Paving the Way for Consensus: Improving the Effectiveness of Multilateral Negotiation Management at the WTO

Reaching decisions on international trade by consensus amongst 164 governments is an extraordinarily difficult task. Social science research demonstrates that the management of the negotiation process by the host government and WTO Secretariat can play an important role in tipping the balance between deadlock and agreement. This requires close coordination between the representative of the host country and the Director General of the WTO. While effective process management alone will not solve the problems that the WTO faces, it can create more favourable conditions for reaching consensus. Conversely, poor process makes this already- difficult task practically impossible. Effective negotiation management consists of seven key elements: preparing well in advance; teamwork both within the host team and between the hosts and the Secretariat; transparent, consistent and realistic communication; selecting the right individuals for the job; breaking the process down into small-group negotiations and handling this with care; leveraging the legitimacy that non-party stakeholders can bring to the process; and increasing the likelihood of agreement through managing the agenda, draft texts, and the overall atmosphere of the negotiations. Both process and context determine negotiation outcomes. Comparing the 1999 Seattle Ministerial Con- ference with the 2001 Doha Ministerial Conference allows one to hold the context relatively constant, thus demonstrating the independent effect of process management. Variation in process management by the respective organisers of the two summits led to very different outcomes. The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change was a notable success for multilateralism. Like WTO negotiations, climate negotiations also take place in the challenging environment of consensus decision- making. Process management by the French hosts is considered a model of best practice, and has been widely credited as a factor behind the successful outcome. Lessons can be learned from this case. Future hosts of Ministerial Conferences are specifically recommended to pay attention to the following: It is vital to consult with as many members as possible in advance of the Ministerial. If budget allows, it is preferable to travel to capitals to demonstrate respect. Toavoidconflictfurtherdowntheroad,clearlydefinetherespectiverolesoftheDirector-Gen- eral and the Conference Chair from the outset, with the Conference chair taking the political lead. Thehostgovernmentcannotmanagetheentireprocessaloneandwillneedtoappointfacilitators to chair issue-specific working groups. This critical role requires specific skills and experience. Organising a workshop for facilitators in advance of the Ministerial could increase their effective- ness. The format, attendees and timing of small-group negotiations at the Ministerial can all affect re- sults. Whatever form these meetings take, transparency is a key consideration. Seemingly trivial details such as room facilities, security and catering at the venue all matter to delegates and can cause unnecessary friction when mismanaged

Trust realisation in multi-domain collaborative environments

In the Internet-age, the geographical boundaries that have previously impinged upon inter-organisational collaborations have become decreasingly important. Of more importance for such collaborations is the notion and subsequent nature of trust - this is especially so in Grid-like environments where resources are both made available and subsequently accessed and used by remote users from a multitude of institutions with a variety of different privileges spanning across the collaborating resources. In this context, the ability to dynamically negotiate and subsequently enforce security policies driven by various levels of inter-organisational trust is essential. In this paper we present a dynamic trust negotiation (DTN) model and associated prototype implementation showing the benefits and limitations DTN incurs in supporting n-tier delegation hops needed for trust realisation in multi-domain collaborative environments

Strategic Options for Iran: Balancing Pressure with Diplomacy

This third report from The Iran Project, considers the successes, shortfalls, and risks of strategies designed to pressure the Iranian government into changing its policies. It explores some of the advantages and disadvantages for U.S. interests in the Middle East that might flow from bilateral negotiations with Iran to achieve a nuclear deal, and propose steps that the President might take to establish a framework for direct talks with Iran's leadership that would build on the latest round of multilateral negotiations and proposals. Iran's actions -- particularly with regard to its nuclear program -- pose complex and dangerous challenges to U.S. interests and security, as well as to the security of Israel and possibly to stability in the Middle East. This paper sets out a response to these serious challenges. A strengthened U.S. diplomatic initiative would not replace the pressure track; rather, it would build on pressure already applied. Some measure of sanctions relief will have to be offered as part of a negotiated settlement; but pressure should not be eased without firm and verifiable Iranian commitments to greater transparency and agreed limits on Iran's nuclear program. The proposed bilateral discussions between the U.S. and Iran would not replace the multilateral negotiations that are now underway. Bilateral talks would have to proceed on a basis understood and ideally supported by the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) and U.S. allies. This paper differs from earlier Iran Project publications in that it takes policy positions and makes recommendations for government action. The authors have sought to base these suggestions on factual, objective, nonpartisan analyses, consulting with nearly 20 former government officials and experts and seeking advice from a larger group of signatories

The post-Lisbon role of the European Parliament in the EU's Common Commercial Policy: Implications for bilateral trade negotiations. EU Diplomacy Paper 05/2012, July 2012

This paper sets out to conduct an empirical analysis of the post-Lisbon role of the European Parliament (EP) in the EU’s Common Commercial Policy through an examination of the ‘deep and comprehensive’ bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) currently negotiated as part of the EU’s Global Europe strategy. The EU-Korea and EU-India FTAs are used as case studies in order to determine the implications of the EP’s enhanced trade powers on the processes, actors and outcomes of EU bilateral trade policy. The EP is now endowed with the ‘hard power’ of consent in the ratification phase of FTAs, acting as a threat to strengthen its ‘soft power’ to influence negotiations. The EP is developing strategies to influence the mandate and now plays an important role in the implementation of FTAs. The entry of this new player on the Brussels trade policy field has brought about a shift in the institutional balance of power and opened up the EP as a new point of access for trade policy lobbyists. Finally, increased EP involvement in EU trade policy has brought about a politicisation of EU trade policy and greater normative outcomes of FTAs

State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from August 2, 1989

8_2_1989_PERB_BD_DecisionsOCR.pdf: 175 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from August 2, 1989

8_2_1989_PERB_BD_DecisionsOCR.pdf: 175 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Tracking Chart 2011 Adidas Group, Indonesia 010233362EV

This document is part of a digital collection provided by the Martin P. Catherwood Library, ILR School, Cornell University, pertaining to the effects of globalization on the workplace worldwide. Special emphasis is placed on labor rights, working conditions, labor market changes, and union organizing.FLA_2011_AdidasGroup_TR_Indonesia_010233362EV.pdf: 58 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Adidas Group - Tracking Report - Indonesia Factory Code: 010233362EV; October 20-21, 2011

This document is part of a digital collection provided by the Martin P. Catherwood Library, ILR School, Cornell University, pertaining to the effects of globalization on the workplace worldwide. Special emphasis is placed on labor rights, working conditions, labor market changes, and union organizing.FLA_2011_Adidas_TR_Indonesia_010233362EV.pdf: 583 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020