The Many Faces of Justice in International Negotiations

Albin, Cecilia

doi:10.1163/15718069-12341296

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whether a predominantly problem-solving or competitive approach is used depends on, among other factors, the relationship and level of trust between parties (the former requires revelation of true interests and priorities to work) and their negotiation skills, although the involvement of a third party can help to compensate for deficiencies. The balance of power is also a factor (Albin 2015). The absence of sharp power inequalities enhances the motivation and need of parties to consider and act upon each others' justice concerns, while their presence easily undermines the chance for the weaker party's concern to be heard.…”

Section: Ways Of Managing or Resolving Conflicting Justice Notions In...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating Justice: From Conflict to Agreement

Albin¹

2022

INER

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue of International Negotiation explores how justice is, and may best be, negotiated when parties adhere to conflicting notions of what it means and requires. “Conflicting notions” refer to the endorsement of different principles or to conflicting interpretations of how the same justice principle is to be applied. It may also involve some party’s adhering to a justice principle, while its counterpart endorses criteria other than justice as the proper basis for the case at hand. A diversity of cases and methodological traditions is used to explore a set of analytical questions: Why do parties adhere to conflicting notions of justice in international negotiations? How do conflicting justice notions affect negotiation dynamics and what are different ways in which they can be handled? Are some ways of handling such notions better than others, in the sense of enhancing the chances of a durable agreement?

show abstract

Section: Ways Of Managing or Resolving Conflicting Justice Notions In...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating Justice: From Conflict to Agreement

Albin¹

2022

INER

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Undue pressure or strategies that result in outcomes perceived to be too heavily-weighted in favor of humanitarian interests are unlikely to be upheld over time by armed groups in control of territory. The concept of justice in a negotiation can be understood as procedural or distributive justice (Young 1991;Albin 2015) -that is, in terms of the prosess or end-state. The literature suggests armed groups tend to view fairness in the latter sense; in terms of the outcome and its impact on their own interests.…”

Section: Competing Notions Of Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overcoming Power Asymmetry in Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups

Clements

2018

Int. Negot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humanitarian actors seeking to offer assistance and protection to civilians in many contemporary conflicts negotiate access with armed groups from a position of weakness. They consequently concede many of their demands, compromising humanitarian operations and principles, and leaving millions of vulnerable civilians beyond reach. Using a structural analysis of the negotiation process in many recent humanitarian crises this article demonstrates the basis of this marked power asymmetry and challenges the assumption in much of the literature that this power imbalance is immutable. Humanitarian negotiators have access to a range of tactics that can alter the structure of the negotiation to reach more favorable outcomes. This article argues that these strategies have proved effective in many recent negotiations, but also carry significant risks to humanitarian actors and to the civilians they seek to assist.

show abstract

“…Albin (2003, p. 379) gives the example of the failure of the 1999 Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organisation, which is partly ascribed to perceived unfairness during the talks. Further examples illustrating the role of fairness in international negotiations are provided by Albin (2001).…”

Section: Influence Of Fairness Effects Of Adaptation Support On Intermentioning

confidence: 99%

International Climate Finance and Its Influence on Fairness and Policy

Pittel

Rübbelke

2013

World Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Besides costs and benefits, fairness aspects tend to influence negotiating parties’ willingness to join an international agreement on climate change mitigation. Fairness is largely considered to improve the prospects of success of international negotiations and hence measures raising fairness perception might – in turn – help to bring about effective cooperative international climate change mitigation. We consider the influences present international support of climate policy in developing countries exerts on fairness perception and how this again might affect international negotiations. In doing so we distinguish between fairness perception that is based on historical experiences and perception that is based on conjectures about opponents’ intentions. By identifying beneficial components of current support schemes lessons can be learnt for designing new schemes like the Green Climate Fund.

show abstract

The Many Faces of Justice in International Negotiations

Cited by 5 publications

References 34 publications

Negotiating Justice: From Conflict to Agreement

Negotiating Justice: From Conflict to Agreement

Overcoming Power Asymmetry in Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups

International Climate Finance and Its Influence on Fairness and Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About