Entrapment in International Negotiations

Bernabei

2019

Int. Negot.

Intractability is generally associated with prolonged tensions, employment of destructive means, suspicion and mistrust, inflammatory rhetoric and polarized solutions that are usually presented as ultimatums. Existing studies on intractability have emphasized the resistance to solution as a crucial indicator of intractability, and subsequently explored the phases through which intractability evolves and key characteristics these conflicts possess. What is largely missing is a nuanced explanation of at what point resistance turns into intractability. Building on earlier studies from social-psychology on entrapment in negotiations this article will develop a novel conceptual framework of entrapment as a precondition to intractability, and apply it to assess the causes and consequences of entrapment in an escalating conflict using the Syrian Civil War as a case study. The study will demonstrate that resistance to solution, which is a consequence of entrapment, does not automatically lead to intractability.

Section: Evaluation Framework For Entrapmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Phase One -Reward Pursuit: Identifying Goals and Making Bidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Phase Two -Cost Justification Escalation and Deadlock In Nementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Refining Intractability: A Case Study of Entrapment in the Syrian Civil War

Bernabei

2019

Int. Negot.

“…9. 9. On the issue of entrapment in escalating conflicts see Mitchell (1991), Meerts (2005) Vuković and Bernabei (2019) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Halting and Reversing Escalation in the South China Sea: A Bargaining Framework

Alfieri

2020

Global Policy

Escalating tensions in South China Sea have epitomized US-China relations for nearly a decade. Warning signs of a possible collision between a rising China and steadfast US, bring to light the need to think about ways that can halt and reverse the intensification of their confrontational moves. The historical trends regarding the freedom of the seas suggest that a way out of this predicament is possible through negotiations. The tenets of the freedom of the seas seem to prevail once they begin to serve the challenger's interest. Yet, the path toward interest alignment between the challenger and the norm-maker, in this case between China and the US, depends on their ability to avoid any miscalculation that can provoke further escalation of tensions, which in turn may lead to violent confrontation between nuclear powers. A particular historical precedent between the US and Soviet Union demonstrates that a compromised solution can be found in upholding the normative framework based on the Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS). Emulating this approach may help the parties to avoid an unnecessary and avoidable military gamble in South China Sea. Policy Implications • As history shows, freedom of the seas will prevail once it serves the challenger's interests. China's spectacular rise will eventually tip cost-benefit considerations in favor of this regime. No regime other than freedom of the seas could yield higher returns for a seafaring power with global interests. China already avails itself of the freedom of navigation principles the US supports. It would not be in China's own interest to subvert a regime that underpins its capacity to project power globally and serves well its growing ambitions.

Bumping, precedents, and de‐escalation in South China Sea: Options for the United States and China

Asia & Pacific Policy Stud

Alfieri²

2018

The article departs from a much needed clarification about the 2 overlapping conflicts in South China Sea: sovereignty dispute between China and ASEAN countries, and freedom of navigation dispute between China and the United States. Although both are well documented and covered by an extensive range of academic and policy-relevant analyses, the lines between the 2 have often been blurred, yielding a very limited set of options for proper conflict management. This paper looks at the actual reasons behind Chinese defiance toward the United States, and how can this be reversed.In order to avoid a potential clash in the South China Sea, this paper looks at how similar situations, where the United States was challenging the excessive maritime claims of other nuclear powers, were managed peacefully in light of an inevitable clash. A surprisingly underscrutinized precedent of "bumping incident" form 1988, when U.S. Navy vessels were rammed by Soviet ships and "bumped" back to the international waters is used as a template for a potential solution in the ongoing Sino-American conflict. This paper examines the limits and opportunities of this type of solution --