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

Communication and the Oslo Negotiation: Contacts, Patterns, and Modes

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

This essay contends that Oslo, as a back-channel negotiation, grew out of and was implemented within a complex communication system. This system consists of six elements: the roles of multiple agents, the patterns of interaction among the agents, communication across the sides, overlapping inputs from negotiation channels, the roles of mediators, and the use of communication modes. Back-channel negotiations are characterized by concerns for legitimacy, secrecy, keeping the talks moving, and leveraging both sides to remain at the table. The Oslo system evolved through the use of multiple agents to enhance legitimacy and the use of chain patterns to filter information and persuade principals. The Norwegian mediators acted as facilitators to build relationships between the sides, leverage costs and benefits of working together, and accelerate the speed of the talks through using multiple modes of communication. Overall, the communication system preserved the secrecy of the process through special codes for telephone conversations and through traveling to multiple sites outside of Oslo for meetings. Ironically, the secrecy and expediency of the process also created an insular system, one in which the principals experienced selective bias and illusions of unanimity.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Speech Communication, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843–4234, USA

10.1163/15718069720847979
/content/journals/10.1163/15718069720847979
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15718069720847979
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/15718069720847979
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15718069720847979
1997-02-01
2016-12-03

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