Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Conflict Resolution
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Druckman, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Turning Points in International Negotiation

A Comparative Analysis

Daniel Druckman

Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University

A turning-points analysis of 34 cases of international negotiation is performed in three parts: precipitants (external, substantive, or procedural), process departures (abrupt or nonabrupt), and immediate and later consequences (escalatory or de-escalatory). The cases are divided into three types according to issue area: security, political (including environmental), and trade or economic negotiations. The results are summarized in terms of paths to outcomes: security negotiations are characterized primarily by external precipitants leading to abrupt departures in process that typically turn the talks in the direction of agreements; process departures or turning points in political and trade talks are usually precipitated by either substantive or procedural decisions made by the negotiators that also lead to agreements. Implications of the findings are discussed in terms of the risk-averse and reactive orientations taken by governments in the area of security policy. They are also discussed in the context of strengths and limitations of the comparative analysis approach and in relation to analyses of 11 cases of domestic negotiations in the airlines industry.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 45, No. 4, 519-544 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002701045004006
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
M. Olekalns and P. L. Smith
Moments in Time: Metacognition, Trust, and Outcomes in Dyadic Negotiations
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, December 1, 2005; 31(12): 1696 - 1707.
[Abstract] [PDF]