uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Refine search result
1234567 1 - 50 of 1766
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the 'Create feeds' function.
  • 1.
    Aggestam, Karin
    et al.
    Lund University.
    Höglund, KristineUppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Om krig och fred: En introduktion till freds- och konfliktstudier2012Collection (editor) (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Hur kan vi förstå uppkomsten och konsekvenserna av dagens konflikter? Vad kan göras för att förhindra att de bryter ut? Och hur kan pågående konflikter lösas på ett sätt som skapar varaktig fred? I denna breda grundbok presenteras centrala frågeställningar och analytiska perspektiv på krig och konflikt, konflikthantering och konfliktlösning, samt fredsbyggande och utveckling. Boken innehåller också illustrativa fallanalyser – allt ifrån första världskriget, kriget i Afghanistan, konflikthantering i Afrika, svensk säkerhetspolitik och försoningsprocesser i Bosnien-Hercegovina till fredsbyggande insatser i Palestina.

  • 2. Aggestam, Karin
    et al.
    Höglund, Kristine
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Om krig och fred: En introduktion till freds- och konfliktstudier2017 (ed. 2)Book (Other academic)
  • 3.
    Aggestam, Karin
    et al.
    Lund University.
    Höglund, Kristine
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Om studiet av krig och fred2012In: Om krig och fred: En introduktion till freds- och konfliktstudier / [ed] Karin Aggestam & Kristine Höglund, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2012, 23-32 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 4. Aggestam, Karin
    et al.
    Höglund, Kristine
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Om studiet av krig och fred2017In: Om krig och fred: En introduktion till freds- och konfliktstudier / [ed] Karin Aggestam och Kristine Höglund, Lund: Studentlitteratur AB, 2017, 2, 25-34 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 5.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Acid rain and fairness1993Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 6.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Are just negotiators needed? On justice as an asset and a constraint in negotiations (keynote)2010Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 7.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research. freds- och konfliktforskning.
    Beliefs, War, and Conflict: The role of justice2000Conference paper (Other scientific)
  • 8.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Beyond the Peace vs. Justice Debate2006In: Paper for Second National Conference on Peace Research, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden, 7-8 September 2006., 2006Conference paper (Other scientific)
  • 9.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Can NGOs enhance the effectiveness of international negotiation?1999In: International Negotiation: A Journal of Theory and Practice, ISSN 1382-340X, Vol. 4, no 3, 371-387 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 10.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Combining justice with efficiency: The multilateral trade regime and the Warwick Commission Report2008Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 11.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Cooperative Security: Reducing Third World Wars (book review)1996Other (Other scientific)
  • 12.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research. freds- och konfliktforskning.
    Do we need conflict transformation theory?2004In: Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Political Psychology, held in Lund, Sweden, July 2004, 2004Conference paper (Other scientific)
  • 13.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Editor's Introduction: Negotiation and Global Security1995In: American Behavioral Scientist: Special issue on "Negotiation and Global Security", Vol. 38, no 6, 813-816 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 14.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil Wars (book review)1996Other (Other scientific)
  • 15.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Explaining conflict transformation: How Jerusalem became negotiable2007In: Négociation et transformations du monde (Negotiation and World Transformations), Publibooks, Paris (France) , 2007Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    How can intractable conflicts become negotiable after decades of bloodshed and disagreement? The question is addressed using two lenses—one conceptual, the so-called conflict transformation approach set out in the research literature, and one empirical, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict over Jerusalem.

    The article discusses turning points in the transformation of Jerusalem from an intractable dispute to an intensively negotiated issue with the contours of a possible agreement emerging. It examines how far the conflict transformation approach helps to explain this critical development, as well as how Jerusalem points to areas in need of further development. The conflict over Jerusalem hasbecome tractable through profound structural and relational change. However, this change is not necessarily permanent. A useful approach to conflict transformation needs to illuminate underlying causes better, and be able to explain relapses into intractability.

  • 16.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Explaining conflict transformation:  How Jerusalem became negotiable2015In: The Contemporary Conflict Resolution Reader / [ed] T. Woodhouse, H. Miall, O. Ramsbotham, C. Mitchell, Cambridge: Polity Press , 2015, 276-286 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 17.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Explaining Conflict Transformation: How Jerusalem Became Negotiable2005In: Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 18, no 3, 339-355 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    How can intractable conflicts become negotiable after decades of bloodshed and disagreement? The question is addressed using two lenses - one conceptual, the so-called conflict transformation approach set out in the research literature, and one empirical, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over Jerusalem. The article discusses turning points in the transformation of Jerusalem, from an intractable dispute to an intensively negotiated issue with the contours of a possible agreement emerging. It examines how far the conflict transformation approach helps to explain this critical development, as well as how Jerusalem points to areas in need of further development. The conflict over Jerusalem has become tractable through profound structural and relational change. However, this change is not necessarily permanent. A useful approach to conflict transformation needs to illuminate underlying causes better, and be able to explain relapses into intractability.

  • 18.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Explaining conflict transformation: When the intractable becomes negotiable2005In: Konferensbidrag till panelen Negotiation and World Transformations, Second International Conference (Biennale) on Negotiation, Negocia, Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Paris, 17-18 november 2005., 2005Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 19.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Explaining failed negotiations: Strategic interaction2012In: Unfinished Business: Why international negotiations fail / [ed] Guy Olivier Faure and Franz Cede, Atlanta, Georgia: University of Georgia Press , 2012Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 20.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Freds- och konflikt.
    Fairness Issues in Negotiation: Structure, Process, Procedures and Outcome1992Other (Other (popular scientific, debate etc.))
  • 21.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Getting to Fairness: Negotiations over Global Public Goods2003In: Providing Global Public Goods: Managing globalization, Oxford University Press, Oxford , 2003, 646 (bok)- p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 22.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research. freds- och konfliktforskning.
    Getting to Fairness: Negotiations over global public goods2002Other (Other scientific)
  • 23.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    How Does Justice Relate to Peace? From Conflict to Durable Agreement2006Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 24.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Improving the effectiveness of multilateral trade negotiations: A synopsis2012In: International Negotiation, ISSN 1382-340X, E-ISSN 1571-8069, Vol. 17, no 1, 1-8 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This special issue of International Negotiation explores from different perspectives how multilateral trade negotiations, primarily within the World Trade Organization (WTO), can become more effective. The challenges associated with this task have grown, as the parties and issues involved in such talks have increased in number and diversity. The specific topics addressed include the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and domestic-level factors, agenda management, legitimacy and procedural issues, turning points, the challenge posed by the pursuit of bilateral and regional alternatives, and the question of gains to be had from multilateralism. The conclusions drawn from these studies are wide-ranging and relevant for multilateral negotiations generally. They highlight, among other matters, the significance of decision-making procedures used in the negotiation process.

  • 25.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    International Negotiation: Improving the Effectiveness of Multilateral Trade Negotiations2012Collection (editor) (Refereed)
  • 26.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    International Relations and the J-Problem: Justice in Negotiations and Agreements2013Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 27.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Israel's Nuclear Dilemma (book review)1996Other (Other scientific)
  • 28.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Jerusalem: historical and political perspectives on peace1992Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 29.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Justice and fairness as a constraint on the exercise of non-military power (keynote)2010Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 30.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation2001Book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    REVIEW published in POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY 11:3 (Fall 2002)

    by David A. Welch

    George Ignatieff Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies

    University of Toronto

    Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation by Cecilia Albin. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 268 pp. Cloth $59.95, paper $21.95

    In this excellent addition to the Cambridge Studies in International Relations series, Cecilia Albin asks why and how notions of justice and fairness matter in international negotiations. Her goal is not to articulate or to test any particular theories of international justice, but instead to explore the contours of moral psychology. Hers is an empirical task, not a philosophical one.

    Albin asks a series of questions and runs them through four complex international negotiations in various issue areas. Her questions include, What motivates international negotiators to take justice or fairness into account? How do they understand those concepts in the particular circumstances of particular negotiations? How do they deal with competing conceptions of justice or fairness? How do negotiators’ concerns with justice or fairness interact with considerations of power, self-interest, or domestic politics? To what extent, and in what ways, is it important to satisfy negotiators’ concerns for justice or fairness if the agreements they reach are to be effective? Her cases include negotiations to combat acid rain, to manage international trade (specifically, in the Uruguay Round of the GATT), to lay the foundations for a durable Israeli-Palestinian peace in the Oslo Accords and after, and to extend the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Albin’s case studies are detailed, thorough, and richly informative, and they yield a number of fascinating insights. For example, Albin discovered that “Virtually all practitioners interviewed denied that [considerations of justice and fairness] had been the primary concerns prompting their entry into and conduct during negotiations” (p. 218), but that these considerations nevertheless had a powerful effect on their decision making at every stage, influencing both substance and process. Substantive notions of justice and fairness predictably varied widely from case to case, reflecting the circumstances of particular issues and problems, while procedural concerns for impartiality, reciprocity, and mutual advantage were evident in all cases. Albin convincingly shows that these concerns interact in interesting and complicated ways with concern for narrow material self-interest, and are not simply reducible thereto. Moreover, “ideas about justice and fairness can have almost any conceivable impact. They may serve as external referents guiding the bargaining dynamics, or become subject to negotiation themselves. They influence the positions and proposals brought to the table, the exchange and evaluation of concessions, and the formulation of agreements. They may trigger the onset of dialogue and facilitate its progress, or cause deadlocks and stalemates which bring the entire process to the brink of collapse. They may constrain the freedom of action of parties, or be used and abused tactically in the pursuit of individual advantage. They may prompt parties to sign or comply with an agreement, or provoke condemnations which threaten its very existence and effectiveness” (pp. 228-9).

    Albin’s study represents an important corrective to two unfortunate tendencies: the tendency for empirical political scientists to ignore the role and importance of moral considerations in political behavior, and the tendency for normative political theorists to ignore the nuances and complexities of real-world moral judgments when attempting to articulate abstract principles. On this latter head, while Albin does not assign herself the task of refereeing between competing theorists of international justice, she notes that her findings give more aid and comfort to Brian Barry than to anyone else. Negotiators are more likely to be motivated by concern for justice and fairness, and to abide by the terms of agreements they reach, if they feel that others take their concerns seriously, negotiate in good faith, and demonstrate a willingness to compromise for the sake of reaching an agreement, even if the end result does not quite satisfy some ex ante set of abstract principles or demands. In short, here—as in so many other places—the perfect is the enemy of the good. Small wonder philosophers have found international justice such a tough nut to crack.

  • 31.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Justice and fairness in the battle against acid rain2000In: International Justice, 2000, 34 (kapitlet), 302 (hela boken)- p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 32.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Justice, Fairness and Negotiation1999In: International Negotiation: Actors, Structure/Process, Values, St. Martin's Press, New York , 1999, 257-290 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 33.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Justice, Fairness and Negotiation: Theory and Reality1998In: International Comparative Studies of Negotiating Behavior, International Research Center for Japanese Studies, Kyoto , 1998Chapter in book (Other scientific)
  • 34.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research. freds- och konfliktforskning.
    Justice, fairness and negotiation:: theory and reality1996Conference paper (Other scientific)
  • 35.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Multilateral negotiation and security2001Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 36.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Negotiating effectively: Findings from arms control, trade and environmental negotiations2013In: PINPoints, Vol. 39, 7-10 p.Article, review/survey (Refereed)
  • 37.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Negotiating Effectively: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations1999Collection (editor) (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In this special journal issue, scholars and practitioners discuss when and how NGOs succeed in making positive contributions to international negotiations, in ways in which governments are not able or willing to do as well alone. Among the factors favoring substantial NGO involvement are appeal to the interests of participating governments, possession of needed expertise, effective lobbying, framing of issues as wider global or human concerns and public mobilization over these, and plentiful funding. Seven types of NGO activities relating to negotiation are identified: problem definition, agenda setting, and goal setting; enforcement of principles and norms; provision of information and expertise; public advocacy and mobilization; lobbying; direct participation in the formulation of international agreements; and monitoring and other assistance with compliance. Despite the increased presence and activism of NGOs on the international stage, however, their participation in negotiating fora remains largely unofficial, ad hoc, or subjected to the preferences of national governments. A principled and cautious expansion of the opportunities for NGOs to participate in international negotiations could enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of their outcomes.

  • 38.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Freds- och konfliktforskning.
    Negotiating Indivisible Goods: The Case of Jerusalem1991In: The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, ISSN 0363-2865, Vol. 13, no 1, 45-77 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 39.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Negotiating international cooperation2016In: Global Public Goods / [ed] Inge Kaul, Edward Elgar Publishing , 2016Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 40.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research. freds- och konfliktforskning.
    Negotiating international cooperation2001Conference paper (Other scientific)
  • 41.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Negotiating International Cooperation: Global Public Goods and Fairness2003In: Review of International Studies, ISSN 0260-2105, Vol. Vol. 29, no No. 3, 365-385 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 42.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Freds-och konfliktforskning.
    Negotiating Intractable Conflicts: On the Future of Jerusalem1997In: Cooperation and Conflict, ISSN 0010-8367, Vol. 32, no 1, pp. 29-78 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The dispute over the political status of Jerusalem has commonly been regarded as one of those "unresolvable" conflicts which illustrate the limits to international negotiation -- problems which cannot be negotiated successfully because the parties' positions are too rigid or extreme to offer a basis for compromise or reconciliation. But under the terms of the Oslo Accords concluded between Israel and the PLO in September l993, this most emotionally explosive and difficult core issue in the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for the first time specifically and formally scheduled to be tackled at the negotiating table beginning no later than May l996.

    Following a brief historical background this article analyses and applies to the case of Jerusalem a range of strategies for negotiating intractable, particularly indivisible, issues. The strategies include resource expansion, compensation, issue linkage, functional division, sharing, and delegation. By focusing on creative ways of allocating functions of ownership and usage of resources, they seek to identify and "integrate" parties' underlying core concerns rather than strike a compromise between their official positions in the conflict. A careful analysis of proposals made for Jerusalem, both official and informal, demonstrates that these strategies have already been used implicitly to a limited extent. Thus the taxonomy of strategies acts as a tool for analysing the main features of and logic behind the great range of complex plans put forward for resolving the Jerusalem problem to date. The taxonomy also provides a basis for identifying promising components of some of these proposals, on which approaches for tackling Jerusalem in future negotiations may successfully build. It is argued that intractable conflicts such as that over Jerusalem are best approached by using a combination of the strategies to tackle the typically core issue of sovereignty.

  • 43.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Freds- och konflikt.
    Negotiating the acid rain problem in Europe1993Other (Other scientific)
  • 44.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Negotiation and Global Security: New Approaches to Contemporary Issues1995Collection (editor) (Other scientific)
    Abstract [en]

    In this special edition of American Behavioral Scientist, scholars and practitioners reassess the role of negotiation and conflict resolution in the post-Cold War era. The collection brings together seven original essays which are based on the l994 Global Security Public Lecture Series, "Negotiation in Face of the Future: Emerging Issues and Potentials" held under the auspices of the Global Security Programme of the University of Cambridge. Those invited to participate in the lecture series were asked to take stock of, and offer insights into the development of, the theory and practice of negotiation in the post-Cold War context of new or newly observed threats to global security. The revised lectures printed here represent a major re-examination of the key issues which must be addressed and the new approaches which must be developed if negotiation is to contribute effectively to a more stable and just world order. While offering different individual (and disciplinary) perspectives on these central issues, the articles collectively also point the way forward to a new research agenda. This agenda focusses both on the contribution which the study of negotiation can make to the investigation of global security as a concept, and on the practical contributions which it can make to the resolution of the problems confronting us in the post-Cold War world.

    In the introductory article Gwyn Prins, Director of the Global Security Programme at the University of Cambridge, delineates the field of global security. Conventional analytic responses to the end of the Cold War have sought to identify new trends and types of threats to security. By contrast Prins presents a framework within which the common characteristics underlying global security problems may be considered. The instruments of power which dominated the era from the French Revolution of l789 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in l989 have been seriously weakened. As a result, Prins argues, negotiation will necessarily have to play a key role in attempts to achieve global security in the next millennium. At the same time, however, the special characteristics delineated by Prins give rise to a range of new and intractable problems for existing theory and practice of negotiation. This article thus provides the context for the detailed explorations that follow of the new priority issues with which analysts and negotiators must grapple in the post-Cold War era.

    Winfried Lang, Ambassador of Austria to the United Nations and International Organizations in Geneva, analyses important recent developments in global security negotiations and the role of domestic law and international law in such negotiations. Once concerned chiefly with the affairs of the state and governments, negotiation now covers virtually all sectors of society and the economy. The subject of culture and negotiation is much debated in the recent literature. Lang argues that the impact of national cultures is being increasingly reduced in favor of transnational "professional cultures" (for example, of lawyers, economists, and engineers) which facilitate the negotiation of cooperative solutions. He delineates developments which point to the likely emergence of a global negotiating culture based on professional cultures, problem-solving, and common values which bridge national cultures.

    Tom Farer, Professor and Director of the Joint Degree Program in Law and International Relations at the American University, examines one of the most striking structural changes which has occurred in global decision-making processes: the participation by new non-state actors. The traditional view, the product of a conventional security agenda, has been that only representatives of sovereign states have standing to be seated around the international negotiating table. Since the end of the Second World War, however, the normative basis of standing has been expanded to permit the inclusion of, among others, representatives of international and regional organizations, and non-governmental organizations in the areas of development, the environment, and human rights. Farer investigates how factors such as considerations of utility and perceptions of justice account for this growth of standing to participate in global security negotiations. He concludes that while pressures to include an ever-increasing number of new actors are likely to increase, the outcome will ultimately be determined by the linkage of standing to power (broadly defined). A continuous expansion of standing will certainly overwhelm the process of negotiation at some point and impede the formulation of effective solutions to global problems.

    James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge, discusses a closely related issue, namely the question of sovereignty and changing patterns in the negotiation and implementation of agreements between states. He stresses the importance of distinguishing between the state as a vehicle expressing the identity of a territorial community over time, and its government as a temporary agent in this process. While traditionally concerned with transmitting the will of governments over time, international law is now seeking ways to restrict their power and standing in the interest of the community of the state. Further exercise of "transnational" powers is likely to be intolerable without the institutionalization of some of the values associated with the rule of law. At the same time Crawford emphasizes that the state will remain the primary actor in global security negotiations for a foreseeable future. The growing presence of non-governmental organizations and the development of human rights standards, for example, have not led to the creation of alternative forms of official representation in negotiations.

    I. William Zartman, Jacob Blaustein Professor of Conflict Resolution and International Organization at the Johns Hopkins University, argues that justice plays an essential role in global security negotiations. No consensus exists on a single external criterion for judging the justice of negotiated outcomes. Zartman thus concludes that parties themselves determine the substance of a just agreement in the process of negotiating. They must first reach a common notion of justice before their discussions over the details of the conflict can succeed in producing a settlement. Numerous empirical case studies suggest that the standards by which parties decide what each "deserves" are based on the principles of equality, inequality (e.g., equity or proportionality, compensation), and priority. An enhanced understanding of the factors influencing the selection of the relevant principle(s) in the negotiation process, and other issues of justice, is a key to improving negotiations concerned with global security.

    H. Peyton Young, Professor of Economics at the Johns Hopkins University, explores the particular dilemmas which indivisible resources pose for negotiations, including in international and global affairs. The key to reaching just and fair agreements over indivisibles is to divide them notionally rather than physically, by creating property rights to their use. Young identifies numerous methods of division for defining ex ante property rights. He then discusses three major distributive principles (parity, proportionality, and priority) according to which such rights may be divided and normative criteria used to implement the relevant principle(s). The choice of method, principle, and criterion will depend on the particular context, notably the type of good to be allocated and the nature of the claims of the parties. Unlike Zartman, Young argues that agreements are just not only by virtue of having been negotiated but by being based on certain well-established distributive principles. His conclusion suggests that basing agreements on such principles, particularly in the case of indivisibles, is paramount to global security: Just agreements have proved to be durable and self-policing.

    The concluding article assesses the mismatch between conventional notions of negotiation and the types of approaches likely to help reduce global security threats. A serious way in which global security problems challenge traditional negotiation analysis concerns questions of justice and fairness, which underlie the major issues discussed in other contributions to this volume. Confronting these questions is imperative for both practical and ethical reasons. I argue that analyses of justice and fairness in terms of outcomes only are flawed both intellectually and practically. This is especially the case of global security problems which involve heterogeneous and asymmetrical parties, unpredictability, and a long time frame. The future research agenda must begin by examining the structure of negotiations, including the identity and representation of parties. The structure has hitherto been taken to be an objective reference on basis of which the nature of just and fair procedures, concessions, and solutions can be judged. The l992 Rio Summit and the UNCED process are among many cases which highlight the particular importance of developing external criteria to determine the standing of non-state actors and to guide reforms in existing negotiation forums and practices. This would be a significant way forward to enhance the effectiveness, justice, and perceived legitimacy of global security negotiations.

    The present collection, addressed to academics and practitioners alike, exemplifies the approach adopted by the Global Security Programme of the University of Cambridge. The Programme was established in l989 as a result of dissatisfaction with traditional approaches to international security issues. It serves as a center for interdisciplinary, future-oriented research, teaching, training, and policy development on a wide range of security issues including ecological and environmental security, the political philosophy and ethics of global security, population and migration issues, ethnic and sectarian conflict, and international institutions. This volume cuts across and integrates issues in all these areas. It thus aims to advance our understanding of a subject matter which many now believe will provide a key to future progress: the role of negotiation in achieving global security.

    CECILIA ALBIN

    Deputy Director

    Global Security Programme

    University of Cambridge

  • 45.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Negotiation Research in the UK2003In: Processes of International Negotiation (PIN) Points, no 20Article, review/survey (Other (popular scientific, debate etc.))
  • 46.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Negotiations over indivisible goods1991Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 47.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Peace versus Justice - and Beyond2007In: Conference presentation at International Conflict Resolution Workshop, organized by the Processes of International Negotiation Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria, 30 June-2 July 2007. To be published as C. Albin, “Peace versus Justice - and Beyond” in J. Bercovitch, V. Kremenyuk and I.W. Zartman, eds., The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution. London: Sage Publications, 2008., 2007Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    How justice relates to conflict resolution and peace has become intensively debated by both scholars and practitioners. Is there a conflict or tension between justice and peace and, if so, when? Which of the two values should be prioritized, if and when both cannot be pursued or achieved? Although commonly phrased the "peace vs. justice" question, it encompasses in fact a range of approaches some of which do not regard the two values as being in conflict. Thus "peace vs. justice" has become an umbrella term for a debate with many different answers: to seek peace with justice (no peace without justice), peace first and justice later (justice follows from peace), justice first and peace later (peace follows from justice), and so on.

    This paper (to be published in Sage's upcoming Handbook on Conflict

    Resolution) engages with the peace vs. justice debate, particularly as found in the research literature to date, and relates it to conflict resolution in particular. In so doing, the aim is to take the debate further in several ways. Its framing of the key problem as being one monolithic value standing against the other is often misleading and simplistic. In many situations, particularly in a longer-term perspective, the issue is not whether peace or justice is to be chosen or prioritized for both are clearly needed in some sense for conflict resolution and a durable settlement. The core questions are instead: What kind of justice and what kind of peace should be promoted (what steps should be taken)? How are the pursuits of these two values (the steps) best timed, sequenced and combined over time - that is, what kind of justice is to (can) be furthered in what stage of the process of conflict resolution and peace-building?

    The work on addressing these questions is started in this paper, with the development of some founding arguments. One is that the pursuit of justice does not categorically either undermine or promote peace. It can do, and does, both. We need to examine specific contexts in order to get clearer on how they affect each other. In other words, it depends largely on the contextual details. Overall, the two values are not quite as contradictory as they are often portrayed to be.

  • 48.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Peace vs. Justice - and Beyond2009In: The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution, London: Sage Publications , 2009, 580-594 p.Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 49.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Preparing for peace in Jerusalem1989Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 50.
    Albin, Cecilia
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
    Rethinking Justice and Fairness: The Case of Acid Rain Emission Reductions1995In: Review of International Studies, Vol. 21, no 2, 119-143 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
1234567 1 - 50 of 1766
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf