Resolving attacker-defender conflicts through intergroup negotiation

Abstract

The target article focuses on how attacker-defender conflicts are fought. This commentary complements it by considering how attacker-defender conflicts may be resolved at the bargaining table. I highlight multiple linkages between asymmetric intergroup conflict as modeled with the attacker-defender game and negotiation research and illustrate how the proposed model of attacker-defender conflicts can inspire new research on intergroup negotiation.

Negotiating Sustainability Transitions: Why Does It Matter? What Are the Challenges? How to Proceed?

“…In the real world, these moves manifest in struggle between groups and can take various forms, such as physical combat, war of words, unilateral advantage taking, or political contest [7], but the struggle has significant disadvantages compared to negotiation. Struggle is usually very cost-intense (e.g., [18]), implies winning or losing as the only possible outcomes of the social conflict (e.g., [19,20]), impedes fine-tuned solutions over multiple relevant issues (e.g., [13,20]), obstructs reaching mutually beneficial agreements, and blockades transformative solutions that have the potential to change the status quo [7]. Given these disadvantages of individual moves and struggle, conflict management via collective decision-making and negotiation has substantial benefits and can catalyze sustainability transitions when decision-makers negotiate agreements wisely [10,21].…”