotions explicit and acknowledging them as legitimate, allowing the other side to let off steam, not reacting to emotional outbursts, and using symbolic gestures . Again, I found these guidelines to be oversimplified and completely void of the fact that human’s are inapt to simply putting their feelings aside. Also...
Negotiation is a discussion between two or more people with goal of reaching agreement on
On the one hand, war is a terrible thing that can happen in this nation, but pacifists will tell you that it isn’t worth the death of innocent lives. “Pacifists hold that war is wrong because killing is wrong.” This is understandable. War and violence should not be an excuse for conflicts. Negotiating problems could be more helpful than violence and war. Negotiating would be more effective than war because it will help prevent the situation from getting worse and will help find a solution to the problem or issue. Talking to the enemy would shock them, since they would be expecting for us to fight back. Instead of returning with ruthless violence they have towards us, this nation should maintain its superior position and meet them with acts of kindness and gentle words “Negotiation, mediation, diplomacy—these would be the means of settling international disputes, not the sacrifice of human lives."
Ripeness and readiness are good theory’s to explain why conflicts ends. They both show how multiple factors come into play to end a conflict. “Ripeness is not sudden, but rather a complex process of transformations in the situation, shifts in public attitudes and new perceptions and visions among decision-makers” (Rambotham, 2011: 180). The Oslo negotiations and the peace process are good examples of the readiness theory and its ease explaining the resolution of these conflicts. The Cambodian conflict poses more difficulty being explained through ripeness. When conflicts are multilateral poses a challenge to readiness theory. Adapting readiness theory
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
Negotiation is an important strategy and plays an indispensable role for people to solve the problem in our lives. It is a good way to make both parties find acceptable solution by each parties use tactics to persuade another party to approve his or her viewpoint. The application of the advanced negotiation skills definitely not only brings success in our daily life but also improve people’s work ability. This essay will show my natural preferences for different types of influence tactics which have been utilized in in-class, the understanding of the negotiation and analyze how to use proper tactics at different situations which are based on the role-play activity in tutorial.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2010). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin
Conflict is unavoidable and connected to a world where different ideas and opinions are challenged. Negative conflict occurs when voices are not expressed appropriately, discussions are not in control or different parties reject moving forward with a solution. There is difficulty resolving disagreements because there are multiple reactions to disputes. However, a positive conflict supports debates without a destructive outcome. They improve communication, introduce principles that are important to others, and reduce chaos. On the other hand, the approach that a person uses to address conflict dictates the outcome they receive. Methods for resolving conflict include avoiding the problem, smoothing out a situation, competing against the ideas