Strategic Negotiation In Conflict

1465 Words6 Pages
PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION The strategy of negotiation between parties in conflict is primarily based on positional bargaining, i.e. holding on to and repeating a fixed idea without considering the underlying interests of the other party. Such negotiation, based on their nature, can be classified into soft and hard negotiations. Most importantly, in positional bargaining, a consistent, unwavering argument becomes a part of the person, and therefore, the person becomes part of the problem. Soft Negotiations: The maintenance of cordial relationship between the parties is given priority. They do not want to harm the relationship. It is more of a bargain than a proper negotiation. Instead of pressing too much on their own positions, they want to decide…show more content…
They are business like, cold and non-compassionate negotiations. Unlike soft negotiations, in this case the actors just represent positions and the aim of third party members or professional negotiators is to get maximum benefit for themselves and leave nothing for the other side. There may be creation of more hostility between parties. Although, these types have been the rule of the game, it has nonetheless, in most situations, proven unsatisfactory.The Harvard Negotiation project challenged exactly this sort of a positional negotiation. The strategy of principled negotiation emerged as a result of such predicaments faced by the common negotiator. In Roger Fisher and William L. Ury’s book Getting To Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in, the importance of principled negotiation over positional bargaining is explained. The method of principled negotiation is based on four important principles: • Separate the People from the…show more content…
When the negotiations started, the sides’ positions were completely opposed to each other. Egypt insisted on complete sovereignty over the Sinai Peninsula (which Israel had occupied in the 1967 6-day war), while Israel insisted on keeping control of at least some of the Sinai. Map after map was drawn, each with different dividing lines. None managed to meet the positions of both sides simultaneously. "Looking to their interests instead of their positions made it possible to develop a solution. Israel’s interest lay in security; they did not want Egyptian tanks poised on their border ready to roll across at any time. Egypt’s interest lay in sovereignty; the Sinai had been part of Egypt since the time of the Pharaohs." (Fisher and Ury, 1981, p. 41). By reframing the conflict in this way, a solution was reached. Egypt was given full sovereignty over the Sinai, but large portions of the area were demilitarized, which assured Israel’s security at the same

More about Strategic Negotiation In Conflict

Open Document