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

Negotiating with Terrorists: A Discrete Form of Diplomacy

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

Crisis negotiation has been burdened with an additional and most problematic task, that of dealing with terrorist issues. Negotiators must engage in a very peculiar type of diplomacy because, officially, states do not negotiate with terrorists. This track-II diplomacy involves an asymmetrical relationship between a state and an often nebulous and evasive group. Its management is most paradoxical, for the negotiation is a non-negotiation and the counterparts are the most unlikely of negotiators.

This article analyses the very specific elements of such negotiation, in which the actors no longer play classical diplomatic roles but instead fulfil a much less urbane function that is embedded in the register of terror, even murder. It examines methods that are fundamentally alien to classical diplomacy because of the nature of the counterpart (who is not perceived as legitimate/equal), the issues at stake, the context, and the paradigms governing negotiating with terrorists, where psychological asymmetry and poor communication are basic attributes. Specific processes such as demonization and media management, as well as negotiation-effectiveness evaluation methods, are also studied.

Two types of situations are finally investigated, those where discussions can take place immediately, such as hostage-taking via kidnapping or barricade hostage-taking, and those where the potential for negotiation must be created because the terrorists make no demands and consider their actions as strictly punitive.

Affiliations: 1: The Sorbonne University, Paris- Descartes, France PIN/IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria;, Email: go.faure@free.fr

10.1163/187119108X321512
/content/journals/10.1163/187119108x321512
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/187119108x321512
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/187119108x321512
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/187119108x321512
2008-09-01
2016-12-09

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:
     
    The Hague Journal of Diplomacy — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation