Conflict is undoubtedly the most pervasive and destructive phenomenon in international politics. Every type of international interaction involves it, and it can take many different forms, from trade embargos to genocidal wars. There are two trends to consider when it comes to ending wars. The first is an apparent decrease in the occurrence of conflicts. The second trend is negotiation, which has been utilized for conflict resolution since the beginning of state relations.
First of all, it must be acknowledged that the preference for the negotiation option in the resolution of violent international disputes has occurred against a background marked by a growing preference for international negotiation as the primary method of resolving disputes on a wide range of international issues. This is partially attributable to a better knowledge of interest-based negotiation processes, a strategy for organizing discussions toward a "win-win" resolution in which both sides come to satisfying agreements on essential subjects.
Globalization processes have also brought governments and the societies that reside in them into closer proximity, proximity marked by an increase in the number of interactions that span the political, social, cultural, commercial, and economic sectors of existence. Conflicts of interest, opinions, and values are more likely to arise when these interactions become more frequent and in-depth. In general, conflicts in "low politics" — i.e., the politics of trade, investment, natural resources, the environment, economic policy, etc. — have been resolved through informal dialogue and negotiation processes aimed at identifying new norms, rules, and procedures that will govern future interactions while reducing transaction costs.
The presence of power imbalances between the parties also shapes the nature of international negotiations. If the level of hostility between the parties is too high, if there is a significant power imbalance between them, if one side does not accept the legitimacy of the other, or if the negotiation process is tainted by misperception or miscommunication, it may come to a standstill or even fail to proceed. Relationship barriers, such as ongoing rivalries, animosity from the past, or a lack of efficient communication channels, can also make negotiating difficult. International negotiations can contain competing interests and goals as well. To create a solution acceptable to all parties, the interests of many nations, organizations, and stakeholders must be considered. To accomplish this, negotiators must comprehensively understand the problems and the various points of view involved.
Gandhi was quick to remind his satyagraha to separate unjust laws from those who implement them, and when harm did occur to any of the British, he was highly distressed by it. This is an example of Gandhi's method of separating the people from the problem. Gandhi had no ill will toward any British person; on the contrary, he was genuinely sympathetic to the suffering his acts had caused the British. The outcome of the Salt Satyagraha is a good illustration of how Gandhi prioritized the interests of all parties rather than defending his position. While the British agreed to change the salt rules so that much of the unfairness imposed on the poor stopped, which was a change from the initially stated goal of repealing the Salt Act, he changed his position. He accepted their proposal since it achieved the goals of the satyagraha.
Several strategies can be utilized to negotiate an international conflict settlement successfully.
Interest-based Bargain − In this method, negotiators identify shared goals and win-win solutions. Positional negotiation, when parties concentrate on defending their positions and obtaining their objectives at all costs, is less successful than this tactic. Negotiators can develop solutions that satisfy the needs of both sides by using interest-based bargaining, which lowers the likelihood of a conflict escalating.
Interest-based Bargain − In this method, negotiators identify shared goals and win-win solutions. Positional negotiation, when parties concentrate on defending their positions and obtaining their objectives at all costs, is less successful than this tactic. Negotiators can develop solutions that satisfy the needs of both sides by using interest-based bargaining, which lowers the likelihood of a conflict escalating.
Using Third-Party Mediators − An impartial third party can ease tensions and give the negotiating parties unbiased advice. Building trust and facilitating dialogue between the parties are benefits of neutral mediators. This strategy is beneficial when the conflict is complex, and the emotions are high.
Compromise − The goal of compromise is to arrive at a resolution that all parties can accept. Both parties must be willing to be adaptable and willing to compromise to use this strategy to meet a shared objective. Conflicts can be resolved by compromise when the needs of the two sides are not totally in sync.
Creative Problem-Solving − This method entails brainstorming and creating unique and creative solutions. Creative problem-solving is especially helpful in complicated international situations where there may be no effective traditional solutions. Negotiators can devise innovative strategies for resolving disagreements by considering unusual options.
Active Listening − This method entails carefully listening to the other party's worries and comprehending their viewpoint. Negotiators can develop trust by actively listening to the other party's interests. This is especially crucial in international conflicts, where cultural differences and misconceptions are common. Negotiators can better comprehend the other party's problems and discover common ground by actively listening to them to end the issue.
Representatives are unable to reach an agreement through bargaining or direct talks. Then "Third Party Negotiation" is the final option that may achieve agreement and coherence. Three fundamental third-party roles are commonly used to establish agreements. They are as follows: Mediators, Arbitrators, and Conciliators.
Mediator − This is a third party who is unrelated to any of the parties involved and who aids negotiation by persuasion, suggestion, argumentation, alternative suggestions, and so on. Mediators are most commonly utilised in labour-management negotiations and civil court cases. They are incredibly effective and impressive in negotiations and come highly recommended. Their success rate is around 60%, with 75% of negotiators satisfied. Mediators are helpful because they assist both sides in developing solutions, resolving essential issues, and occasionally mediating the conflict even if no settlement is found. There are a few drawbacks of mediators, such as the conflict intensity could be more significant here. This strategy is beneficial for negotiating when there is a modest amount of dispute. At the same time, the mediator's viewpoint is vital in identifying answers. To be effective, the mediator must be unbiased and non-coercive.
Arbitrator − An arbitrator is a third person who can impose an agreement. There are two kinds of arbitrators. Voluntary arbitrator, sought by the parties; obligatory arbitrator, imposed on the interested parties by law or tribunals. Arbitrators have a better efficacy and success rate than mediators. Arbitration always results in a resolution. However, its success may reflect poorly on either of the disputing parties. Because the ruling, in this case, is more binding, a disagreement may develop later if either of the parties is displeased. Mediation is frequently followed by arbitration. Following the arbitration with mediation is another option. The framework of this technique for conflict resolution is for both parties to present their claims before an arbitrator formally. After that, the arbitrator makes a ruling and seals it in a sealed envelope. Following that, the two parties will engage in mediation. If they cannot agree on their own, the conclusions of the arbitration become binding. Researchers who used this approach discovered that it resulted in voluntary agreements between the two parties.
Conciliator − A reliable third person is an informal communication channel between the negotiator and the opponent. In the film "Godfather," Robert Duval played this part. Because mediation and conciliation overlap, comparing the efficacy of either of these procedures is challenging; conciliators do more than only serve as communication channels. They also gather data, decipher signals, seek relevant information, and attempt to persuade disputants to reach an agreement.
The success of Negotiation is determined by various elements, including the parties' willingness to negotiate, the level of trust between the parties, the complexity of the problem, and cultural differences between the parties. Effective negotiation is crucial to preserving peace and stability on a global scale, but it should be undertaken cautiously and with a complete grasp of the circumstances. In addition, it is critical to understand that not all international disputes can be settled through negotiations. Some conflicts could be too complicated or entrenched to be handled diplomatically; instead, they might call for other types of intervention, such as military action or economic penalties.
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
Mathematics
Economics
Psychology
Environmental Science
Social Studies
Fashion Studies
English