Nama: Kharisma nurlaela ramadhana

Kelas: HI.B
NIM: 07041381722230

Resume part 1: The Art of Negotiations

Around the Table Negotiations

We can move to this task if prenegotiations are succesfully concluded. Around-the-Table mode is generally
more formal and there is usually more public awareness of what in bord terms, is going on.
First, we trying to agree on the basic principles of a settlement; the ‘formula stage’. if this is achieved, the
details then have to be added. This chapter will begin by looking at the formula stage and conclude with an
examination of the ‘details stage’. this is often more difficult, cause It is the moment of truth for the
negotiators.

1. The Formula Stage

For the broad principles of settlement there are many deliberately anodyne synonyms, among the more
common of which are ‘guidelines’ and frameworkfor agreement. Zartman and Berman prefer ‘formula’ and,
since it is short and clear. A classic example of succesful formla was the ‘1 counrty, with two systems. This
formula had evolved in the course of chinese thinking about taiwan and was originally resisted by the british,
who wanted to retan administrative control of hongkong after relinquishing sovereignity. Other instructive
examples of agreed formulas are still a basis for further negotiations.
In middle east the High level agreements on cyprus of 1977 and 1979 provided for a deal in which the
greeks would admit a federation. As for the middle east in UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November
1967, as the result for this Arab states would recognize the state of israel and end th condition of
belligerency with it: the ‘the land for peace’ formula.
The chief characteristics of a good formula are fairly obvious comphrehensiveness, balance and
flexibility. Cleary, the best one will offer solutions to all major points of dispute between the parties.
However, this is often not practical and formula is not vitiated if this is impossible.
The nettle of general principle may be grasped immediately by the negotiation in the formula stag. This
sometimes described as the ‘Deductive approach’ and requires no futher comment. It is the logical way to
proceed. Alternatively the nettle of principle may be approached with caution-by stealth,perhaps from its
flank, always slowly, and with thickly gloved hands. And sometimes described as the ‘Inductive approach’ ,
this is more commonly knwon as ‘step by step’ diplomacy.
The step by step approach is usually considered appropriate to the negotiation of a dispute characterized
by great complexity and pathological mistrust, this makes negotiation more manageable, which is especially
important if the diplomatic resources of the parties are also limited. The step by step approach, however is
not without its problems. It takes time because it takes time, the favourable circumstances that made
launching the negotiations possible may change for the worse and the moments may be lost.
If and when a formula for a settlement is agreed, it is commonly announced to the world, sometimes in huge
blaze of publicity.
Formula based on linkage, that is the trading of concenssions in unrelated, or only remotely connected,
issues area, the negotiations may at this point run into difficulties.(example; case with camp david accords in
1978). in formula based on linkage, there are winners as well as losers, this helps.

2. The Details Stage

After a successful formula has been agreed upon, the negotiations enter the most difficult stage where the
details have to be filled and mutually agreed. The details may involve many dimensions depending upon the
relevant situation of the conflict. Some of the dimensions can behighlighted by example.

2.a Difficulties:
There are many reasons for difficulties in the Details Stage.
a. Complicated:
The details stage by its nature iscomplicated. It is sometimes more complicatedthan
the prenegotiations but definitely morecomplicated than the Formula Stage. It means:
i.The Details Stage is more complex,
i i . T h e D e t a i l s S t a g e i n v o l v e s l a r g e r n e g o t i a t i n g teams,
i i i . L a r g e r t e a m s , i n t u r n , h a v e m o r e disagreements within the teams,
i v .   T h e   D e t a i l s S t a g e   s o m e t i m e s   l i n g e r s o n   f o r a long time, which makes
the entire issue even more complicated.

b. Disagreement on Definitions:
It is important todiscuss details by making communication betweenthe negotiating
teams more effective. Difficulties canarise due to:
i.disagreement on definition of terms
ii.lack of common language,
iii.misunderstanding,

c. Lower Level of Authority of Teams:

Because negotiations at the Details Stage are more complicated and time-consuming,
therefore,usually specialists are involved who are at lower level of authority than
those who negotiated at Formula Stage. This requires frequent referral backto higher
political authorities which in turn creates difficulties by making the process even more
time-consuming and complicated.This may cause a tougher attitude and hard-line
instructions on the part of the higher level political negotiators.

d. Attempt by Either Party to Shift the Balanceof Advantage:

Any one or both parties will usually attempt to shift the balance of advantage in the
agreed formula in their favor. This may occur in an imperceptible manner, because
of the complexity of negotiations at this stage.Both parties may be afraid of
each other of this type of attempt, particularly when the trust between the parties
isat the minimum and the sakes are high.

E. The Details Stage is the Last Stage:

Justbecause this is the last stage, it makes the processreally difficult. That is, it is
themoment of truth.The details must be such that:
i.there are no inconsistencies
ii.there is no vagueness
iii.the deal should be defensible at home.

3. a. Negotiating Strategies:
There are three generally used strategies for negotiation:
(i) Compromise on individual issues,
(ii)Exchange concession on one item with thea cquisition on another item, and
(iii) a mix of theabove two strategies.

a. Compromise on Individual Issues 

This strategy focuses on splitting the difference between the Opening Demands of
the parties on one particular issue.Using this strategy, compromise is made separatelyon
each of the items involved in the agenda.

B. Exchanging Points:
This strategy involves giving the other party what it wants on one item and in
return getting from the other party what you want on another item. This may
involve full concession on the demand or a major part
of it. This strategy is called “Exchanging Points” by Zartman and Berman.

Homans‟s Theorem:
According to George Homans (1961), this Theoremstates that in a negotiated
exchange each party is able to get from theother something more than in value
than the value of what it surrenders.

Corollary ofHomans‟s Theorem:

In this variant of the Theorem, we have a deal in which one party trades something that it
values highly but which it knows it is going to have to surrender anyway, irrespective
of whether or not it gets aquid pro quo from the other side. In principle, both parties can do
so. The critical pointis the prevention of information from getting to theother party.
If information on this issue regarding oneparty is known to the other party, the position of
the first party will be weakened.

c. Factors Affecting Choice of Strategy:

i . c i r c u m s t a n c e s
ii.style of negotiators
iii.cultural traditions
iv.attitude to strike negotiations

d. Attitude to Strike
Attitude to strike at negotiations can vary greatly on a
continuum, ranging from ‘very accommodating‟ to ‘very tough‟.
This has several characteristics:
I. Extreme of Flexibility and rigdity are inconsistent with the logic og negotiation. 
i i . I t   i s   b e l i e v e d   t h a t i t   i s   b e t t e r   t o   m a k e c o n c e s s i o n s i n one big swoop
rather than making incremental concessions, which shows weakness.
iii.If incremental concessions are necessary, then the impression of weakness
can be avoided by using
 
Tactical Expedients,
which are:
- Making concession contingent on final package
- Periodically suspending talks to show the other party that they want to avoid
collapse
.- Raising the question of formula again.

Iv. A tough attitude will be used only by those parties that believe that they can walk
away without major damage to their position.

Summary

Negotiation is thus generally a lenghty and laborious process, proceeding

through’prenegotiations’ and a formula to the details phase. The momentum of
negotiations may thus falter even if both parties in a bilateral negotiation, or a
majority of parties in multilateral negotiation, are serious about making them a succes.