| 1. |
- Albin, Cecilia, 1962-, et al.
(author)
-
Bargaining over Weapons : Justice and Effectiveness in Arms Control Negotiations
- 2014
-
In: International Negotiation. - Leiden : Brill Nijhoff. - 1382-340X .- 1571-8069. ; 19:3, s. 426-458
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article explores the relationship between justice and effectiveness in bilateral and multilateral arms control negotiations. A set of hypotheses, derived from earlier research about the impacts of procedural and distributive justice on negotiation outcomes is evaluated. The sample consists of twenty cases, ten bilateral and ten multilateral. The results of statistical analyses show strong effects of procedural justice on the effectiveness of bilateral, but not multilateral, negotiations. Further analyses indicate that the effects are largely accounted for by half of the bilateral cases. Case-by-case analyses reveal some of the conditions that explain the correlation between pj principles and effective outcomes. Distributive justice correlated with more substantial agreements in the multilateral cases. Reasons for the limited effects of procedural justice on multilateral outcomes are discussed. The article concludes with more general implications and suggestions for further research.
|
|
| 2. |
- Albin, Cecilia, et al.
(author)
-
Distributive Justice and the Durability of Negotiated Agreements
- 2008
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This study explores the relationship between principles of justice and the durability of negotiated agreements. Focusing primarily on peace agreements negotiated during the early 1990s, the study provides evidence for a relationship. Sixteen peace agreements were coded for the centrality of each of four principles of distributive justice – equality, proportionality, compensation, and need. The agreements were also judged on scales of durability and implementation over a five-year post-settlement period. Two other variables included in the analysis were the difficulty of the conflict environment and the willingness of international actors to be involved in the conflict. A modest correlation between justice and durability raised questions about the relationship. Further analyses showed that this correlation was accounted for by three anomalous cases, Rwanda, Somalia, and El Salvador. A closer look at these cases led to a refinement of the coding decisions. The re-calculated correlations showed a stronger relationship between justice and durability, even when the effects of difficulty were controlled. Further support for a relationship was obtained from a focused comparison of selected cases matched on difficulty (Bosnia and Cambodia [high difficulty]; Guatemala and El Salvador [low difficulty]). The results suggest that when many principles of justice are included in an agreement, the negative effects of difficult conflict environments are reduced. When only a few principles are included, the negative effects of difficulty are heightened. Implications of these findings are discussed along with a number of ideas for further research.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Albin, Cecilia, et al.
(author)
-
Distributive justice and the durability of peace agreements
- 2011
-
In: Review of International Studies. - : Cambridge University Press. - 0260-2105 .- 1469-9044. ; 37:3, s. 1137-1168
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study explores the relationship between principles of distributive justice (DJ) and the durability of negotiated agreements. Sixteen peace agreements negotiated during the early 1990s were coded for the centrality of each of four principles of DJ – equality, proportionality, compensation, and need – to the core terms of the agreement. The agreements were also assessed on scales of implementation and durability over a five-year period. Another variable included in the analysis was the difficulty of the conflict environment. These data were used to evaluate three sets of hypotheses: the relationship between DJ and durability, the role of the conflict environment, and types of DJ principles. The results obtained from both statistical and focused-comparison analyses indicate that DJ moderates the relationship between conflict environments and outcomes: when principles of justice are central to an agreement, the negative effects of difficult conflict environments are reduced; when principles are not central, the negative effects of difficulty are heightened. These relationships are accounted for primarily by one of the four DJ principles – equality. Implications of these findings are discussed along with a number of ideas for further research.
|
|
| 5. |
- Albin, Cecilia, et al.
(author)
-
Equality matters : Negotiating an end to civil wars
- 2012
-
In: Journal of Conflict Resolution. - : Sage Publications. - 0022-0027 .- 1552-8766. ; 56:2, s. 155-182
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article explores relationships between procedural justice (PJ) in the negotiation process, distributive justice (DJ) in the terms of negotiated agreements, and their durability in cases of civil war. Adherence to PJ principles was found to correlate strongly with agreements based specifically on the DJ principle of equality. Agreements were also found to be more durable when based on equality, but not when based on other DJ principles. The equality principle accounted for the relationship between PJ and durability irrespective of differences between the parties in power. Further examination suggested that two types of equality in particular-equal treatment and equal shares-were associated with forward-looking agreements and high durability. The findings suggest that durability is served by including equality in the terms of agreements, and that PJ helps (but does not guarantee) achieving such agreements.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Albin, Cecilia, et al.
(author)
-
Negotiating effectively : Justice in international environmental negotiations
- 2017
-
In: Group Decision and Negotiation. - : Springer. - 0926-2644 .- 1572-9907. ; 26:1, s. 93-113
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Are negotiators who rely on justice principles in the process of bargain- ing and drafting agreements more—or rather less—effective than others? This article examines whether adherence to principles of procedural and distributive justice in negotiations contributes to more effective results, with a focus on international envi- ronmental negotiations. Effectiveness is defined in terms of the extent of agreement (among parties and on issues), time to reach agreement, and comprehensiveness of the agreement. A set of hypotheses is evaluated on a selection of bilateral and mul- tilateral cases of environmental negotiations, using statistical methods. The analyses reveal that adherence to principles of procedural justice contributes to more effective results in multilateral environmental negotiations. These principles are found to hin- der effectiveness in the bilateral cases. On the other hand, adherence to principles of distributive justice is only moderately related to effectiveness in both the bilateral and multilateral cases.
|
|
| 9. |
- Albin, Cecilia, 1962-, et al.
(author)
-
Procedures matter : Justice and effectiveness in international trade negotiations
- 2014
-
In: European Journal of International Relations. - London : Sage Publications. - 1354-0661 .- 1460-3713. ; 20:4, s. 1014-1042
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- International negotiators have faced repeated stalemates in a number of significant areas. Justice issues are at the heart of the matter in many cases, as vividly illustrated by trade negotiations, particularly at the multilateral level. Yet, issues of justice have received limited attention in research on trade negotiation. This article asks: do trade negotiators who take justice principles into account arrive at more effective agreements? Specifically, it explores relationships between two types of justice during the negotiation process — procedural and distributive justice — and the effectiveness of outcomes (agreements) in 22 cases of bilateral and multilateral international trade negotiation. It evaluates the impacts of these types of justice on negotiation effectiveness. The results from analyses clearly demonstrate that procedural justice plays a central role in contributing to effective outcomes in both bilateral and multilateral trade cases. The correlations between procedural justice and effectiveness are very strong, and significantly stronger than between distributive justice and effectiveness. Moreover, distributive justice impacts upon effectiveness only when procedural justice principles are observed. These findings contribute knowledge about factors that enhance effective outcomes in international negotiations. They extend earlier work on justice in peace agreements and fill a gap in the research literature. They also provide advice for negotiators, and add important questions to the future research agenda.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
