Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Conflict resolution employs several strategies that hasten an amicable end, but none is more important than identifying the most opportune moment to implement them. Crucially termed as the ripe time, this moment defines a vital step in a negotiation because both parties can readily recognize no other means to achieve a good end. Mediation is proffered to avoid a prolonged predicament through initiatives that suit all involved parties. Most importantly, addressing the cross-cultural differences between people assists in breaking down communication barriers and easing the negotiation process. Furthermore, the mediator is crucial to the validity of the process since he offers a third-party perspective and analysis of the situation. Successful negotiations depend on isolating the ripe moment to implement mediation strategies largely impacted by cross-cultural differences, the quality of the mediator, and the stakeholders involved.
Ripeness Theory
Ripeness is essential to achieving a successful end to the negotiation process. This work defines ripeness theory and the role of the mediator and contextualizes them in modern-day conflict examples. Additionally, it identifies the most opportune time to proffer negotiations since it is a skill utilized by international mediators worldwide. However, despite its success as a template for resolving international disputes, ripeness can be a pre-cursor to escalated violence if not properly implemented (Beckerman, 2022). Furthermore, the introduction of social media as a negotiating platform has transformed the speed and dynamics with which mediators communicate and affect their strategies. This essay critically analyses ripeness theory concerning modern diplomatic relations between America and other states and its success or failure in countries such as Egypt and Angola.
Since its introduction into academic circles, the ripe theory has commanded a growing focus of attention targeted at questioning its validity. Posited by Zartman in the mid-1980s, the theory has been a successful conceptual framework for conflict resolution and is primarily perceptual (Polk, 2022). It proposes that the ripe moment occurs when analytically, both parties are generating more losses than profits and are ready to resolve their differences after realizing no successful conclusion. Its ability to adapt its core tenets through the decades by borrowing clues from real-world events has made it particularly useful for professional peacemakers. Of importance is that the success of ripeness theory is predicated on the presence of two parties seeking a cost-effective way to achieve their goals and interests (Faizullaev, 2014). The theory further proposes re-aligning the focus away from destructive behavior in both parties using a mutually hurting stalemate or a way out policy.
Mutually Hurting Stalemate Theory
Any drawn-out conflict is costly regarding resources and personnel, creating mutual losses for the conflicting players. A mutually hurting stalemate recognizes that both parties are engaged in an unwinnable interaction and provides an alternative means of resolution based on the parties’ perceptions (Zartman, 2019). Both parties reach a plateau of hostilities in the stalemate since they dynamically hurt each other while being relatively equal in strength. Despite ripeness being a subjective event, it rests on the perception of objective elements in the case, such as interdependent goals and persuasion efforts of the mediator to achieve success (Faizullaev, 2014). However, negotiation becomes increasingly difficult if the players involved fail to recognize clear evidence of the stalemate.
Way Out Theory
In contrast, Way Out is a less complex policy that operates simultaneously with the Mutually Hurting Stalemate approach to determine the situational ripeness for mediation. Without hope for an amicable resolution, conflicting parties are often left with no foreseeable end (Polk, 2022). Nevertheless, if they actively seek a way to end hostilities and believe their opposition is as well, then the willingness forms the foundation for finding a way out. Peacemakers on both sides express and indicate the possibility of deal-making and communicate the concessions either party is ready to make.
Impact of Cross-cultural Differences on Ripeness
Inter-cultural differences complicate the context in which negotiations are conducted, especially if they are not appropriately recognized. Whereas a united stance is not necessary to instigate and sustain mediation efforts, respect for one another’s culture vitally affects the people’s attitudes. It is impossible to single out the ripeness of the situation if a misinterpretation or misunderstanding hinders the cessation of hostilities. Essentially, understanding one another’s culture aids professional peacemakers in understanding the way it affects negotiation. American relations with allied and non-allied states have realized that there are individualistic communities and communistic cultures, each of which has varying priorities.
Low Context Societies
America primarily falls into an individualistic culture, identified as a low context society, wherein the self is given prominence. Each community member prioritizes their needs above the community’s and prefers truth instead of establishing harmonious relationships. Cohen (1997) asserts that Americans prefer to deal with immediate problems and have little regard for historical events, a vital difference to communal cultures that give credence to the impact of historical events on their current lives. The American living standard encourages its citizens to be self-sufficient by insisting on personal financial independence. This task-oriented mindset impacts negotiation efforts by hastening mediators to achieve an amicable solution, thus impeding its ripeness.
High Context Societies
In contrast, high context or collectivistic societies orient their members to have a ‘we’ mindset that emphasizes harmony over the pursuit of truth. Each member’s experiences and roles are pivoted on their position within a group. Therefore, each society member evaluates what they say and its effect on their neighbor, encouraging Cohen to characterize them as shame-oriented compared to low context cultures, which he defined as guilt-oriented (1997). Countries like Japan, Kenya, and the Middle East have high context societies whose negotiations occur through complex and less direct methodologies. These cultural contexts can either impede or improve the identification of the ripe time to initiate negotiation between conflicting parties if they are not given credence at the pre-negotiation stage.
The task-oriented mindset of low context societies demands that each problem be broken down into technical aspects to facilitate quick problem-solving. Indeed, the means to achieve a goal become more important than the end itself. However, collectivistic cultures are dependent on nature to determine the lengths and occupation of their days. High context society members perceive and undeniably treat time differently than their low context counterparts and thus negotiate from a different perspective. Collectivistic cultures are guided by unyielding forces such as nature to define the events they conduct in a day; for example, a farmer arises and heads to his farm and only exists once the sun sets (Cohen, 1997). Virtues such as steadiness need to be aptly recognized as driving forces of the mediation process, especially since high context societies pay particular attention to the end rather than the methodologies used to arrive there. Compared to Japanese society, Americans have an engineering-oriented approach to problem-solving and insist on a detailed, systematic approach. Adjusting these habits to suit less meticulous negotiating partners is one defining trait of identifying the ripe time to conduct mediation.
Directness is vital in low context communications delineating either side’s competitive and cooperative goals. Alternatively, high context communications may require the parties involved to infer details of the conversations to arrive at their conclusions. An efficient mediator can emphasize the differences in each context by ensuring that both rationality and persuasion are equally used. There is an explicit sharing of information in low-context societies that would be inappropriate in collectivistic cultures that prefers an implicit approach. Thus, the verbal and nonverbal cues offered during the negotiation need to be recognized and appropriately cataloged to minimize barriers to effective conflict resolution.
Mediator’s Impact on Negotiation Ripeness
A mediator traverses the goals of interdependent parties and attempts to resolve the conflict by reflecting on and communicating the needs and goals of either side. This role becomes more volatile in international diplomacy due to internal stakeholders within a country, who influence the process adversely (Russell, 2000). Nonetheless, whether it is an international businessman, an official of the American state department, or the United Nations, timing is crucial to identifying and solving their problems. Crocker et al. (2003) insist that a good mediator should be culturally, strategically, and operationally sound to impact any negotiation. These qualities enable him to assess the needs of the conflicting parties and create a strategy that emphasizes concession and settlement.
Operational readiness can be termed political readiness and encompasses the practical, task-oriented dimension of negotiation. A good mediator needs to be committed round the clock and assume the requisite leadership skills to address the conflict (Sicherman, 2007). Operational readiness requires the construction of a peacemaking initiative that brings together leaders, bureaucratic resources, and the necessary personnel to construct a negotiation channel. Moreover, negotiators should resolve any personal or organizational problems before commencing negotiation because it prevents them from exporting their troubled perspectives to the current problem. Alternatively, strategic readiness can be equated to diplomatic readiness and hinges on upholding mediation as a core tenet of the entire process. The negotiator, in this case, is charged with finding third parties willing to form a coalition of cooperating partners with the cultural relationships needed to achieve a peaceful outcome (Sicherman, 2007). However, mediation cannot replace a working, firm policy that addresses the challenges the mediator is trying to fix. Furthermore, coordination is the link that holds all interest groups together, without which resources will not be shared, which hampers the success of the mediator’s role in the process.
Ceasefires as Determinants of Ripeness
One such case of organizational baggage occurred in the Philippines during a ceasefire between the government and an internal military group. A peace accord signed in 2014 ensured the coexistence and cooperation of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front with the national government (Åkebo, 2019). However, a successful terrorist search in the Mindanao region brought the Special Action Forces closer to the MILF group in 2015 (Åkebo, 2019). The interaction led to an escalation of hostilities resulting in the death of 5 civilians, 44 Special Action Force members, and seventeen MILF fighters (Åkebo, 2019). However, both parties shared a vested interest in ending the conflict hastily due to a long-standing ceasefire. Sticher (2021) assesses ripeness theory in Mindanao’s context and systematically proves that a negotiator can achieve negotiation ripeness by ensuring both conflicting parties stick to the agreed concessions and settlements. This Philippines’ case analysis reveals the necessity of ripeness for a mediator since the ceasefire created the requisite conditions to encourage both parties to find an amicable solution to their conflict.
In contrast to warring states, Benjamin Franklin, the American statesman, showcases several traits that define the character of a good negotiator. His understanding of cross-cultural differences assisted him in negotiating a treaty with the French as an ally against the British (Sicherman, 2007). This alliance would boost America’s military power to rival the British and challenge their naval armada. As a student of human behavior, Benjamin Franklin employed nonverbal cues and communication strategies to ensure that he successfully negotiated an alliance between the two nations (Sicherman, 2007). His French court demeanor and nuance impressed his counterparts and secured their admiration. High context societies have a highly complex system, and France fits into that category (Sicherman, 2007). In crucial moments, he resorted to silence and promised to address the issue later, making his approach more receptive to his French counterparts.
Benjamin Franklin took approximately ten months to ingratiate himself to the French court to broker the alliance. The statesman’s amount of time is equivalent to ripening the situation in favor of a positive outcome. He achieved his goals despite lacking a grasp of the French language and being accompanied by his two sons on the alliance-brokering trip (Sicherman, 2007). He focused on presenting an appropriate American image by donning a simple yet effective brown suit that deviated from the high fashion protocol expected therein. Furthermore, he crucially hinged his strategy on a shared hatred of the British and built his negotiation tactic on that sentiment. Moreover, the French were already supporting the American rebellion to a small extent, extending the list of shared similarities even further.
In addition, Benjamin Franklin had persuasion skills that furthered American interests and influenced the timing of the alliance. Originally, he was tasked with a message that essentially threatened a unification with Britain if France did not ally itself with America (Sicherman, 2007). However, the statesman pivoted and adjusted his strategy to reflect their respect for the French military prowess and addressed it with immediate confidence. Moreover, Franklin extended his stay for ten months and kept the American cause alive in the French society by making sure he never missed a dinner appointment or interactions with the women and children of French society.
He coaxed relationships with the royalists, taking great care not to offend them while being a regular fixture at salons in cosmopolitan France. Ultimately, the Battle of Saratoga exculpated him from the situation in 1777 (Sicherman, 2007). The surrender of British General Burgoyne reinforced the belief that the Brits could not achieve success on American soil. In this case, Franklin ripened the situation as a negotiator and recognized the cross-cultural differences in France, thus managing to secure funding and volunteers for his cause by timing it aptly.
International mediators, such as the one discussed above, need to recognize the political, social, bureaucratic, and institutional issues affecting the countries they address. The French court at the time was led by King Louis XVI, who was 23 years and his partner, Marie Antoinette, aged 20. Their relatively youthful nature constituted flashy clothes and expensive jewelry to placate their youthful whims, often at the expense of the French public. Nonetheless, a mediator is tasked with identifying if there are enough resources to support negotiation, an attribute that Franklin confirmed by assessing France’s military power.
Additionally, mediators single out a durable and dependable mandate to sustain negotiations. Finally, the mediation process must be tasked with the requisite leadership to reach a fruitful end (Zartman, 2019). In the case of the Philippines and the American-France alliance, both negotiations had apt negotiators who identified the opportune time to facilitate mediation. They in both cases established an organizational structure and lines of authority which adhered to the mediation mandate and protocols (Holmes, 1999). Their interventions and willingness to adapt to changing events marked a successful end to conflict in their regions.
Negotiation Tactics to Evaluate Ripeness
Negotiation strategies can differ from the international stage to internal conflicts. As mentioned, preparation is one of the most important aspects of the process as it helps the mediator assess the needs and wants of each group. Thorough preparation often involves determining the needs of the mediator and the alternatives he is willing to employ in case the target is unattainable. In the case of rebel groups in ethnic wars, the pre-negotiation phase often involves incentivizing the warring communities against fighting one another. Case analyses from Senegal showcase that military powers were initially suppressed in the pre-negotiation stage and did not act as a motivator in the negotiation stage (Lilja, 2011). Therefore, the community can be equally ripened by employing non-coercive means, especially in ethnically dense regions.
Besides political motivations, climate change can be an equally daunting task to negotiate and fruitfully champion on the international stage. Since communication between two conflicting parties instigates negotiation efforts, a negotiator must gauge how much these parties communicate (Lilja, 2011). The use of integrative tactics can affect the ripening scenario, especially if they involve an exchange of concessions and information and relationship building (Bailer, 2012). These tactics emphasize joint gain and motivate both parties to set aside their conflict to anticipate a mutually agreeable solution. If the exchange of information is fruitful, both sides can appreciate their differences and build a platform for low-joint gain.
Negotiators use three key stages to break down a problem. The first shows the desire for communication exchange between both players, while the second stage is more transitional with occasional sequences of information exchange, and dispute resolution offers to characterize the final one. A critical analysis of these stages reveals the ripening effect on negotiations since both players must negotiate and re-negotiate before reaching an agreeable proposition (Beckerman, 2022). Specifically, ceasefires affect these three ripeness stages differently as the interaction between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Philippines’ government in 2015 (Sticher, 2021). Ceasefire research in the country indicates that if the governing power established the ceasefire before the peace agreement, a mutually hurting stalemate does not have to exist to motivate both parties to ensure negotiations begin. Negotiations may start based on tactical or logical reasons depending on the cost analysis done by both groups and their perception of positional power (Sticher, 2021). The ceasefire smoothens the establishment of trust on both sides, making the negotiator’s work easier and guiding their dispute resolution strategy moving forward.
Dispute resolution theory proposes several paths; one is the dual concern model, which pays attention to empathy and assertiveness. The latter concerns the extent to which either party is willing to extend themselves to satisfy their interests, whereas the former defines how one is willing to meet the needs of the other. Parties who maximize their assertiveness generate a competitive dialogue that creates a win-lose situation that ignores the complexities of the underlying relationships (Faizullaev, 2014). Alternatively, conflicting parties who hinge their negotiations on empathy tend to be more accommodating and perceptive to the emotional needs of their counterparts (Faizullaev, 2014). Timing assertive people leads to an escalation of aggression, whereas empathy-oriented conflict styles yield more efficient results. In contrast, if either party lacks empathy and assertiveness, their conflict style borders on avoidance. This particular style leads more readily to ripening since an avoider can sidestep pointless conflicts and exercise diplomacy tactfully. Essentially, an avoider can wait out the previously defined examples and gain more from the concessions they fail to take advantage of.
Another dispute theory involves singling out the warring factions’ interests, rights, or power. It is necessary to uncover any deep-seated concerns before reconciling the interests or needs of conflicting parties. In case the interests of both are opposed, mediators are encouraged to make concessions or trade-offs to ensure the process keeps going. Moreover, the interests-right-power approach works on determining who is more right in the scenario and assigning merit to them. The power interests need to be balanced with a healthy respect for people’s rights to satisfy the needs of all involved. Nevertheless, these two theories are ancient in terms of modern-day policy and have proven ineffective in the context of conflict resolution. The emergence and dominance of social media have revolutionized how negotiations are conducted and resolved.
Impact of Social Media on the Ripe Moment
The medium mentioned above has been termed a digital village wherein the public can effuse their views on political, social, and economic issues. Social media tools have had a disruptive impact on resolving international disputes, specifically due to the technological advantages and scope (Polk, 2022). Communication channels that had outlasted television and radio were radically revolutionized by the introduction of social media in the 1990s (Ashbrook & Zalba, 2021). Once described as a democratic equalizer that could be a projection of American power onto global politics, the medium has proved to be democratically disruptive and often leads to the persecution of minorities.
One prime example emanates from Myanmar, where the Rohingya utilized Facebook, the social media platform, to incite violence. The political and social lines drawn in the society and compromised interactions with the government were marked by years of censorship and helped them abuse the platform (Ashbrook & Zalba, 2021). The spread of misinformation fomented offline violence and hampered the efforts of negotiators trying to distill all conflicting groups’ interests. However, due to the speedy reaction associated with social media, the country’s mediators could not prevent the spread of misinformation and thus amplified conflicts within the country’s borders.
Additionally, businesses and organizations can now influence global politics, in addition to singular individuals. Diplomats and negotiators now use the internet for crowdsourcing information, achieving efficient communication, and proffering back channeling, a vestige of traditional diplomacy (Ashbrook & Zalba, 2021). Representation and reflection of people’s ideas are more diverse on social media and introduce a host of topics for the negotiator to deal with. Facets such as Artificial Intelligence, cybersecurity, and governance are digitally-driven topics that have a significant social impact (Polk, 2022). Diplomats can monitor the ripeness of a crisis by conducting research on the internet and generating immediate feedback to their queries. This digital platform has created a new landscape for negotiation and public diplomacy.
There are deals negotiated at the table and those away from the deal-making table. The latter is heavily influenced by stakeholders who are invisible and hidden from the public eye. Systemic research by Alisher Faizullev (2014) shows that state actors or agents and the business organizations operating within a country have their interests imposed on diplomatic negotiations. These interactions, however, have complex language norms and behavioral norms that internal actors infringe upon by not observing the correct protocol. Controlling negotiations at the state agency level helps improve international negotiations by ensuring the present parties address the relevant conflicts.
A growing body of research stresses that the proliferation of social media, especially in modern-day politics, exacerbates minority hostilities, especially when introduced to digitally young nations (Ashbrook & Zalba, 2021). Due to their global inclusivity, the distillation of cross-cultural views is virtually untenable on social media platforms. Therefore, an efficient negotiator needs to be aware of the erratic nature of technology platforms which influence the way people interact online. Additionally, negotiators should consider societies that cannot communicate verbally but only through signals to avoid miscommunication (Polk, 2022). Aptly addressing the surrounding circumstances minimizes the damage from dispute resolution theories.
The Adverse Effects of Negotiation Ripening
Despite the successes of ripeness theory, there are moments when over waiting can lead to catastrophic results. Matesan argues that the absence of ripeness in Egypt, specifically in the al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya case, led to the breakdown of negotiations (2019). The group essentially placed itself between the society and the government and attempted to shape civility patterns within the country. Its interest in controlling the power shift in the public domain placed it at a crucial impasse with the state. Despite their interpretation of the Hisba, the public law that defines Islamic states, their vision of society-state relations proves to be unrealistic (Matesan, 2019). As a result, their ideas reflect a naïve group whose idealized conceptions of their government are not in line with their goals.
Nonetheless, when negotiating time was ripe, talks between the two conflicting parties broke down due to societal divisions and negative public feedback. Upon a visit to Egypt in 2019, President Trump threatened to dub the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. He established a preface of exclusion and political repression within the nation’s political system (Matesan, 2019). Additionally, in his role as a mediator, he failed to acknowledge the political interests plaguing the country at the time. In contrast to many political groups, the Islamic State is not interested in political power but rather the provision of open space to discuss religious matters. Designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization gave it political implications, which the group was never expressly interested in.
Repression and exclusion can lead to a dark side to the ripening process since it motivates conflicting groups to resort to violence or similar rhetoric. This move contrasts with openly discussing their grievances and identifying areas of compromise between the players (Beckerman, 2022). Matesan argues that exclusion from the electoral process in the case of Islamist groups in Egypt is directly related to the deterioration of societal functions (2019). Contrasting the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya reveals the role of ripening in avoiding the escalation of conflicts. The Muslim Brotherhood underwent the same radical exclusion treatment as the Islamic State; however, they continued to play a controlling role in societal functions (Matesan, 2019). As a result, their ability to emphasize and compromise with the Egyptian government came with ease. Moreover, being a high context society, Egyptians are fueled with rhetoric to commit violent actions under the guise of political or religious affiliations. Realizing these differences increases the chances of a negotiator identifying the ripe moment to instill strategies to resolve conflicts.
Repression impacts different groups in many ways, one of which can be the cessation and reconsideration of hostilities. In the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, ripeness assisted some of its members in re-evaluating their ideological stance on violence and further rejecting it altogether. Researchers attribute the Islamic rebellion directly to repression, proving the differing effects of ripeness or repression. Nonetheless, if community members are included in the political process, Matesan asserts that it can lead away from radicalization and instead reinforce unity and conciliatory efforts (2019). Ultimately, involving Islamic State groups in the political and civil processes that determine governance reduces their affinity for violence and emphasizes their role in public discourse.
Recommendations
An alternative to a Mutually Hurting Stalemate or a Way Out is the Mutually Enticing Opportunities approach. In this case, concerned parties are neither desensitized to their confrontations nor emboldened to institute negotiation efforts (Ia, 2012). The group is focused on generating a viable alternative for both parties and can withstand the test of time in the peacemaking process. Making a mutually enticing goal stipulates that it needs to be interdependent, showcase cooperation, shared driving interests, and exclusivity (Zartman, 2019). Durability ensures that the resurgence of violence is met with a carefully crafted initiative that de-escalates future conflicts instead of preventing reconciliation attempts. To achieve durability, both parties need to analyze the incentives put forth by international mediators and ensure that they are implemented in a wholesome manner.
It is essential that the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, abbreviated as BATNA, is achieved early in the negotiation process. Ripeness in business transactions can reveal strategic and operational weaknesses, especially when instituting a merger between two companies. However, creating an alternative when an unreachable agreement saves both parties from a total loss (Shonk, 2022). Avoiding negotiation failures such as walking away from an amicable deal, making a regrettable deal, or negotiating one that is too weak to last only leads to collapsed deals.
In the first case, abandoning a good deal emphasizes the disadvantages of over-ripening a conflict to an unacceptable point. Referring back to President Trump, his interactions with the Fox TV network in 2016 on his presidential campaign trail cost him the Iowa caucus (Shonk, 2022). The President insisted on a different moderator for his debate in Des Moines, an event which he threatened to boycott if a substitute was unavailable for the current reporter, Megyn Kelly. However, Fox News, which was hosting the debate, refused to acquiesce to his demands and utilized Kelly in the Republican debate, which the President did not show. As a moderator, it is critical to identify when the best deal has been achieved at the table and be satisfied with its outcomes.
An additional pitfall in ripening negotiations is creating a regrettable deal. In this case, businesses and mediators may quickly accept a deal that is not the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. This remorse from either party asserts that there are items of value left on the table and may result in further bloodshed if not addressed at the opportune time. A prime example of this concept is the attempted merger and acquisition purchase of the Alere, a provider of diagnostic-device, by Abbott Laboratories in 2016 (Shonk, 2022). This deal would have established Abbott as a dependable provider of quick medical tests.
Upon realizing Alere was involved in bribery charges, Abbot offered to pay the company $50 million to unmake their deal, as stipulated in the contract. Additionally, the company sought to purchase another device provider at approximately five times the price offered to Alere (Shonk, 2022). This offer prompted Alere to sue Abbott Laboratories, who accused the former of not truthfully sharing information about their finances in their legal defense. Whereas before, Abbot was spending $5.5 billion to acquire Alere, it now offered $25 billion to St. Jude Medical, causing regret and subsequent court action by Alere (Shonk, 2022). A good negotiator weighs the risk factors and balances them on the ripeness of the negotiation strategy to achieve a suitable outcome, whether in business or political circles.
Creating a strong deal to endure further negotiations or tests is a defining trait of deals made in the business world. Implementation is just as important as negotiation strategies, as the agreement between Senator Cruz and Governor John Kasich proved in the 2016 presidential race (Shonk, 2022). Temporary though it may have been, the deal was intended to prevent Trump from getting the requisite votes to win the party nomination. The senator promised to secure the votes in Indiana while the governor took hold of New Mexico in conjunction with their stakeholders and campaign donors. However, Kasich’s interests were revealed when he failed to campaign for his political counterpart and attempted to poach his Indiana support base. Similarly, Senator Cruz did not inspire his voters to back the governor, leading to a collapse of their agreement (Shonk, 2022). A lack of trust and rapport between the two candidates, especially before the election, marred their relationship and made the deal too weak to last.
Conclusion
In conclusion, ripeness is conducive to the negotiation process and outlines a critical moment when both parties are ready to come to agree and communicate. For mediation, conflict requires all the groups involved to have interdependent goals and a willingness to compromise. These concessions communicate an assertive yet accommodating attitude which generates respect and furthers mediation efforts. Nonetheless, the mediator plays a crucial role in determining the strategies employed to address the conflict. Furthermore, high context societies differ from low context societies in their priorities and the directness of their communication methods. However, dispute resolution on the international stage is complicated by cross-cultural differences and influence from internal stakeholders. A good negotiator should be aptly prepared to face these challenges while realizing and appreciating the cultural differences.
References
Åkebo, M. (2019). “Coexistence ceasefire” in Mindanao. Peace & Change, 44(4), 468-496. Web.
Ashbrook, C. C., & Zalba, A. R. (2021). Social media influence on diplomatic negotiation: Shifting the shape of the table. Negotiation Journal, 37(1), 83-96. Web.
Bailer, S. (2012). Strategy in the climate change negotiations: Do democracies negotiate differently? Climate Policy, 12(5), 534-551.
Beckerman, C. (2022). Political fragility and the timing of conflict mediation. Social Sciences, 11(2), 1-19. Web.
Holmes, O. (1999). Reading order in discord: Guicciardini’s Ricordi. Italica, 76(3), 314-334.
Ia, F. A. (2012). ‘Mutual hurting stalemates’, ‘ripe moments’ and third-party intervention: Implications for the ‘Southern Cameroons’ restoration of statehood. The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, 101(1), 53-69.
Cohen, R. (1997). Negotiating across cultures: International communication in an interdependent world. United States Institute of Peace.
Crocker, C. A., Hampson, F. O., & Aall, P. R. (2003). Ready for prime time: The when, who, and why of international mediation. Negotiation Journal, 19(2), 151–167. Web.
Faizullaev, A. (2014). Diplomatic interactions and negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 30(3), 239-237.
Lilja, J. (2011). Ripening within? Strategies used by rebel negotiators to end ethnic war. Negotiation Journal, 27(3), 311–342. Web.
Matesan, I. E. (2019). Grievances and fears in Islamist movements: Revisiting the link between exclusion, insecurity, and political violence. Journal of Global Security Studies, 5(1), 44-62. Web.
Polk, A. (2022). Ripeness theory in the digital age: When to log off from cyber conflict. International Negotiation, 1(1), 1–29. Web.
Russell, R. (2000). American diplomatic realism: A tradition practised and preached by George F. Kennan. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 11(3), 159-182.
Shonk, K. (2022). Why negotiations fail; Common pitfalls to avoid in business negotiations. Harvard Law School. Web.
Sicherman, H. (2007). Benjamin Franklin: American diplomacy traditions. American Diplomacy. Web.
Sticher, V. (2021). Healing stalemates: The role of ceasefires in ripening conflict. Ethno Politics, 21(2), 149-162. Web.
Zartman, I. W. (2019). Mutually enticing opportunities and durable settlements. Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice, 23, 173-194. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.