99984 - Negotiation Simulation for International Relations

Learning outcomes

The workshop consists of a simulation of an international crisis, in which participating students will have to impersonate the policymakers of the states involved. The first part of the lab involves explaining the rules of the simulation and describing the scenario, and assigning roles to the participants. In addition, students will be introduced to the foreign policy basics of their assigned states. The second part includes the simulation of the crisis. The workshop will conclude with a "debriefing" phase that will help reflect on the simulation experience and its dynamics of interaction. By the end of the lab, students will have demonstrated their ability to work in groups; they will have understood the complexity of strategic interaction between states during times of crisis; they will have demonstrated the ability to apply their theoretical and historical knowledge to the context of an international crisis; and they will have understood the impact of preferences, interests, and cultural-historical legacies in the interaction between states.

Course contents

Theory

1. Introduction to the Course – What Does It Mean to Negotiate?

2. Who Negotiates? – A Comparison of Different Models (1)

3. Who Negotiates? – A Comparison of Different Models (2)

4. Negotiation Techniques and Models

 

Simulation

5. Introduction to the lab

6. Preparation for the first simulation 

7. Lab 1: Negotiation in a context of complete information

8. Preparation for the second simulation

9. Lab 2 – Negotiation during an International Crisis

10. Debriefing

Readings/Bibliography

Riferimenti bibliografici

Teoria e strumenti

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2016). Essentials of negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Chicago, capitoli: da 1 a 4.

Allison, Graham T., and Morton H. Halperin. 1972. “Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications.” World Politics 24: 40–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010559 .

Banks, Jeffrey S., and John Duggan. 2000. “A Bargaining Model of Collective Choice.” American Political Science Review 94 (1): 73–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586381.

Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49 (3): 379–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300033324 .

Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Stephan Haggard, David A. Lake, and David G. Victor. 2017. “The Behavioral Revolution and International Relations.” International Organization 71 (S1): S1–S31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818316000400.

Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–292. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185 .

McCauley, Clark. 1998. “Group Dynamics in Janis’s Theory of Groupthink: Backward and Forward.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73 (2–3): 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2759 .

Mearsheimer, John J., and Sebastian Rosato. 2023. How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300274967 . (Capitoli da 1 a 3)

Welch, David A. 1992. “The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigms: Retrospect and Prospect.” International Security17 (2): 112–146. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539170

Simulazione:

Brigid A. Starkey and Elizabeth L. Blake. 2001. "Simulation in International Relations Education". Simulation & Gaming. 32:4, 537-551

Per la prima simulazione

Ahmad, Manzoor, Adil Khan, and Muhammad Mehsud. 2017. “When States Go Thirsty: A Critical Analysis of Water War Thesis.” Global Strategic and Securities Studies Review II (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.31703/gsssr.2017(II-I).01 .

Brochmann, Marit, and Paul R. Hensel. 2009. “Peaceful Management of International River Claims.” International Negotiation 14 (2): 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180609X432879.

Dinar, Shlomi. 2009. “Scarcity and Cooperation Along International Rivers.” Global Environmental Politics 9 (1): 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.1.109 .

Just, Richard E., and Sinaia Netanyahu. 1998. “International Water Resource Conflicts: Experience and Potential.” In Conflict and Cooperation on Trans-Boundary Water Resources, edited by Richard E. Just and Sinaia Netanyahu, 1–26. Boston: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5649-7_1 .

United Arab Republic and Republic of the Sudan. 1959. “Agreement between the Republic of the Sudan and the United Arab Republic for the Full Utilization of the Nile Waters.” Signed at Cairo, November 8, 1959. United Nations Treaty Series 453: 63.

Wehling, Philine. 2020. Nile Water Rights: An International Law Perspective. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60796-1 .

Zeitoun, Mark, and Jeroen Warner. 2006. “Hydro-Hegemony—A Framework for Analysis of Trans-Boundary Water Conflicts.” Water Policy 8 (5): 435–460. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2006.054 .

Più altri materiali forniti dal docente su virtuale

Seconda simulazione

Per la seconda simulazione i materiali e le letture verranno forniti dal docente nel corso del semestre.

Teaching methods

Lectures, lab activities.

Office hours

See the website of Raffaele Ventura