Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Third Parties, Mediation, and Facilitation
What roles do third parties play in international conflict and negotiation situations? What do course readings suggest? Should a third party role be included in some simulations? What "real world" conflict situations (e.g., Syria, Iran, North Korea) call for some third party role?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Third parties have had a critical role in international conflict and negotiation in both past and present conflicts and I believe the importance of these parties is quite understated. Historically much of the third party role was played by traditional leaders whose perceived impartiality and facilitation skills were respected by all parties. As society as progressed and the scale and magnitude of conflicts has increased, so has political posturing and the power of influence by special interests. For these reasons, it seems that true impartiality, in an international context, may be quite difficult to find. The skepticism of third parties' impartiality is warranted, however, it may be beneficial to all parties if compromise and optimism is allowed to prevail, because of the benefits skilled facilitators can deliver. I suppose the inclusion of a third party may also be seen as a sign of inability to competently contain conflict and therefore weakness, which may be a barrier to third party access. The solution to this is nothing other than a release of political pride and the understanding that a resolved conflict in all likelihood will bring greater benefits than instability.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Morgan that finding a truly impartial person to be a mediator is impossible, and probably always has been. There is has never been a person alive who didn't have their own values, beliefs, and priorities. However, as the readings discussed, a third-party doesn't need to be an android because they are not making the major decisions but only providing a forum that ensures all voices are heard, negotiations progress as agreed upon, and that fairness is upheld as best as possible.
ReplyDeleteI think having a third party in the summit meeting of the final simulation could be very interesting. When Argentina tried to assume the role of putting together a working agenda, there was resistance because other countries were afraid that their sides would not be included and that the agenda would be biased towards the concerns of Argentina. This is a perfect example of how a student, not associated with any country, could act as a third-party. Also, they could work to set some procedural limits on the summit that could have resulted in a more fruitful meeting.
Stacey Frederick
I agree with both of these statements. Third parties are like referees. There job is to create a fair playing field for both teams to play. The third party is there to make sure there are equal opportunities for all parties negotiating. Although, like they said above even though it the job of the mediator, there is no way to be 100% impartial.
DeleteIn Brett’s book Negotiating Globally, he says, “Sometimes a third party gets involved as a go-between, conveying information between disputants and others with interest in the outcome,” (Brett, 5). By bringing in a non-bias party whose focus is “in the outcome,” the emotions and personal preferences for either party are moved aside and each party is more likely to see clearly and understand the opposing side. Once the air is cleared, the parties can attempt to reach common ground.
I believe that everyone will agree third parties play a vital role in negotiations. Third parties can help move along the process of a negotiation, however they can also hinder the negotiation. As stated above finding a third party that doesn't have their own interests and bias is nearly impossible. The party is likely involved in the negotiation because they do have some sort of interest in the topics or solution. As Brett discussed in her book there are types of third parties with authority to resolve disputes, but there are also types of third parties that do not have authority to resolve disputes. Depending on the type of third party brought into the negotiations their role/influence on the negotiations can greatly differ.
ReplyDeleteIn the BETA simulation I believe the role of a third party would have been beneficial, however finding an individual from a party who wouldn't be biased would have been nearly impossible for the situation.
International conflict and negotiation simulations are not the only circumstances in life where a third party can be beneficial. Third parties can be used in the most basic of situations as in a disagreement between friends up to huge conflicts between governments of multiple nations. The role of a third party in international conflict and negotiation simulations is to provide an unbiased as possible solution to all parties involved when a resolution cannot easily/successfully be produced by the original parties. This third party isn’t as involved as the original parties so they are able to have a clearer view of what is going on. A third party can also help in voicing what each party wants to communicate without the message being lost in the strong emotions that the original parties may be feeling.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, “Negotiating Globally,” the author Brett describes how in many cultures third parties “facilitate the resolution of disputes.” This book describes the two basic types of third parties, ones with authority and ones without. In “International Negotiation in a Complex World” by Lee, third parties are described as external parties that are introduced when it’s apparent that progress won’t be achieved without outside involvement.
I feel like all of the simulations that were performed in class could have been improved with the use of a third party….even though we never really used one. The reason I say that I think that a third party would have been beneficial is because I noticed that many of the simulations dragged on longer than necessary. If there would have been a third party involved in any of the situations, I feel like a resolution could have been reached a lot earlier and easier in negotiations. There were times, especially during the last simulation, where different groups were arguing over a topic and it turned out that they were both arguing for the same side without realizing it.
There are many real world situations where the use of a mediator is severely needed. I don’t think any rational person has looked at some of the conflicts that are going on around world without thinking that someone else should get involved to help resolve the situation. I feel like the whole situation with North Korea has been going on for way too long and don’t understand why a larger, more capable nation hasn’t stepped in and uses their authority to make progress.
-Haley Fletcher
I think that third parties a great tool for negotiation, but don't believe they are an absolutely necessary thing for all negotiations. I think that certain issues, usually those with deep historical and cultural issues at the root of them do require third parties though. It is always difficult though as mentioned above that it is extremely difficult and maybe impossible to find an impartial third party for certain negotiations, especially those related to politics and economics. Someone is going to benefit and someone is going to lose something making negotiation a zero sum game in a sense. I think that the simulations in class could have used third parties at some times, such as to move negotiations along and quill some dispute, but I think that personally I would have never wanted to be in that role and negotiating and taking an interest in your "side" was one of the funnest parts of the simulation. In the situations mentioned in the questions I think that all could use some sort of third party negotiation but I think it is kind of unrealistic as I said earlier to find a third party that has no allegiance or interest with one side or the other.
ReplyDeleteOften when terms are not seen the same by two parties a third party is a great way to break up the deadlock. The usage of a third party can bring in a different perspective to help encourage an agreement. They can be used in all sorts of negotiations. From major deals between countries or between friends on who gets the last cookie. THird parties are an essential tool in every aspect of negotiation. Their productive potential is uncanny and should be considered before any negotiation situation. I believe that in some class situations they should be included to practice and see the positive abilities they come along with.
ReplyDeleteRyan,
DeleteI would agree with you on having a third party mediator for class simulations. I felt that our last simulation could have been more focused had we had someone moving along the agenda. Brett brings up a good point in chapter six about giving third parties legitimate authority(156). Yes we do waste time in class trying to figure out simulation procedures, but imagine if we had a third party mediator with the ability to lay our rules and in tune reprimand us for breaking them. By giving power to a litigating body to enforce our classes own "organizational presidents" whomever has the floor can get more respect and could be more efficient. Having someone as a neutral third party will also help with the seriousness of the simulation. Having a party that can nicely remind people to be realistic will ground discussions, and people may not loose interest when participants begin to make up wild fantasies. hopefully allowing our discussion to facilitate the role of an actual third party participant. Adding one more level of depth to our simulations.
-Michael R. Fashana
Third parties are a great way of facilitating the negotiations. In the past, the majority of agreements have been reached because of the help of a third party. There are many benefits for having a third party, one of which is to be the one who sees the overview of the negotiations and connects the dots. Another benefit for the third party is even making it possible to negotiate! For example, after Hezbollah had kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers in 2006, they would not directly sit on one table and negotiate with the Israelis because it’s against Hezbollah’s culture. Israel is Hezbollah’s enemy and so they asked for the Germans to be the third party.
ReplyDeleteOne downside of having a third party might sometime be the positions this third party takes which might not be neutral. For example, in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that has been going on for over 19 years (in a “serious” form, but going for 60 years overall), the United States steps in as a third party sometimes. However, the US leans towards Israel in some issues and towards the Palestinians in other issues such as opposing the settlements.
Mediators assist communication between the parties by carrying messages and helping the parties to understand the messages conveyed, particularly in the disputes earl stages. In international mediation there are a variety of roles that can be played. Nation states can mediate a conflict in order to prevent rival powers from intervening and expanding their influence. NGO’s are often motivated to mediate by a desire for peace. Peace keeping is often their mission. And IGO’s generally mediate between their organizational members.
ReplyDeleteMediators have five sources of commonly used leverage:
1) Pursuasion, the ability to revise parties perceptions of the risks and costs of conflict and the feasibility and desirability of settlement.
2) The ability to extract an attractive proposal out of each side in negotiations.
3) A threat to withdrawal from negotiations. Such threats assume that the parties still believe that mediated negotiations offer the best likelihood of the most favorable outcome.
4) Sanctions may be imposed to worsen one or both parties’ situation, thereby increasing their motivation to settle.
5) Incentives to settle may be presented to one or more parties (rewards) if relevant resources are available
I believe third party roles are important in all negotiation situations because the outside perspective is usually the most unbiased and reasonable. The fighting in Syria right now could use a 3rd party right now but I don’t believe either side is willing to ‘loose any ground’ right now considering the violence has been rapidly escalating within the last few days. Currently the UN is offering their help to remove civilians but the Syrian government is unresponsive.
Third parties can play a very important role in international negotiations and international conflict resolution. While I do not believe that third parties are always needed, they can be very useful in situations where the negotiations have become stagnant or in negotiations that are quite hostile in nature. As for conflict resolution/negotiations, third parties are important to regulate the negotiations and provide a stable framework for an area that might otherwise get out of control. In the case of international negotiations as a whole and what can be seen now as a result of our more recent simulations, the role of a third party as a mediator could be quite helpful. A third party mediator allows the negotiations to keep moving and that not too much time is spend on one certain agenda item. The goal of having an independent (not completely realistic) mediator is to allow for beneficial negotiations in a manner that is productive and efficient.
ReplyDeleteHaving third parties facilitate in negotiations can be both helpful and destructive. Allowing for a mediator in each of our simulations, I feel, would have been more beneficial, especially for a group that is new to negotiating. Had we had someone to move the negotiations along and declare which topics were dealt with and signal moving on to the next discussion topic, more would have gotten resolved and accomplished. A third party becoming involved can also help any cultural or language barriers that may exist, which will make both parties feel more comfortable in the negotiation process.
ReplyDeleteHowever, on the other hand, if you have a third party involved who is baised for one party over the other(s) involved in the negotiation, they could bend the rules in the favor of the party they are familiar with.
The role of a third party in internation conflict negotiations can be of tremendous importance if it is done correctly in accordance to the contextual framework and style of the negotiations. Using facilitators and mediators can allow the negotiation process to move efficiently while ensuring that all sides are being heard and all topics of importance are thoroughly covered. Third parties can also be very effective in laying out the ground rules and framework of the discussion topics so that heated shouting matches and malaise doesn't hinder the process. Its important for mediators and facilitators to remain impartial to both sides so that negotiators do not feel they are being mistreated or treated unfarily. I agree with Michael Fashana's comment that "Having someone as a neutral third party will also help with the seriousness of the simulation. Having a party that can nicely remind people to be realistic will ground discussions, and people may not loose interest when participants begin to make up wild fantasies." This was definitely the case in the ICONS simulation when certain parties began to lose interest in the simulation and begin making wildly unrealistic decisions and bargains in contrast to the assigned backgorund readings for each real world nation. I feel that having a mediator to guide and regulate the ICONs simulation would have added strucure and increased the seriousness of the negotiations. I feel that it is of great importance for the nuclear conflict negotiations with Iran to have a skilled and flexible mediator to ensure that the talks do not breakdown and become emotionally heated competitions. Iran needs to feel fully respected and heard in these negotiations since they have such great reluctance toward trusting the intentions of the United States. Historical tensions surrounding the Iran-Contra situation definitely warrant the need for a skilled negotiator to intervene if necessary if the negotiations begin to fall apart due to lack of trust. Nuclear weapons are a very serious issues concerning the safety of millions of lives and possibly the planet as a whole so the proper precautions and use of conflict mediators are essential.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Adam on this one. The ICONS-BETA simulation would definitely have run a bit smoother and potentially more seriously if we had a third party mediator that was impartial to all countries involved. Third party mediators seem to be a great asset to have in a negotiation or multinational project. Like how Friends of the Earth Middle East have been involved with the red to dead sea canal. Before their involvement there could have been a lot of damage to the environment in multiple places that the canal reached. However they checked the World Bank's data from surveys, and after they conducted their own, FOEME were able to bring important questions about how the canal will impact the environment both on land and in the seas that will be involved. The also raised the question of how they plan to make the sea water drinkable, as well as how and to whom it will be distributed. Although this is less of a mediation stance and more of a third party representing the people and their concerns it still shows how useful third party groups can be. I believe in the case of the red to dead sea canal FOEME caught the World Bank, Israel, and Jordanian governments cutting corners on their survey's which in the long run could have led to environmental catastrophe.
ReplyDelete