Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Relational Frames and Their Ethical Implications in International Negotiation: An Analysis Based on the Oslo II Negotiations

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of International Negotiation



In a recent set of papers, Donohue and colleagues used Relational Order theory to describe the relational context that evolved during the first Oslo negotiations held in 1992–1993. However, many relational shifts have developed between Palestinians and Israelis since Oslo. The question is have these shifts established a context that allows for the parties to bargain in good faith? Negotiations conducted to satisfy political agendas that are likely to fail because of stressed relationships between the parties make it difficult for parties to bargain in good faith. Relational Order Theory was used in the current article to better understand the relational context leading to the 1995 Oslo II accords and thus, the ethical sanction of the negotiations. Editorials and interviews from Palestinian and Israeli leaders leading up to the negotiations were analyzed to determine the extent to which the relational context was more affiliation-oriented or more focused on power and domination. The results indicate that the relational context leading up to Oslo II shifted dramatically over the course of several months as parties shaped their perspectives on the negotiations. However, the competition for power expressed by the exchanges suggested a less ethically defensible context for negotiations. The ethical implications of forcing negotiation in the face of a fairly aggressive relational context are discussed.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-121, USA (E-mail: donohue@msu.edu); 2: Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-121, USA

10.1163/138234002761384945
/content/journals/10.1163/138234002761384945
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/138234002761384945
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/138234002761384945
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/138234002761384945
2002-02-01
2016-12-08

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    International Negotiation — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation