Identity, bargaining, and third-party mediation

Abstract

This paper elucidates a theory of identity formation and applies it to the study of international negotiation. The theory acknowledges that actors/agents can adopt a multiplicity of identities, and it treats changes in the salience of identities as endogenous to the contextually dependent processes of interpersonal and intergroup interactions. Typically, strong identities are viewed as encouraging conflict and exacerbating interstate disputes. Our theory, however, suggests a palliative role for identity: third-party mediation can more effectively resolve conflicts when it enhances shared, if initially less salient, aspects of the disputants’ identities. We discuss several causal pathways through which the process of enhancing identity salience can increase the likelihood of successful conflict resolution, providing a complementary mechanism for the effectiveness of mediation to those extant in the literature. The paper concludes with a practical method for applying the theory's insights to the choice of mediator and the mediator's technique.

International norm polarization: sexuality as a subject of human rights protection

“…However, if group-psychological factors do contribute to polarization, this suggests that resolution of disputes might be assisted by strategies that lower the salience of identity conflict, possibly through emphasis of alternative aspects of identity (Block and Siegel 2011). Sensitivity to identity issues is already part of the tool-kit of state diplomacy, as is evidenced by the importance backers of Resolution 17/19 placed in having South Africa present the final text.…”

Barriers to Coordination? Examining the Impact of Culture on International Mediation Occurrence and Effectiveness

“…First, and similar to the argumentation above, culture forms norms, expectations and values that, if shared with a potential mediator, form a connection between the belligerents and the third party (Bercovitch and Foulkes, 2012; Block and Siegel, 2011; Burton, 1969; Carnevale and Choi, 2000; Hofstede, 1980; Kandogan, 2012; Lohmann, 2011; Sunoo, 1990). This connection leads to a common identity between the mediator and the antagonists: links between a (potential) mediator and the belligerents generally make the transmission of information about interests and intentions more credible (Dorussen and Ward, 2008).…”

“…This connection leads to a common identity between the mediator and the antagonists: links between a (potential) mediator and the belligerents generally make the transmission of information about interests and intentions more credible (Dorussen and Ward, 2008). In turn, the belligerents perceive the third party as ‘one of them’, and may eventually increase the probability of mediation occurrence and effectiveness due to common norms, similar ideas and preferences (Bercovitch and Foulkes, 2012; Block and Siegel, 2011; Carnevale and Choi, 2000). In the view of Carnevale and Choi (2000, p. 106) and Londoño Lázaro (2003, p. 334), ‘cultural ties to a mediator may be a positive factor in international mediation’ as mediators can then bridge intercultural coordination and communication gaps between disputants (see also Bercovitch and Foulkes, 2012; Block and Siegel, 2011; Cohen, 1996).…”

Plotting stories after war: Toward a methodology for negotiating identity

“…It should be specified that the limits identified earlier apply to the suggestion that we should apply negotiation theory to processes of identity formation. There is still, in fact, little research on identity as an object of negotiation (Block and Siegel, 2011; Druckman, 2001), despite a robust body of scholarship that examines the effects of identity on conflict (Gartzke and Skrede Gleditsch, 2006; Horowitz, 1995; Huntington, 1993; Mälksoo, 2015) and mediation (Bercovitch and Elgström, 2001; Zartman, 1993). This article is an attempt to fill this gap and draw a connection between the scholarship on national identity and that of international negotiation.…”