Time to Consensus in International Negotiations
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2024-4-97-83-100
Abstract
Contemporary international relations, anchored in the principles of multipolarity, frequently employ consensus-based decision-making, which prioritizes respect for all negotiating parties and ensures that the views of all participants are considered equally. While consensus remains a core mechanism for many international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), it has increasingly come under criticism for its inefficiency and substantial time requirements. This highlights the importance of examining the factors that influence the time needed to reach consensus. Utilizing formal mathematical modeling based on a modified DeGroot model, this article explores how variables such as the size of the negotiating group, the level of authoritativeness, dominance dynamics within the group, and coalition formation affect the time required to achieve consensus. The findings indicate that an increase in group size, on its own, results in only a minor increase in the time needed to reach consensus, becoming a significant factor only when paired with high levels of authoritativeness among the participants. Conversely, the presence of a highly authoritative member within a negotiating group significantly prolongs decision-making time, even in smaller groups, and the formation of coalitions (e.g., due to multiple highly authoritative members) can make reaching consensus impossible. The "consensus minus k" rule, intended to break deadlocks, is found to be ineffective for international organizations with numerous participants and divergent interests. In hierarchical structures, consensus is typically achieved through preliminary negotiations within subgroups, which further prolongs the consensusbuilding process.
About the Authors
I. Z. Aronov
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Iosif Z. Aronov – Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Department “Trade and Trade Regulation”
76 Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russia, 119454
O. V. Maksimova
Yu.A. Izrael Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (IGCE); National University of Science and Technology «MISIS»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga V. Maksimova – Ph.D. in Technical Sciences, Leading Research Fellow, Y.A. Izrael Institute of Global Climate and Ecology; Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, National University of Science and Technology;
20B Glebovskaya Str., Moscow, Russia, 107058; 4 Leninsky Pr., Moscow, Russia, 119049
References
1. Avery M., Auvine B., Streibel B., Weiss L. 1981. Building United Judgment: A handbook for consensus decision making. Madison: The Center for Conflict Resolution. 124 p.
2. Brinton H.H. 1964. Friends for 300 Years. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Pendle Hill Publications. 240 p.
3. Bolewski W.2008 Diplomatic Processes and Cultural Variations: The Relevance of Culture in Diplomacy. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations. (Winter/Spring). P. 145-160.
4. Charnysh V., Lloyd P., Simmons B.A. 2015. Frames and consensus formation in international relations: The case of trafficking in persons. European Journal of International Relations. 21(2). P. 323-351.
5. DeGroot M.H. 1974. Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 69(345). P. 118-121.
6. Gavrilets S., Auerbach J., van Vugt M. 2016. Convergence to consensus in heterogeneous groups and the emergence of informal leadership. Scientific Reports. № 6. DOI: 10.1038/srep29704
7. Footer M.E. 1997. The Role of Consensus in GATT/WTO Decision-Making. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business. 17(1). P. 653-680.
8. Gould E. R. 2016. What consensus?: Explaining the rise of consensus decision-making in international organizations.10-th Annual Conference on Political Economy of International Organizations. Bern. February 12-14. URL: https://www.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Gould-PEIO-2.2.pdf (accessed: 03.08.2024)
9. Haghirian P. 2016. Routledge Handbook of Japanese Business and Management. NY: Taylor&Francis. 403 p.
10. Häge F.M. 2013.Coalition Building and Consensus in the Council of the European Union. British Journal of Political Science. 43(3).P. 481-504. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123412000439.
11. Hüffmeier J., Freund P.A., Zerres A., Backhaus K., Hertel G. 2011. Being Tough or Being Nice? A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Hardand Softline Strategies in Distributive Negotiations. Journal of management. 40(3). P.866-892.
12. Jedruch J. 1998. Constitutions, Elections, and Legislatures of Poland, 1493-1993: A Guide to Their History. NYC: Hippocrene Books.487 p.
13. Kameda N. 2014. Japanese Business Discourse of Oneness: A Personal Perspective. International Journal of Business Communication. 51(1). P. 93–113.
14. Kawashima Yu. 2003. Japanese Foreign Policy at the Crossroads: Challenges and Options for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.163 p.
15. Kerr N. 1989. Illusions of efficacy: The effects of group size on perceived efficacy in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 25. P. 287–313.
16. Klimek P., Hanel R., Thurner S. 2009. To how many politicians should government to be left? Physica A: Statistical Mechanisms and its Applications. 388(18). P. 3939-3947.
17. Kudish S., Cohen-Chen S., Halperin E. 2015. Increasing support for concession-making in intractable conflicts: The role of conflict uniqueness. Peaceand Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. 21(2). P. 248–263.
18. Lawler E.J.,Ford R., Large M.D. 1999. Unilateral Initiatives as a Conflict Resolution Strategy. Social Psychology Quarterly. 62(3). P. 240-256.
19. Moscovici S., Doise W. 1994. Conflict and Consensus: A general theory of collective decisions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. 224 p.
20. Noorderhaven N. G., Benders, J. G. J. M., Keizer A. B. 2007.Comprehensiveness versus pragmatism; Consensus at the Japanese-Dutch interface. Journal of management studies. 44(8). P. 13491370.
21. Onuoha A., Nnubia O.C. 2023. The Consensus Principle of the World Trade Organization and the Interests of Developing Countries: A Legal Evaluation. Achievers University Law Journal. 3(2). P.175-193.
22. Riker W. 1962. The theory of political coalitions. New Haven, L.: Yale University press. 300 p.
23. Rumison K.C. 1998. Unanimity as a rule for group consensus: a review of the theoretical and experimental literature on the use of unanimity in group decision making. Modern Psychological Studies. 6(1). P. 9-24.
24. Sagi S. 2015. “Nemawashi” A Technique to Gain Consensus in Japanese Management Systems: An Overview. International Journal of Arts, Humanities and Management Studies. 1(4). P. 23-27.
25. Kwon S., Weingart L.R. 2004. Unilateral Concessions from the Other Party: Concession Behavior, Attributions, and Negotiation Judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology. 89(2). P. 263-278.
26. Slantchev B. L. 2005. Territory and Commitment: The Concert of Europe as Self-Enforcing Equilibrium. Security Studies. 14(4). P. 565-606. DOI: 10.1080/09636410500468792.
27. Suh Y., Choe Y.-Y.A. 2010. Negotiators as Mediators: The Case of 1987–1995 Korea-United States Bilateral Trade Negotiations. Negotiation Journal. 26 (4). P. 435–452. DOI: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2010.00283.x
28. Wiltermuth S., Tiedens L.Z., Neale M. 2015. The Benefits of Dominance Complementarity in Negotiations, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. 8(3). 194-209.
29. Zampetti A. B., Low P., Mavroidis P. C. 2021. Consensus Decision-Making and Legislative Inertia at the WTO: Can International Law Help? World Trade. 56(1). P. 1-26.
30. Zazhigalkin A.V., Aronov I.Z., Maksimova O.V., Papic L. 2019. Control of consensus convergence in technical committees of standardization on the basis of regular Markov chains model. International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering and Management. 10(S1). P. 29-36. DOI:10.1007/s13198-019-00765-1
31. Aronov I.Z., Maksimova O.V. 2021. Modelirovaniye dostizheniya konsensusa v usloviyakh dominirovaniya v sotsial'noy gruppe [Modeling the achievement of consensus under conditions of dominance in a social group]. Computer Research and Modeling. 13(5). P. 161-171. (In Russian) DOI: 10.20537/2076-7633-2021-13-5-1067-1078
32. Aronov I. Z., Maksimova O. V. 2022. Matematicheskaya model' konsensusa v sotsial'noy gruppe pri nalichii lidera i rukovoditelya [A mathematical model of consensus in a social group in the presence of a leader and a leader]. Informatsionno-ekonomicheskiye aspekty standartizatsii I tekhnicheskogo regulirovaniya. 2(66). P. 12-21. (In Russian)
33. Barakhvostov P.A. 2021. Institutsional'nyye osobennosti integratsii zemel' Rechi Pospolitoy v sostav Rossiyskoy i Avstriyskoy imperiy [Institutional features of the integration of the lands of the Commonwealth into the Russian and Austrian empires]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 14 (4). P.51-69. (In Russian).
34. Gilboa I. 2022. Kak printyat' nailuchsheye reshenie? Teoriya prinyatiya resheniy [How to make the best decision? Decision-making theory] Moscow: Izdatel'skidom «Delo». 286 p. (In Russian).
35. Kaveshnikov N. Yu. 2021. Obychnayazakonodatel'nayaprotsedura v YES kak primer kooperativnykhpraktik [Regular legislative procedure in the EU as an example of cooperative practices]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 14(1). P. 126-147. (In Russian)
36. Kaveshnikov N.Yu., Domanov A.O. 2022. Skorost’ zakonodatel’nogo protsessa v Evropeiyskom Soyuze [Factors behind legislative duration in the European Union]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 20. No 1(68). P. 80-108. (In Russian)
37. Portansky A.P. 2021. Mirovaya torgovaya systema: vyzovy XXI veka. [World trading system: challenges of the 21st century]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 208 p. (In Russian).
38. Romanova E.V. 2016. Traktovki «Evropeyskogo koncerta» vbritanskoy I amerikanskoy istoriografii. [Interpretations of the «European concert» in British and American historiography]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 1(46). P.7-17. (In Russian).
39. Tabarovskaya M.A. 2017. Koalitsii kak instrument economicheskoy diplomatii v ramkakh Vsemirnoy Torgovoy Organizatsii. [Coalitions as a tool of economic diplomacy within the World Trade Organization] Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoy stepeni kandidata economicheskikh nauk. Sankt-Peterburg. 24 p. (In Russian)
40. Tcibulina A.N., Kaveshnikov N. YU. 2022. Dinamika zakonotvorcheskogo protsessa v oblasti Edinogo vnutrennego rynka Evropeyskogo soyuza. [Dynamics of the legislative process in the field of the Single Internal Market of the European Union] Politicheskaya nauka. № 3. P. 256–275. (In Russian)
Review
For citations:
Aronov I.Z., Maksimova O.V. Time to Consensus in International Negotiations. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2024;17(4):83-100. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2024-4-97-83-100
Views:
786
Email this article 