Current political research on peace negotiations is fundamentally incomplete because it lacks the capacity to explain individual intents, choices and actions. This dissertation asks what impact individual negotiators, their approaches and choices of tactics have on peace talks and their outcomes. Individual people—be they representatives of rebel groups, non-governmental organisations or states—negotiate peace agreements. Consequently, an examination of individual motivations and actions in negotiations yields important knowledge. A fuller understanding of political negotiations, negotiators, and their tactics in Sierra Leone and Liberia is facilitated through a multidisciplinary consideration of the psychology, law and management studies literatures that consider individual motivations, biases, and behaviours.
Based on extensive field research in Sierra Leone and Liberia, including numerous interviews with key players, I argue that individuals and their specific approaches and tactics influenced and altered the course of these peace negotiations, as well as their outcomes. Negotiators engaged in peace talks with underlying approaches (such as competitive, collaborative and cooperative styles) and then came to use various tactics (including shifting goalposts, hardball, silence, and bad faith), many of which were influenced by their innate biases and frames. Exploring these individuals’ conduct gives us previously unexplored insight into peace processes.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:uottawa.ca/oai:ruor.uottawa.ca:10393/34185 |
| Date | January 2016 |
| Creators | Raddatz, Rosalind |
| Contributors | Brown, Stephen |
| Publisher | Université d'Ottawa / University of Ottawa |
| Source Sets | Université d’Ottawa |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds