Larry Crump

Multilateral Negotiation and the Management of Complexity

A decade has passed since the boundaries of knowledge were pushed back through publication of International Multilateral Negotiation: Approaches to the Management of Complexity (Zartman 1994). In this collective work of the Processes of International (PIN) Group at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), distinguished social scientists from diverse fields applied a range of theories to one of the most complex negotiation types, the international multilateral conference. Coalition theory, decision theory, game theory, leadership theory, organizational theory, and small-group theory were each applied to two negotiations, the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the negotiations to establish the Single European Act in the European Community. The intent of this book was to extend theory and provide tools for analyzing the complexities of international multilateral negotiations while establishing a foundation for the study of negotiation complexity and its management. Managing complexity is a paradigm, not a theory. It is the context for theorizing, but more basically, a way of thinking about multilateral negotiations in order to achieve a better comprehension of the full process. The present thematic issue of International Negotiation begins from this point of departure.

Towards a paradigm of multiparty negotiation

Despite considerable research on multiparty negotiation, no prior attempt has been made to organize and describe knowledge from the various disciplines represented within this field of study. The present article seeks to offer a comprehensive understanding of multiparty negotiation. It establishes a foundation for a multiparty negotiation paradigm by building a coherent multi-disciplinary framework. Development of this framework begins by defining fundamental concepts and identifying essential dynamics that structure the field of multiparty negotiation. This article then describes the building blocks and boundaries of the field. A review of the three most developed multiparty negotiation bodies of literature or domains – international negotiations, public disputes, and organizational and group negotiations – follows. Similarities and differences between the three domains are identified, as are points of theoretical integration. This examination of multiparty negotiation concepts and dynamics, building blocks, boundaries, and domains constitutes a framework that defines multiparty negotiation as a field of practice. The article also establishes a research agenda that will contribute to the development of multiparty negotiation as an area of study.

Negotiation Process and Negotiation Context

This article examines how external events grounded in a negotiation’s relevant environment (i.e., negotiation context) influence negotiation process and outcome. Multilateral, regional and bilateral environments are examined through linkage theory to gain understanding about the impact of external events or context on negotiation process and outcome. Linkages between a negotiation and its context are examined through five trade negotiations: the WTO Doha round (multilateral-global); the Free Trade Area of the Americas (multilateral-regional); EU‐Mercosur (bilateral-regional); EU‐Chile (bilateral); and US‐Chile (bilateral). In addition to developing greater understanding about the strategic relationship between a negotiation and its context this article establishes a theoretic framework that defines the known universe of linkage dynamics. The impact of multilateral environments on the regional negotiation process and outcome is of particular interest, as is the strategic use of bilateral environments in seeking to achieve multilateral geopolitical ends.

Turning Points and International Environments: Multilateral Negotiations in the GATT and the WTO

A turning points analysis is used to capture the negotiating dynamics that occur within the structure of the gatt and the wto. Ministerial/Council-level operations and Committee-level operations are distinguished. Within wto Doha Development Agenda negotiations (2001-present), we isolate Ministerial/Council-level data and within gatt, we isolate Committee-level data by examining Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights negotiations conducted during the gatt Uruguay round (1985-1994) and at the wto Doha Ministerial (2001). A detailed chronology of each case is compiled, followed by the identification of precipitants, departures and consequences, which are the three parts of a turning points analysis. We conclude that the precipitants that led to negotiation turning points in the Ministerial/Council environment are exclusively internal and generally procedural. The precipitants creating turning points within the Committee environment are generally internal and substantive. These conclusions have implications for our understanding of international environments and their impact on negotiation process.

The G20 Chair and the Case of the Global Economic Steering Committee

Global and regional summits occur regularly, yet we know little about the factors supporting an effective summit. This article reviews knowledge about the chair, agenda building and prenegotiation preparation within an institutionalised régime, and then turns to our venue, the G20, and our specific case, the 2014 G20 Australian presidency. Through case analysis, we develop a Prenegotiation Framework, identifying tasks and key issues that are usefully addressed during summit preparation. Furthermore, we identify a linked relationship between the chair, their management of prenegotiation planning, the agenda that is adopted and the way in which that agenda determines public perception of the fundamental nature or “identity” of a particular international organisation. Thus, the prenegotiation process can have significant consequences for our understanding of those institutions engaged in global governance. We conclude that data no longer support a characterisation of the G20 as a global crisis committee, as an analysis of G20 Summit agendas demonstrates that it has evolved into a global steering committee. With its identity established, the effectiveness of the G20 as a global steering committee is the key question, while régime continuity and change constitute the real long-term G20 challenge.

Understanding Climate Change Negotiations: Contributions from International Negotiation and Conflict Management

Climate change is the largest and most complicated interdependent issue the world has confronted. Yet there is little negotiation and conflict management knowledge within the climate change context. To address this gap, this theoretical article reviews the sparse extant literature and provides a brief overview of the science of climate change public policy. This review establishes a foundation for examining negotiation and conflict management research questions that emanate from current and future climate change negotiations. Such questions are considered for climate change mitigation negotiations and climate change adaptation negotiations. This article demonstrates how the negotiation and conflict management field can make important contributions to the study of interdependency in a context of climate change.

Adam Smith in a warmer world: climate change, multilateral trade and national food security

Market efficiency is essential in a world of scarce resources, but it is a secondary concern if human survival depends on a market that can provide reliable agricultural supply. For example, the projected increase in the frequency, magnitude and severity of extreme weather events (as increasing CO2 emissions make the world warmer) has profound implications for the reliability of the multilateral agricultural market. Market reliability is assumed to be embedded in supply and demand price transmission, although this assumption may not hold in a changing climate. This paper examines these concerns and makes recommendations to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and to leaders of national governments about rethinking the balance between interdependence on a multilateral agricultural market and national independence (not self-sufficiency) based on development of multiple food delivery systems to protect against periodic agricultural price shocks. Once established, via the WTO Doha round, a non-distorted multilateral agriculture market will become the primary global food security system, but national governments may also wish to examine a range of secondary food security systems.

The role of the chair in informal international organisations: Australia’s Group of Twenty presidency

ABSTRACT Scholars of international relations have devoted significant effort to understanding international organisations. However, two areas have been understudied: the role of the chair in international multilateral negotiations and the role of informal international organisations. Yet informal international organisations are increasingly important in international affairs as world leaders turn to smaller and more flexible forums to address global challenges. This article addresses these two blind spots in the literature by considering the role of Australia as chair in one of the most important yet most understudied informal international organisations: the Group of Twenty (G20). Drawing on primary interview data and the participant observations of the first author, who was a member of the G20 chair in 2013–14 during Australia’s presidency, the authors examine two theoretical puzzles: (1) why states delegate control of the negotiation process to a chair and (2) how the chair can, and does, influence the negotiation process. It is argued that member states delegate control to the chair to overcome specific institutional failures and, in doing so, provide the chair with the power to influence the negotiation process. The authors also argue that the G20 case indicates that existing theory overlooks key factors which restrict the capacity of the chair to influence the negotiation outcome.

Negotiating Climate Change

It is troubling that so little negotiation and conflict management knowledge exists in a climate change context, as climate change is the largest and most complicated interdependent situation ever confronted on planet earth. This theoretical paper reviews the sparse extant literature and then provides a brief overview to the science of climate change public policy. This review establishes a foundation for examining negotiation and conflict management research questions that emanate from current and future climate change negotiations. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord receives special consideration in this regard. This paper demonstrates how the negotiation and conflict management field can make important contributions to the study of interdependency in a climate change context.