A review of the literature shows a generally limited amount of applicable research regarding coalition forces in negotiations, although some related contribution may be acknowledged from the area of Social Science and Psychology. Walker (1973) reviews Caplow's theory of coalitions in triads (developed in 1956), which states that weaker players in negotiations may form coalitions only if this allows them to overpower the strongest player of the negotiation party. In a dyadic negotiation scenario however, this would assume that secondary or tertiary parties would be willing and able to build coalitions with primary players. This may cause conflict in dyadic scenarios and shift the atmosphere from co-operation to conflict.
Caplow's theory of coalitions considers coalitions build on a resource basis only (Walker, 1973), implying that by forming a coalition the resource power may have changed in the negotiation scenario, other contemporary aspects such as political power advantages though may still lie with the single party outside of the coalition.
To clarify the role of politics in negotiations Viroli (1992) proposes that 'an impersonal structure of domination called the state is the core of politics … any other conception appears counter-intuitive.' So, can a party's 'impersonal, dominating structure', i.e. the party's national politics really have an influence on coalition building in bi-lateral negotiations? Agnew (2001) theorises that power in a political context has two main attributes; one of which is - 'an ability to make others do the state's will as this reflects the state's advantage of location, resources and populations.' Based on this, coalitions on the grounds of state politics would only be feasible if two or more states pursue the same or similar political agendas, which links back to Weiss's (1993) notion that relationships are affected by the parties' commonality of interest.
Although this may allow us to comprehend why coalitions are built, based on the existing body of research I am unable to evaluate what the exact impact of coalitions is other than the change of the level of resource or political power.
Due to the scarcity of existing research, I hypothesize the following: ultimately a coalition's advantage on a resource or political power base may shift the power dependency in the coalition's favor to become a dominating party in the negotiation; given that the context of a dyadic negotiation scenario allows secondary or tertiary parties to form a coalition with a primary party.
As a final point, this paper will consider the influence of media attention on negotiation scenarios. Again, research in this specific area is rare, but similar research in other areas may allow for assumptions. Betsill and Corell (2001), compile extensive research as to how and under what conditions NGOs influence the negotiation of international environmental agreements. They find that 'NGOs... intentionally transmit information to negotiators that alters both the negotiating process and outcome.'
Although strictly speaking NGOs are not the same as 'the media', they serve a similar purpose as they attempt to 'raise public awareness and lobby state decision-makers' (Betsill and Corell, 2001). The authors conclude that for NGOs 'Information is the primary tool used... to exert influence.' This allows the NGO, or the media to exert external and internal pressures on nation states to alter the outcome of negotiations to their policy expectations.
Clark (1995) notes that 'there is evidence that most states care how they are regarded by others, suggesting that international [NGO] pressure alone can affect state action....' Therefore, due to the recent increase in media attention on environmental, political and ethical issues (Palmer et. al., 2006), I hypothesise that governments are being pressured into increasing compliance with public opinion, hence influencing the outcome of negotiations. Further research is necessary to establish the true extent of this influence.
Conclusion of Theory
After reviewing over 100 negotiation papers, Reynolds et. al. (2003) note that existing research is 'less than decisive' and that 'IB negotiations are highly complex.' They agree that unless a dominant paradigm in IB negotiation emerges, the likelihood of major advances in negotiation theory is 'rather slim.' Weiss (2006) adds that existing negotiation research reveals 'fragmentation and atomistic treatment' and that no model has 'gained general acceptance.'
These conclusions underline the extensive discussion above. Even the combined efforts of researchers and academics has not yet yielded an overpowering and all-encompassing theory to assess International Business Negotiation scenarios, although a variety of frameworks and theories complement each other to a certain extent.
I will be using the variety of negotiation models and theories discussed above to formulate a combined model relevant to my case study.
For this purpose I will be using a modified version of Ghauri's (2003) negotiation framework. I will be analysing the contextual environment using Background factors and Atmosphere as identified by Ghauri (2003), while ignoring the 'Negotiator' factor in his Background dimension as well as 'Expectations' in Atmosphere. I also consider the influencing strategic factors as of minor importance to my case and as such will not be applying this aspect.
The framework will be expanded using contributions from Hofstede (2001), Lewis (2006) and Ott (2011) to address cultural factors of the negotiation. Weiss' (1993) and Metcalf and Birds' (2003) research will be used to include relationship and trust issues. Issues regarding coalition building and power dependencies shall also be considered. While Ghauri's framework was designed for a business-to-business negotiation context, the following case is a geopolitical scenario. Little academic evidence has been collected to assess the effectiveness of Ghauri's framework for geopolitical cases. The concluding section of this paper will attempt to establish to framework's effectiveness for this kind of case.Continued on Next Page »
Agnew, J. A., 2001. Reinventing geopolitics: Geographies of modern statehood. (Hettner-Lecture 2000), Published by: Department of Geography, University of Heidelberg.
Allen, P. and Ridley, J., 2011. The 'cold rush': industrialisation in the Arctic - interactive. The Guardian. [online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/jul/05/arctic-oil-exploitation-map-interactive?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 (Accessed 17th February 2012)
Austvik, O. G., 2007. The Geopolitics of Barents Sea Oil and Gas: the Mouse and the Bear. International Association for Energy Economics. [online] Available at: http://www.iaee.org/documents/newsletterarticles/Gunnar.pdf (Accessed 9th March 2012).
Bannon, I. and Collier, P., 2003. Natural Resources and Violent Conflict – Actions and Options. Washington DC:World Bank.
Betsill, M. M. and Corell, E., 2001. NGO Influence in International Environmental Negotiations: A framework for Analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 1 (4), pp.65-86.
Bradbury, J., 2012. Partners plan new Barents Sea exploration push. Offshore International [online] Available at: http://www.offshore.no/international/article/Partners_plan_new_Barents_Sea_exploration_push (Accessed 16th May 2012).
Bülow, A. M. and Kumar, R., 2011. Culture and Negotiation. International Negotiation, 16, pp.349-359.
Carstens, H., 2012. Exploration: The Barents Sea – discovering a new oil & gas province… . Oil Edge [online] Available at:http://www.oiledge.com/n/Exploration_The_Barents_Sea_discovering_a_new_oil_gas_province/ff529252.aspx (Accessed 16th May 2012).
CIA, 2012. The World FactBook - Norway. Central Intelligence Agency. [online] Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html (Accessed 10th May 2012).
Clark, A. M., 1995. Non-Governmental Organizations and their Influence on International Society. Journal of International Affairs, 48 (2), pp.507-525.
Cohen, R. and Meerts, P., 2008. The Evolution of International Negotiation Processes. International Negotiations, 13, pp.149-156.
Collier, P. and Hoeffler, A., 2005. Resource Rents, Governance and Conflict. Journal of Conflict and Resolution, 49 (4), pp.625-633.
Elferink, A. G., 1993. The Influence of Provisional Arrangements on Negotiations on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries. [Boundary and Security Bulletin]. April 1993. International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University.
Ghauri, P. N., 2003. A framework for International Business Negotiations; in Ghauri, P. N. and Usunier, J.C., 2003. International Business Negotiations. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd., 2nd ed., p.3-22.
Hall, E. T., 1959. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday Publishing.
Henriksen, T. and Ulfstein, G., 2011. Maritime Delimitation in the Arctic: The Barents Sea Treaty. Ocean Development & International Law, 42, pp.1-21.
Hofstede, G., 1984. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, 2nd ed. SAGE Publishing.
Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publishing.
Huntington, S. P., 1996. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order, in Imai, L. & Gelfand, M. J., 2010, The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. Article in Press.
IEA, 2011. Oil & Gas Security - Norway. International Energy Agency. [online] Available at: http://www.iea.org/papers/security/norway_2011.pdf (Accessed 27th April 2012).
Kehl, J. R., 2010. Oil, Water, Blood and Diamonds: International Intervention in Resource Disputes. International Negotiation, 15, pp.391-412.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B. and Gibson, C. B., 2006. A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, pp.285-320.
Klare, M., 2001. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. New York: Henry Holt and Company Publishing.
Lewis, R. D., 2006. When Cultures Collide. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
MacAlister, T., 2010. Climate change could lead to Arctic conflict, warn senior Nato commander. The Guardian. [online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/11/nato-conflict-arctic-resources?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 (Accessed 17th February 2012)
Mannix, E. A. and Neale, M. A., 1993. Power Imbalance and the Pattern of Exchange in Dyadic Negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, pp.119-133.
Metcalf, L. E. and Bird, A., 2003. Cultural Influences on Negotiation Behaviors: Resurrecting and Revitalizing an Overlooked Framework. Academy of International Business, Annual Meeting, 5th - 8th July 2003. Monterey, CA, USA.
Metcalf, L. E., Bird, A., Peterson, M.F., Shankarmahesh, M. and Lituchy, T. R., 2007. Cultural Influences in Negotiations: A Four Country Comparative Analysis. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7 (2), pp.147-168.
Meyer, G., 2012. Refined out of existence. Financial Times UK, 10th April 2012, p.11.
Moe, A., Fjaertoft, D. and Overland, I., 2011. Space and timing: why was the Barents Sea delimitation dispute resolved in 2010? Polar Geography, 34 (3), pp.145-162.
Nicola, S., 2010. Expert: Norway-Russian Arctic deal is near. United Press International. [online] Available at: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2010/03/31/Expert-Norway-Russian-Arctic-deal-is-near/UPI-29841270046135/ (Accessed 9th March 2012)
Oil & Gas Journal, 2012. Eni-Rosneft Pact covers Barents, Black Sea exploration. Oil & Gas Journal [online] Available at: http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/vol-110/issue-4d/general-interest/eni-rosneft-pact-covers-barents.html (Accessed 16th May 2012).
Ott, U. F., 2010. The Art and Economics of International Negotiations. Loughborough University. 23rd Annual International Association of Conflict Management Conference. Boston, Massachusetts 24th-27th June.
Ott, U. F., 2011. The Influence of Cultural Activity Types on Buyer-Seller Negotiations: A Game Theoretical Framework for Intercultural Negotiations. International Negotiation, 16, pp.427-450.
Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., Hart, P., Roger, K. P., Ofwono-Orecho, J. K. W., Peries, M. Robottom, I., Tsaliki, E. and van Staden, C., 2006. An Overview of Significant Influences and Formative Experiences on the Development of Adults' Environmental Awareness in Nine Countries. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), pp.445-464.
Reynolds, N., Simintiras, A. and Vlachou, E., 2003. International Business Negotiations: Present Knowledge and Direction for Future Research; in Weiss, S. E., 2006. International Business Negotiation in a Globalizing World: Reflections on the Contributions and Future of a (Sub) Field. International Negotiation, 11, p.287-316.
Ritter, C., 2008. Integrating culture and knowledge into the corporate structure. German Association for Technical Communication and Information Development. [online] Available at: http://www.tekom.de/index_neu.jsp?url=/servlet/ControllerGUI?action=voll&id=2330 (Accessed 16th May 2012)
Roloff, M., Tutzauer, F. and Dailey, W., 1987. The Role of Argumentation in Distributive and Integrative Bargaining Contexts; in Mannix, E. A. and Neale, M. A., 1993. Power Imbalance and the Pattern of Exchange in Dyadic Negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, pp.119-133.
Russia Today, 2011. Russia and Norway end historic dispute over Arctic border. Russia Today [online] Available at: http://rt.com/news/prime-time/russia-norway-arctic-dispute/ (Accessed 9th March 2012)
Salacuse, J. W., 1991. Making Global Deals: Negotiating in the International Marketplace. Boston. MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Salacuse, J. W., 1998. Ten Ways that Culture Affects Negotiation Style: Some Survey Results. Negotiation Journal, 14 (3), pp.221-240.
Schiavone, A., 2000. The end of the past: ancient Rome and the modern West; in Agnew, J. A., 2001. Reinventing geopolitics: Geographies of modern statehood. (Hettner-Lecture 2000), Published by: Department of Geography, University of Heidelberg.
Traynor, I., 2008a. Climate change may spark conflict with Russia, EU told: Alert over scramble for control over energy resources in the Arctic. The Guardian. [online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/10/eu.climatechange (Accessed 16th February 2012).
Traynor, I., 2008b. Europe takes first step towards 'Arctic policy' to protect energy security. The Guardian. [online] Available at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/20/poles-arctic-europe?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 (Accessed 17th February 2012)
Usunier, J.-C., 2003. Cultural aspects of international business negotiations; in Ghauri, P. N. and Usunier, J.-C., International Business Negotiations. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd., pp.97-136.
Viroli, M., 1992. From politics to reason of state: the acquisition and transformation of the language of politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, M. B., 1973. Caplow's Theory of Coalitions in the Triad reconsidered. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27 (3), pp.409-412.
Weiss, S. E., 1993. Analysis of Complex Negotiations in International Business: The RBC Perspective. Organization Science, 4 (2), pp.269-300.
Weiss, S. E., 2004. International Business Negotiations Research: Revisiting "Bricks, Mortar and Prospects"; in Shenkar, O. and Punnett, B. J., 2004. The Handbook of International Management Research, pp.415-474. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Weiss, S. E., 2006. International Business Negotiation in a Globalizing World: Reflections on the Contributions and Future of a (Sub) Field. International Negotiation, 11, p.287-316.
Weiss, S. E. and Stripp, W., 1985. Negotiating with Foreign Businesspersons: An Introduction for Americans with Propositions on Six Cultures, Working Paper No. 85-6; in Metcalf, L. E., Bird, A., Peterson, M.F., Shankarmahesh, M. and Lituchy, T. R., 2007. Cultural Influences in Negotiations: A Four Country Comparative Analysis. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7 (2), pp.147-168.
