Thesis (M.A.)--Carleton University, 1991. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [217-[226]).

Thesis (M.S. in Computer Science)--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2010. / Thesis Advisor(s): Martell, Craig. Second Reader: Anand, Pranav. "March 2010." Description based on title screen as viewed on April 26, 2010. Author(s) subject terms: Persuasion, Persuasion Detection, Hostage Negotiations, Cialdini, Cohen, Cohen's Kappa. Includes bibliographical references (p. 73-75). Also available in print.

This thesis explores the theoretical basis of precontractual liability for the unilateral breaking-off of negotiations, by undertaking a comparative study between three selected jurisdictions (Germany, France and Chile). It defines a 'paradigm case' and focuses on it in order to find the theoretical basis of this liability. Traditionally, precontractual liability for breaking off negotiations has been founded upon or at least linked with the notion of good faith. This thesis, however, argues that in the selected jurisdictions the true basis of this liability is the notion of 'reliance' and distinguishes two dimensions of reliance (referring to them as 'trust-based' and 'expectation-based'). It analyses the relationship between these dimensions arguing that in the selected jurisdictions the trust-dimension merges with the general principle of good faith and that the expectation-dimension emanates from the trust-dimension. This thesis argues that this innovative approach to the theoretical analysis of the foundation of this liability could have important practical consequences in jurisdictions which do not embrace a general principle of good faith. It focuses on English law, as a contrasting jurisdiction to the selected jurisdictions, in that it rejects a general principle of good faith and, especially, the notion of a duty to negotiate in good faith, which is generally considered to lead necessarily to the rejection of a general principle of precontractual liability. This thesis demonstrates that while English law can provide protection for certain cases of precontractual liability, it currently does not protect the paradigm case. It argues that if the analysis is shifted from good faith to the notion of reliance, English law could develop one or more of its particular solutions in order to protect the paradigm case, if it desired to do so, and explores how such a development could be implemented without establishing a general principle of precontractual liability.

The probability of militant group splintering is a relatively rare phenomenon that exponentially increases with the introduction of a peace process and associated negotiations (Duursma and Fliervoet, 2021). Militant groups that do splinter hold the potential for increased violence that can spoil negotiations, prolong conflict, incite more citizens to join militant causes, and erode the credibility of the state (Stedman, 1997; Duursma and Fliervoet, 2021; Rudloff and Findley, 2016; Cronin, 2011). Negotiations inherently require some type of concession from one or more parties involved, and for militant groups, they often require modifying components of or entire ideological objectives. This research explores intergroup dynamics surrounding militant ideological modifications made during negotiations that lead to splintering. The author examines ideological modification across three militant groups identified through an empirical case selection process: Al-Fatah, the FARC, and the PKK. Diagnostic evidence resulting from congruence procedures coupled with theory-building process tracing allowed for the inference of 'militant perceived ideological betrayal' acting as a sufficient causal mechanism that connects negotiations to militant splintering. This dissertation examined intergroup dynamics surrounding ideological modifications, when militants perceive modifications as concessions, and the relative importance of group enforcement measures meant to maintain militant cohesion. Findings provide important evidence related to the relational nature of militant ideology, and raise credible questions surrounding ideological devotion by hardliners depending upon the framing of changes and their legitimacy, and if said changes occur in the face of an adversary or on the militant group's own accord. / Doctor of Philosophy / Militant splintering is a relatively rare phenomenon that increases with the introduction of a peace process and associated negotiations (Duursma and Fliervoet, 2021). Militant groups that do splinter hold the potential for increased violence that can spoil negotiations, prolong conflict, incite more citizens to join militant causes, and erode the credibility of the state (Stedman, 1997; Duursma and Fliervoet, 2021; Rudloff and Findley, 2016; Cronin, 2011). Negotiations include various concessions from one or more parties involved, and for militant groups they often require modifying components of or entire key ideological objectives. This research explores intergroup dynamics surrounding militant ideological modification during negotiations that lead to splintering. The author examines changes in militant ideology across three groups identified through an empirical case selection process: Al-Fatah, the FARC, and the PKK. Diagnostic evidence resulting from qualitative case and within-case comparison allowed for the inference of a causal mechanism 'militant perceived ideological betrayal' connecting negotiations to militant splintering. This research project examined the intergroup dynamics surrounding when militants change ideological objectives or orientation, when militants perceive these changes as concessions, and the relative importance of group enforcement measures meant to maintain group cohesion. Findings provide important evidence related to the relational nature of militant ideology, and raise credible questions surrounding ideological devotion by hardliners depending upon the framing of changes and their associated legitimacy, and whether said changes occur in the face of an adversary or on the militant group's own accord.

The United States has been at war with North Korea since 1950, although hostilities have been on hold on the peninsula since July 27, 1953. Despite the cessation of active hostilities, the tensions on the Korean Peninsula increased in recent years when North Korea developed nuclear weapons. Increasing tensions due to nuclear weapons and the frozen state of conflict necessitate a re-evaluation of United States foreign policy on the peninsula to achieve a détente. To date, relations on the Korean peninsula are best described as zero sum. Central to the challenge of achieving détente on the peninsula is the ability to shift actors away from zero-sum behavior to that of positive-sum relationship to achieve gains that foster iterative interactions. As these iterative interactions occur, states extend their view of threats outward and build new reference points for mutual engagement. They become, in the words of Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane, interdependent. How can the United States shift its relationship with North Korea from one defined by relative gains to one defined by absolute gains? Has the United States or another country effectively transitioned an adversary from a zero- to a positive-sum relationship and what lessons are applicable to relations on the Korean peninsula? / Master of Arts / This analysis builds a theoretical framework for understanding neoliberal institutionalism. Building on past negotiations, the interpretation of these findings aim to assist military and global security scholars and policymakers with findings and recommendations to help find a way forward for the United States to contain the nuclear power of North Korea. We find that, consistent with the theory, leaders on both sides (i.e., Democratic and Communist) have used political, domestic, economic, justice, and security to support their specific theoretical mechanisms. These are all foundational principles for a theoretical approach. This analysis uses a multiple-case study approach and cross-case analysis to understand how the outcomes were reached. We evaluate our theory through Korean history and the careful analysis of two United States and Korean agreements: the 1994 Agreed Framework and multilateral six-party talks/2005 agreement. By determining the outcomes of these two negotiations, we can understand the motivating factors on both sides. Through these case studies analysis of these negotiations, we can help the United States deescalate/rid the current nuclear crisis with one or several hypothetical outcomes.

No description available.

Knowledge of successful Business English as a lingua franca (BELF) has been recognized to be an essential element in overall business know-how (Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010). In line with this notion, research has found that professionals use BELF and exploit a variety of discourse and pragmatic strategies that aid the process of cooperation and agreement so that mutual understanding can be reached (Firth, 1996; Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010; Pitzl, 2005). However, research has reported situations where business negotiators need to handle discord while maintaining a working rapport with the opposing party (e.g. Bjørge, 2012), indicating that the ability to produce the appropriate expression of disagreement is an imperative skill. Nonetheless, while there is now a better understanding of how business professionals establish common ground through using BELF, little work has been carried out on the subject on how professionals express disagreement in the same aspect (but see e.g. Bjørge, 2012; Stalpers, 1995). The present study aims to address this gap and expand the current knowledge on how business professionals express and handle disagreement in naturally-occurring face-to-face negotiations. The collected material consists of approximately 4 hours of BELF discourse recorded at a business convention in Germany. Fifteen disagreement episodes were identified, transcribed and analyzed using Conversation Analytic (CA) procedures. The present paper seeks to explore two aspects of the current topic, namely how business professionals (using BELF) express disagreement during business negotiations, and whether mitigation strategies are used when disagreement is expressed. The findings suggest that disagreements are solely content-related and are expressed in a variety of ways as they are coupled with a varied use of mitigation devices (i.e. delay and added support). Furthermore, there were instances of unmitigated expressions in the form of blunt contradictions. It is suggested that disagreements in BELF negotiations are required actions and may serve a dual purpose. The main goal of expressing disagreement is to increase clarity in cases where essential information may be misinterpreted or misguided; additionally, it indicates the speaker’s stance in the argument. Lastly, as there is a need for better knowledge of successful BELF, the present study is likely to be of interest for those who are engaged in the global business discourse community as well as researchers studying international business settings.

PhD, Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, 2006

Hostage and crisis negotiators are police officers who have been trained to respond to and resolve hostage and crisis incidents. They are often required to respond to highly-pressurised and emotive incidents that may last for protracted periods of time and are likely to encounter situations whereby their actions could play a role in whether individuals live or die. The first aim of the current thesis was to identify whether negotiators in the United Kingdom (UK) possess certain traits or characteristics that serve to enable them to perform their role effectively and differentiate them from the wider police population. The first phase of the research involved a quantitative cross-sectional comparison of a sample of hostage and crisis negotiators (n = 117) with a sample of non-negotiator police officers (n = 118) from 21 UK forces and a sample of students (n = 203) utilising a psychometric test battery measuring five constructs previously identified within the literature as playing a role in success within occupational settings: Personality, Coping Style, Cognitive Emotion Regulation, Decision-Making Style and Emotional Intelligence. The findings refuted the existence of a “unique hostage and crisis negotiator profile” but confirmed the existence of a unique “police officer profile” by demonstrating significant differences between both police samples and the student sample in relation to all constructs measured. These findings are discussed with reference to the implications for the selection, training and CPD of UK negotiators. Hostage and crisis negotiation is one of many options available to police incident commanders and is well-established as an effective means of resolving hostage and crisis incidents. Whilst there is a plethora of published literature relating to the entity of hostage and crisis negotiation, the majority of this literature has been developed within the United States of America (USA), on the basis of USA negotiator deployments and experiences. The second aim, therefore, was to provide an insight into the discipline of negotiation in the UK by conducting a constructivist grounded theory analysis of the experiences of negotiators as derived from semi-structured interviews with 15 negotiators from nine UK police forces. The findings allowed for the development of five grounded theoretical micro-models: a) The Nature and Characteristics of UK Hostage and Crisis Negotiation, b) The UK Hostage and Crisis Negotiator Journey, c) The UK-Centric D.I.A.M.O.N.D. Procedural Model of Hostage and Crisis Negotiation, d) The UK Hostage and Crisis Negotiator Experience, and e) The Self-Perceived Successful UK Hostage and Crisis Negotiator Profile. These micro-models are discussed with reference to their implications for hostage and crisis negotiation policy and practice in a UK-centric context.

No description available.