Mautner-Markhoff

In this perspective, selective countries are involved in an agreement with the cooperation of individualized stakeholders that are found appropriate for the issue, such as, related firms, organizations, etc. During this approach, needed regulation is discussed between the abovementioned participants, and a plurality of states is considered for the appropriate management of the issue. Most of the experts have considered the diplomatic rule-making approach as one of the symbolic processes of the international negotiations.

Specifically, lawyers play a crucial role in this type of negotiation, as building of an institution is done according to the law, and negotiation process is managed effectively by the lawyers from their professional cultures. One of the fundamentals of this type of negotiation is the establishment of proper linkage between the existing laws and the proposed new regulations. Moreover, the location and scope of these regulations are also considered as some of the basic requirements of this approach of the international negotiations.

A number of tools have been identified by the professionals for the efficient management of rule-making approach. Some of the examples of these identified tools are draftsmanship, leadership, and suppleness. However, a major constriction has been acknowledged by the negotiators in this approach, which has limited the efficiency of this advancement. (Fisher, pp. 26-31) In this regard, issue of sovereignty is the major constraint that limits the influence of different governments under one platform, and thus, it often becomes difficult to come at a mutual decision due to the limitations.

However, interference of international organizations has been accepted by most of the countries due to the nature of interdependence that is being increased in the recent years. Thus, establishment of diplomatic rule-making approach has been effectively done in the international atmosphere. (Lakos, pp. 51-57) Until now, the paper has discussed and analyzed different perspectives and approaches of international negotiations that have been considered and implemented by most of the experts around the world. Subsequently, the paper will discuss negotiating behavior of some of the influential powers and authorities in this political globe.

The negotiating style of the United States has been very distinctive and durable since many decades, even the subsequent governmental administrations have shifted their policies, as well as, personalities have been different in different aspects. Still, versatile and complex behavior has been portrayed by the United States during their most of the international negotiations. Powerful and realistic approaches have been implemented by the US fundamentally. Moralistic or hospitable approaches might have been practiced by individual negotiators; however, shortest-time results have been considered by most of the negotiators in the country.

(Fisher, pp. 88-93) In this regard, negotiating behavior of an individual state was analyzed and explained by some of the factors that have been discussed in the paper subsequently. In this respect, political system of a country has been considered as one of the major components of the negotiating behavior. Secondly, cultural identification has been deemed significant by most of the diplomats, professionals, and scholars. One of the reasons of the considering the cultural values were that most of the issues emerge as conflicts due to the antagonism with the cultural and religious values of a nation.

Thirdly, different issues and circumstances were considered for the analysis of the behavior, and lastly, personality of the negotiators was one of the significant factors of the negotiating behavior. It has been observed by most of the experts that the role of fair bargainers is portrayed by the American diplomats. However, part of a hegemonic power has been played by the United States during its most of the negotiations, and the approach of negotiating with the other nation has been dominated by the pushing and persuasion of the American negotiators with their foreign counterparts.

Moreover, a number of limitations have been imposed by the U. S. Constitution, which has limited the negotiating capacity of the American negotiators. Although, the power of negotiation has been provided to the President, Congress should be watched considerably by him, as foreign counterparts have traditionally not been trusted by the Congress. Some of the examples of this behavior of American diplomats can be seen in the peace negotiations for Bosnia-Herzegovina. (Lall, pp. 38-42) Culture plays an important role in the implementation of different approaches by the American negotiators.

Especially, utilization of language and time is influenced significantly by the cultural factors in the United States. It has been observed that a conceptual vocabulary is employed by them bluntly, as well as, legalistically. In addition, negotiating behavior of the American negotiators involves discomfort with silence, and body language is often ignored by these negotiators. Mostly, own timeframe is employed by the Americans, and an early agreement is preferred during most of the negotiations, especially, in conflicts with political importance.

During the negotiations, it has been observed that considerable resources are utilized and applied on the foreign counterparts simultaneously during the negotiations for building pressure. More often, statistical figures are associated with the issues by the American diplomats, in order to influence and convince their foreign negotiators. In the result, benefits of the agreements are shown by them, as well as, risks after the failure of negotiations are also provided to the counterparts at the negotiating table.

Moreover, most of the communication strategies and tools are utilized by the American negotiators, and sometimes, unofficial contacts are implemented for the earlier achievement of the results. In this way, progress of negotiation is fostered and speed up by the U. S. diplomats. In addition, an important role can be played by the American media for the promotion of preferred and favored decision during the negotiations. However, outcomes are shaped normally by the negotiators themselves, and media is infrequently utilized during the negotiations. Some of the examples of American negotiations are Angola talks, Rwanda talks, etc.

(Albin, pp. 62-65) Until now, the paper has discussed and analyzed different perspectives and approaches of American diplomats and negotiators during the international negotiations that have been noted and analyzed by most of the experts around the world. Subsequently, the paper will discuss negotiating behavior of another influential power, China in the political globe. (Berton, pp. 100-102) In recent decades, a number of cross-cultural negotiations have been observed in the Asian continent of the world, as the role of political, as well as, economic power is being played by China around the globe.

Different governments, as well as, international organizations are in the process of negotiating with China for the mutual benefit of one another. As the increment has been observed in the number of these negotiations, experts are now being able to understand the negotiating behavior of China during their international negotiations. Principles have been emphasized by most of the diplomats and professionals during their presentation of Chinese negotiating behavior. It has been noted that expectations of Chinese ambassadors are clearly provided at the commencement of negotiations in the light of their fundamentals.

Moreover, future relations are facilitated in light of the same foundations that have been provided in past negotiations. Thus, Chinese experts consider their principles at a higher extent, and do not shove them for the sake of an agreement. In this regard, one of the famous examples of their negotiating behavior is the principle of anti-hegemony during the negotiations held at Beijing in the year 1998. In these negotiations, principles, cultural values, and traditions dominated the process, which were followed by equality, as well as, mutual benefit from the cooperation.

Practicality and simplicity is another one of the major component of the Chinese negotiating behavior. September 1972’s Japan-China Joint Communique has been a significant example of their behavior. In this process, abundant display of a mutually-benefit resolution was achieved due to the sense of pragmatism of Chinese negotiators. Moreover, intermediaries are utilized frequently by the Chinese diplomats during their negotiations, which sometimes, prove effective for the agreement. (Berton, pp. 89-96).

Conclusively, we have tried to define, discuss, compare, and analyze different aspects and perspectives of the international negotiations. We conclude that international negotiations have played a significant and effective role for the avoidance of extreme circumstances in various parts of the world, and reduced the deterioration that has been caused by the previous wars. We hope that this paper will help students, professionals, experts, as well as, diplomats in their better understanding of the negotiation, and especially, the international negotiations.

References Amos Lakos. (1989). International Negotiations. Westview Press. Arthur Samuel Lall. (1966). Modern International Negotiation. Columbia University Press. Cecilia Albin. (2001). Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation. Cambridge University Press.

Frances Mautner-Markhof. (1989). Processes of International Negotiations. Westview Press. Glen Fisher. (1980). International Negotiation. Intercultural Press. Peter Berton. (1999). International Negotiation. Macmillan.