The process of moving from formulas to details can be characterized in terms of “turning points”. Taking the process through several turning points reveals the buildup of a momentum toward agreement. The first consists of the point at which both (all) sides agree that negotiations are realistic because they perceive each other’s expectations to be within range.
This may take the form of a declaration of principles, reinforced by repeated statements of agreement to adhere to those principles or to continue to negotiate in good faith. This stage is more problematic in innovative negotiations in which there is no precedent for renegotiating or continuing previous agreements (compare MBFR or SALT with military bases).
Agreement in principle leads to the preparation of an agenda for the talks. This achievement is less problematic in talks between friendly nations who seek to reinforce and extend their relationship. It is more of a problem in negotiations between nations seeking to redefine their relationship.
A second turning point occurs when an agreement has been reached on the interpretation of the problem. This leads to an attempt to negotiate a framework from which details can be deduced. Agreement on a framework is a third turning point.
At this point, each side estimates the range of concessions needed to reach an agreement and acknowledges a commitment to see the negotiations through to a final document. This is when the parties proceed point by point to reconcile their different positions; this process is more like incremental convergence as each party adjusts its expectations in favor of what is needed to get an agreement.
In the Spain talks, this stage occurred during the process of drafting of the documents, including the articles of agreement and the supplementals. It occurred during the Kennedy round of the trade negotiations among 82 nations, between 1963 and 1967, when the delegates developed calculation formulas based on the percentage tariff cut and the volume of imports.
Such measures as the weighted-average depth of cut and the 50% equivalence ratio facilitated comparisons of tariff reductions leading to necessary compromises. It is contended that these turning points occur in all negotiations; precisely when they occur varies from case to case.
Two types of turning points are those that occur after a period of no progress and those that occur after a threat to the sustenance of the talks. The former, a period of no progress, is defined as an impasse; the latter, a threat to talks, is regarded here as a crisis. Both types of turning points are inflections in a trend, or “upturns” that represent either sudden progress or a return to a period of stability.
The progress that occurs after an impasse often signals passage to a new stage of the negotiation. However, the recovery that follows a crisis or threatened breakdown usually does not signal a new stage. The new stage occurs during the period of stability after the recovery. The case described below provides an opportunity to examine periods of recovery following crises.
A smooth negotiation process is one that moves through the stages with few impasses and no crises. Whether smooth or difficult, however, most negotiations reach a critical juncture during the period of stability: The talks must progress to the next stage, or an impasse will occur. The subsequent analysis provides indicators that can be used to chart progress and to forecast impasses or impending crises. This is regarded as a first step toward suggesting efficacious strategies.
