Taking Human Behavior Seriously

Robert Mnookin and Lewis Kornhauser’s 1979 article, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce, marked a critical watershed moment for the dispute resolution field on many levels. First, the article was at the vanguard of a now decades-old movement to take negotiation seriously as an academic field. Second, the article modeled and encouraged context-specific negotiation analysis as it delved deeply into the context-specific nature of dispute resolution, first developing a careful analytical framework for analysis and then applying it to a particular field of bargaining—namely, the area of divorce. Third, and most significantly, the article grappled with the interstitial space between the human behavior of “bargaining” and legal endowments, and it was ultimately instrumental in bringing that interstitial space into the purview of legal scholarship. I address each of these contributions in turn....

Obstacle negotiation analysis of track-legged robot based on terramechanics

Purpose This paper aims to present a new method to analyze the robot’s obstacle negotiation based on the terramechanics, where the terrain physical parameters, the sinkage and the slippage of the robot are taken into account, to enhance the robot’s trafficability. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, terramechanics is used in motion planning for all-terrain obstacle negotiation. First, wheel/track-terrain interaction models are established and used to analyze traction performances in different locomotion modes of the reconfigurable robot. Next, several key steps of obstacle-climbing are reanalyzed and the sinkage, the slippage and the drawbar pull are obtained by the models in these steps. In addition, an obstacle negotiation analysis method on loose soil is proposed. Finally, experiments in different locomotion modes are conducted and the results demonstrate that the model is more suitable for practical applications than the center of gravity (CoG) kinematic model. Findings Using the traction performance experimental platform, the relationships between the drawbar pull and the slippage in different locomotion modes are obtained, and then the traction performances are obtained. The experimental results show that the relationships obtained by the models are in good agreement with the measured. The obstacle-climbing experiments are carried out to confirm the availability of the method, and the experimental results demonstrate that the model is more suitable for practical applications than the CoG kinematic model. Originality/value Comparing with the results without considering Terramechanics, obstacle-negotiation analysis based on the proposed track-terrain interaction model considering Terramechanics is much more accurate than without considering Terramechanics.

A negotiation analysis of risk assessment in community correction from the perspective of exchange structure

Community correction, as a new form of crime punishment towards restorative justice, is being widely practiced in China. This paper, adopting an ethnographic method, explores the exchange structure of risk assessment in community correction by analyzing a dataset of 12 assessments. The study finds that the risk assessment discourse is replete with the informing exchange (formulized as K1^(K2f)) and eliciting exchange (formulized as K2^K1). It further discusses how the canonical structures are invalidated and what variant structures could address the issue. These findings suggest that judicial social workers need to raise their linguistic awareness and offenders need more effective linguistic choices in order to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of risk assessment.

Structuring in a Vacuum: Negotiating in the Current World Disorder

The current context of increasing entropy in international politics poses challenges for negotiation and negotiation analysis. The current System of World Disorder contains defining characteristics that do not fit well with established negotiation concepts and practice. Following a few decades of progress in conflict management after the bipolar system, major regions of the world have seen dedicated attempts to bring conflicts under control in the current decade failing for lack of ripeness, trade-offs, reframing, mediation and support. New concepts and practices of negotiation are required to deal with the current vacua in international politics and their consequences.

Tools for Managing Complex Negotiations

“Management of complexity” was identified as a paradigm for negotiation analysis 25 years ago. Substantial progress has been made in conceptualizing complex negotiations since, although less has been accomplished with regard to operationalizing that knowledge so that tools can be developed to manage complex negotiations. This article begins by reviewing five separate theoretical frameworks of negotiation complexity and, through this analysis, identifies six significant characteristics of negotiation complexity: party numbers, negotiator roles, external environment, negotiation process, negotiation strategy, and party relations. Operational tools are identified for each variable. On the basis of this analysis, the article concludes by identifying additional tools that could be developed for managing complex negotiations.

A Theory of Alliance Treaty Negotiation Outcomes

This chapter discusses the book's argument that joint war planning provides a useful conceptual framework for explaining agreement and nonagreement in alliance treaty negotiations. Drawing on bargaining theory and negotiation analysis, it focuses on two key variables. The first variable is compatibility of ideal war plans. This refers to the participants' respective ideal war plans not having contradictory strategic components or operational components. Tensions can arise from conflicting military doctrines, such as one negotiation participant adhering to an offensive doctrine and another following a defensive doctrine. Thus, the key to ideal war plan compatibility is that both participants have similar notions of the threat and similar philosophies about the application of military force against that threat. The second variable is the attractiveness of outside options. Outside options are the policies each participant will pursue if the negotiation ends in nonagreement. Such policies include unilateral action or an alliance treaty with another state. The chapter then explains how these two variables lead to four types of alliance treaty negotiations: Same Page, Pleasant Surprise, Revealed Deadlock, and Standard Bargaining. It also details the three components of a war plan: strategic, operational, and tactical.

Prediction of railway wheel load unbalance induced by air suspension leveling valves using quasi-steady curve negotiation analysis procedure

While air suspensions are widely utilized for passenger railway vehicles as secondary suspension, initial lever angle setting of the air spring levelling valve can make a non-negligible impact on the residual wheel load unbalance in curve negotiation on small radius curved tracks. To enable accurate and quick prediction of the levelling valve-induced residual wheel load unbalance for vehicle safety evaluation, this study proposes a new quasi-steady curve negotiation analysis procedure considering the detailed thermodynamic air suspension system model that accounts for the nonlinear airflow characteristics of levelling valve and differential pressure valves. This approach allows for eliminating a limitation of existing full dynamic simulation models associated with high computational intensity that prevents quick safety evaluation with long-distance simulation under actual railway operating scenarios. A co-simulation scheme for the quasi-steady vehicle motion solver is also proposed to further improve the computational efficiency with explicit force–displacement coupling. Several numerical examples are presented to demonstrate the proposed quasi-steady vehicle motion solver for prediction of levelling valve-induced residual wheel load unbalances in small radius curved tracks. The numerical results are compared with those of the dynamic simulation model and validated against the test data. It is demonstrated that computational time is substantially decreased by the proposed approach while accurately predicting the levelling valve-induced residual wheel load unbalance caused by the initial offset of lever angles on small radius curved tracks.

Fighting for Our Principles: Interests vs Values in Conflict Resolution

Recent events, especially in the realm of political negotiation, provide some evidence that ‘win-win’ negotiation may be going out of style. The undeniable success of some unabashedly win-lose dealmakers, in the US and elsewhere, should force us to reflect again on our own negotiation precepts, especially those in the win-win tradition of principled negotiation. How can it be that negotiators with questionable ethics have succeeded at least in the negotiation of becoming elected in several major countries? Are values no longer important, or at least the values that many of us hold dear? These negotiators certainly understand the concept of interests. The Harvard approach to negotiation famously differentiates between positions and interests, admonishing us to get beneath closed binary demands made by the opposing side in a negotiation and instead explore the interests underlying those demands, which are usually more personal, broader and more readily addressed once properly understood. These can then be pursued more effectively, leading to either a win-win or a win-lose result. In any case, they help us to seal the deal. At the same time, in his farewell speech, Barack Obama warned of a “buckling of democracy if we allow our values to weaken”. But just where do values fit into negotiation analysis? As a consequence, questions arise for those who study, teach and practice negotiation: How do we differentiate values from interests? And what strategies and tactics are needed when the conflict arises not from what people want but from their values – who they think they are? Are values ever negotiable? And what is the difference between negotiation and advocacy? This paper first seeks to establish clear definitions for some of these terms in order to contrast the dynamics of interest-based negotiation with those of value-based conflict. In that discussion, we also explore the consequences of disputes arising out of shared vs conflicting values, especially in interaction with interests. To understand the practical implications, I apply all of this to the particular case of a surprising successful negotiation around the tar sands of Alberta, Canada. Here was a seemingly intractable situation with highly ideological protagonists in conflict mode for a very long time. Yet somehow it turned out to be values as well as interests that yielded the seed of the solution. While many tricky issues remain, it is a fertile case for exploring not only the difference between negotiation and advocacy, but also the power within each when they can be combined successfully.