Negotiation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alternative dispute resolution
Arbitration Conciliation Mediation Negotiation Collaborative law Conflict resolution Dispute resolution Lawyer-supported mediation Party-directed mediation Restorative justice
v t e

Signing the Treaty of Trianon on 4 June 1920. Albert Apponyi standing in the middle.

The ministers of foreign affairs of the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, France, China, the European Union and Iran negotiating in Lausanne for a Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme (30 March 2015).

Negotiation comes from the Latin neg (no) and otsia (leisure) referring to businessmen who, unlike the patricians, had no leisure time in their industriousness; it held the meaning of business (le négoce in French) until the 17th century when it took on the diplomatic connotation as a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a beneficial outcome over one or more issues where a conflict exists with respect to at least one of these issues.^[1]^[2] Thus, negotiation is a process of combining divergent positions into a joint agreement under a decision rule of unanimity.
It is aimed to resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is often conducted by putting forward a position and making concessions to achieve an agreement. The degree to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is a major factor in determining whether negotiations are successful.
People negotiate daily, often without considering it a negotiation.^[3]^[4]^{[page needed]} Negotiation occurs in organizations, including businesses, non-profits, and within and between governments as well as in sales and legal proceedings, and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, etc. Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiator, or hostage negotiators. They may also work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators, or brokers.

Types

Negotiation can take a wide variety of forms, from a multilateral conference of all United Nations members to establish a new international norm (such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) to a meeting of parties to a conflict to end violence or resolve the underlying issue (such as constitutional negotiations in South Africa in 1990-1994 or in Colombia with the FARC on 2012-2015) to a business encounter to make a deal to a face-off between parents (or between parent and child) over the child's proper behavior.^[5] Mediation is a form of negotiation with a third-party catalyst who helps the conflicting parties negotiate when they cannot do so by themselves Negotiation can be contrasted with arbitration, where the decision lies with the third party, which the conflicting parties are committed to accept.
Negotiation theorists generally distinguish between two types of negotiation ^[6] The difference in the usage of the two type depends on the mindset of the negotiator but also on the situation: one-off encounters where lasting relationships do not obtain are more likely to produce distributive negotiations whereas lasting relationships are more likely to require integrative negotiating ^[7] Different theorists use different labels for the two general types and distinguish them in different ways.

Distributive negotiation

Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation and attempts to distribute a "fixed pie" of benefits. Distributive negotiation operates under zero-sum conditions and implies that any gain one party makes is at the expense of the other and vice versa. For this reason, distributive negotiation is also sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption that one person's gain is another person's loss. Distributive negotiation examples include haggling prices on an open market, including the negotiation of the price of a car or a home.
In a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme or fixed position, knowing it will not be accepted—and then seeks to cede as little as possible before reaching a deal. Distributive bargainers conceive of negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of value. A distributive negotiation often involves people who have never had a previous interactive relationship, nor are they likely to do so again in the near future, although all negotiations usually have a distributive element.
In the distributive approach each negotiator fights for the largest possible piece of the pie, so parties tend to regard each other more as an adversary than a partner and to take a harder line.^[8] Since Prospect Theory indicates that people value losses more than gains and are more risk-averse about losses, concession-convergence bargaining is likely to be more acrimonious and less productive of an agreement ^[9]

Integrative negotiation

Integrative negotiation is also called interest-based, merit-based, or principled negotiation. It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by taking advantage of the fact that different parties often value various outcomes differently.^[10] While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value (a "fixed pie") to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation attempts to create value in the course of the negotiation ("expand the pie") by either "compensating" loss of one item with gains from another ("trade-offs" or logrolling), or by constructing or reframing the issues of the conflict in such a way that both parties benefit ("win-win" negotiation).^[11]
However, even integrative negotiation is likely to have some distributive elements, especially when the different parties both value different items to the same degree or when details are left to be allocated at the end of the negotiation. While concession is mandatory for negotiations, research shows that people who concede more quickly, are less likely to explore all integrative and mutually beneficial solutions. Therefore, early conceding reduces the chance of an integrative negotiation.^[12]
Integrative negotiation often involves a higher degree of trust and the formation of a relationship. It can also involve creative problem-solving that aims to achieve mutual gains. It sees a good agreement as not one with maximum individual gain, but one that provides optimum gain for all parties. Gains in this scenario are not at the expense of the Other, but with it. Each seeks to accord the Other enough benefit that it will hold to the agreement that gives the first party an agreeable outcome, and vice versa.
Productive negotiation focuses on the underlying interests of the parties rather than their starting positions, approaches negotiation as a shared problem-solving rather than a personalized battle, and insists upon adherence to objective, principled criteria as the basis for agreement.^[13]

Stages in the Negotiation Process

However, negotiators need not sacrifice effective negotiation in favor of a positive relationship between parties. Rather than conceding, each side can appreciate that the other has emotions and motivations of their own and use this to their advantage in discussing the issue. In fact, perspective-taking can help move parties toward a more integrative solution. Fisher et al. illustrate a few techniques that effectively improve perspective-taking in their book Getting to Yes, and through the following, negotiators can separate people from the problem itself.

Put yourself in their shoes – People tend to search for information that confirms his or her own beliefs and often ignore information that contradicts prior beliefs. In order to negotiate effectively, it is important to empathize with the other party's point of view. One should be open to other views and attempt to approach an issue from the perspective of the other.
Discuss each other's perceptions – A more direct approach to understanding the other party is to explicitly discuss each other's perceptions. Each individual should openly and honestly share his or her perceptions without assigning blame or judgement to the other.
Find opportunities to act inconsistently with his or her views – It is possible that the other party has prior perceptions and expectations about the other side. The other side can act in a way that directly contradicts those preconceptions, which can effectively send a message that the party is interested in an integrative negotiation.
Face-saving – This approach refers to justifying a stance based on one's previously expressed principles and values in a negotiation. This approach to an issue is less arbitrary, and thus, it is more understandable from the opposing party's perspective.^[14]

Additionally, negotiators can use certain communication techniques to build a stronger relationship and develop more meaningful negotiation solution.

Active listening – Listening is more than just hearing what the other side is saying. Active listening involves paying close attention to what is being said verbally and nonverbally. It involves periodically seeking further clarification from the person. By asking the person exactly what they mean, they may realize you are not simply walking through a routine, but rather take them seriously.
Speak for a purpose – Too much information can be as harmful as too little. Before stating an important point, determine exactly what you wish you communicate to the other party. Determine the exact purpose that this shared information will serve.^[14]

Integrated negotiation

Integrated negotiation is a strategic approach to influence that maximizes value in any single negotiation through the astute linking and sequencing of other negotiations and decisions related to one's operating activities.
This approach in complex settings is best executed by mapping out all potentially relevant negotiations, conflicts and operating decisions in order to integrate helpful connections among them, while minimizing any potentially harmful connections (see examples below).
Integrated negotiation is not to be confused with integrative negotiation, a different concept (as outlined above) related to a non-zero-sum approach to creating value in negotiations.
Integrated negotiation was first identified and labeled by international negotiator and author Peter Johnston in his book Negotiating with Giants.^[15]
One of the examples cited in Johnston's book is that of J. D. Rockefeller deciding where to build his first major oil refinery. Instead of taking the easier, cheaper route from the oil fields to refine his petroleum in Pittsburgh, Rockefeller chose to build his refinery in Cleveland. Why? Because rail companies would be transporting his refined oil to market. Pittsburgh had just one major railroad, meaning it could dictate prices in negotiations, while Cleveland had three railroads that Rockefeller knew would compete for his business, potentially reducing his costs significantly. The leverage gained in these rail negotiations more than offset the additional operating costs of sending his oil to Cleveland for refining, helping establish Rockefeller's empire, while undermining his competitors who failed to integrate their core operating decisions with their negotiation strategies.^[16]
Other examples of integrated negotiation include the following:

In sports, athletes in the final year of their contracts will ideally hit peak performance so they can negotiate robust, long-term contracts in their favor.^[17]
A union needs to negotiate and resolve any significant internal conflicts to maximize its collective clout before going to the table to negotiate a new contract with management.
If purchases for similar goods or services are occurring independent of one another across different government departments, recognizing this and consolidating orders into one large volume purchase can help create buying leverage and cost-savings in negotiations with suppliers.
A tech start-up looking to negotiate being bought out by a larger industry player in the future can improve its odds of that happening by ensuring, wherever possible, that its systems, technology, competencies and culture are as compatible as possible with those of its most likely buyer.^[18]
A politician negotiating support for a presidential run may want to avoid bringing onboard any high-profile supporters who risk alienating other important potential supporters, while avoiding any unexpected new policies that could also limit the size of their growing coalition.^[19]

Bad faith

When a party pretends to negotiate, but secretly has no intention of compromising, the party is considered negotiating in bad faith. Bad faith is a concept in negotiation theory whereby parties pretend to reason to reach settlement, but have no intention to do so, for example, one political party may pretend to negotiate, with no intention to compromise, for political effect.^[20]^[21]
Bad faith negotiations are often used in political science and political psychology to refer to negotiating strategies in which there is no real intention to reach compromise, or a model of information processing.^[22] The "inherent bad faith model" of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship between John Foster Dulles' beliefs and his model of information processing.^[23] It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent.^[24] A state is presumed implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored. They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Examples are John Foster Dulles' position regarding the Soviet Union, or Hamas's position on the state of Israel.^[24]^{[neutrality is disputed]}

Strategies

There are many different ways to categorize the essential elements of negotiation.
One view of negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and substance. The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which all of these play out. Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties, the communication between them and the styles they adopt. The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues (positions and – more helpfully – interests), the options, and the agreement(s) reached at the end.^{[citation needed]}
Another view of negotiation comprises four elements: strategy, process, tools, and tactics. Strategy comprises the top level goals – typically including relationship and the final outcome. Processes and tools include the steps to follow and roles to take in preparing for and negotiating with the other parties. Tactics include more detailed statements and actions and responses to others' statements and actions. Some add to this persuasion and influence, asserting that these have become integral to modern day negotiation success, and so should not be omitted.^{[citation needed]}

Employing an advocate

A skilled negotiator may serve as an advocate for one party to the negotiation. The advocate attempts to obtain the most favorable outcomes possible for that party. In this process the negotiator attempts to determine the minimum outcome(s) the other party is (or parties are) willing to accept, then adjusts their demands accordingly. A "successful" negotiation in the advocacy approach is when the negotiator is able to obtain all or most of the outcomes their party desires, but without driving the other party to permanently break off negotiations.
Skilled negotiators may use a variety of tactics ranging from negotiation hypnosis,^{[citation needed]} to a straightforward presentation of demands or setting of preconditions, to more deceptive approaches such as cherry picking. Intimidation and salami tactics may also play a part in swaying the outcome of negotiations.^{[citation needed]}
Another negotiation tactic is bad guy/good guy. Bad guy/good guy is when one negotiator acts as a bad guy by using anger and threats. The other negotiator acts as a good guy by being considerate and understanding. The good guy blames the bad guy for all the difficulties while trying to get concessions and agreement from the opponent.^[25]

BATNA

The best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA is the alternative option a negotiator holds should the current negotiation fails and does not reach agreement. The quality of a BATNA has the potential to improve a party's negotiation outcome. Understanding one's BATNA can empower an individual and allow him or her to set higher goals when moving forward.^[26] One of the best strategy while going into a negotiation is to ensure that you have a strong BATNA, and if not, have tools equipped that can help you made the other side's BATNA weak. One of the major mistakes made by new negotiators is to disclose their BATNA at first without having had any discussion with the other side. This can jeopardise your position in the negotiation, as your negotiation might have been weaker than the other sides, and such disclosure puts you at a weaker spot in the negotiation. The best strategy is to ask a lot of questions to develop, if not an exact, but a guess about the other sides BATNA to know your position in the negotiation.

Conflict styles

Kenneth W. Thomas identified five styles or responses to negotiation.^[27]^[28] These five strategies have been frequently described in the literature and are based on the dual-concern model.^[29] The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a perspective that assumes individuals' preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two themes or dimensions:^[30]

A concern for self (i.e., assertiveness), and
A concern for others (i.e., empathy).

Based on this model, individuals balance the concern for personal needs and interests with the needs and interests of others. The following five styles can be used based on individuals' preferences depending on their pro-self or pro-social goals. These styles can change over time, and individuals can have strong dispositions towards numerous styles.

Accommodating: Individuals who enjoy solving the other party's problems and preserving personal relationships. Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states, body language, and verbal signals of the other parties. They can, however, feel taken advantage of in situations when the other party places little emphasis on the relationship. Accommodation is a passive but prosocial approach to conflict. People solve both large and small conflicts by giving in to the demands of others. Sometimes, they yield because they realize that their position is in error, so they agree with the viewpoint adopted by others. In other cases, however, they may withdraw their demands without really being convinced that the other side is correct, but for the sake of group unity or in the interest of time--they withdraw all complaints. Thus, yielding can reflect either genuine conversion or superficial compliance.
Avoiding: Individuals who do not like to negotiate and don't do it unless warranted. When negotiating, avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational aspects of negotiating; however, they may be perceived as tactful and diplomatic. Inaction is a passive means of dealing with disputes. Those who avoid conflicts adopt a "wait and see" attitude, hoping that problems will solve themselves. Avoiders often tolerate conflicts, allowing them to simmer without doing anything to minimize them. Rather than openly discussing disagreements, people who rely on avoidance change the subject, skip meetings, or even leave the group altogether (Bayazit & Mannix, 2003). Sometimes they simply agree to disagree (a modus vivendi).
Collaborating: Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in creative ways. Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns and interests of the other parties. Collaborating is an active, pro-social, and pro-self approach to conflict resolution. Collaborating people identify the issues underlying the dispute and then work together to identify a solution that is satisfying to both sides. This orientation, which is also described as collaboration, problem solving, or a win-win orientation, entreats both sides in the dispute to consider their opponent's outcomes as well as their own ^[31]
Competing: Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to win something. Competitive negotiators have strong instincts for all aspects of negotiating and are often strategic. Because their style can dominate the bargaining process, competitive negotiators often neglect the importance of relationships. Competing is an active, pro-self means of dealing with conflict that involves forcing others to accept one's view. Those who use this strategy tend to see conflict as a win-lose situation and so use competitive, powerful tactics to intimidate others. Fighting (forcing, dominating, or contending) can take many forms, including authoritative mandate, challenges, arguing, insults, accusations, complaining, vengeance, and even physical violence (Morrill, 1995). These conflict resolution methods are all contentious ones because they involve imposing one's solution on the other party.
Compromising: Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved in the negotiation. Compromisers can be useful when there is limited time to complete the deal; however, compromisers often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process and make concessions too quickly.

Types of negotiators

Three basic kinds of negotiators have been identified by researchers involved in The Harvard Negotiation Project. These types of negotiators are: soft bargainers, hard bargainers, and principled bargainers.

Soft: These people see negotiation as too close to competition, so they choose a gentle style of bargaining. The offers they make are not in their best interests, they yield to others' demands, avoid confrontation, and they maintain good relations with fellow negotiators. Their perception of others is one of friendship, and their goal is agreement. They do not separate the people from the problem, but are soft on both. They avoid contests of wills and insist on agreement, offering solutions and easily trusting others and changing their opinions.
Hard: These people use contentious strategies to influence, utilizing phrases such as "this is my final offer" and "take it or leave it." They make threats, are distrustful of others, insist on their position, and apply pressure to negotiate. They see others as adversaries and their ultimate goal is victory. Additionally, they search for one single answer, and insist you agree on it. They do not separate the people from the problem (as with soft bargainers), but they are hard on both the people involved and the problem.
Principled: Individuals who bargain this way seek integrative solutions, and do so by sidestepping commitment to specific positions. They focus on the problem rather than the intentions, motives, and needs of the people involved. They separate the people from the problem, explore interests, avoid bottom lines, and reach results based on standards independent of personal will. They base their choices on objective criteria rather than power, pressure, self-interest, or an arbitrary decisional procedure. These criteria may be drawn from moral standards, principles of fairness, professional standards, and tradition.

Researchers from The Harvard Negotiation Project recommend that negotiators explore a number of alternatives to the problems they face in order to reach the best solution, but this is often not the case (as when you may be dealing with an individual using soft or hard bargaining tactics) (Forsyth, 2010).

Tactics

Tactics are always an important part of the negotiating process. More often than not they are subtle, difficult to identify and used for multiple purposes. Tactics are more frequently used in distributive negotiations and when the focus in on taking as much value off the table as possible.^[32] Many negotiation tactics exist. Below are a few commonly used tactics.
Auction: The bidding process is designed to create competition.^[33] When multiple parties want the same thing, pit them against one another. When people know that they may lose out on something, they want it even more. Not only do they want the thing that is being bid on, they also want to win, just to win. Taking advantage of someone's competitive nature can drive up the price.
Brinksmanship: One party aggressively pursues a set of terms to the point where the other negotiating party must either agree or walk away. Brinkmanship is a type of "hard nut" approach to bargaining in which one party pushes the other party to the "brink" or edge of what that party is willing to accommodate. Successful brinksmanship convinces the other party they have no choice but to accept the offer and there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed agreement.^[34]
Bogey: Negotiators use the bogey tactic to pretend that an issue of little or no importance is very important.^[35] Then, later in the negotiation, the issue can be traded for a major concession of actual importance.
Chicken: Negotiators propose extreme measures, often bluffs, to force the other party to chicken out and give them what they want. This tactic can be dangerous when parties are unwilling to back down and go through with the extreme measure.
Defence in Depth: Several layers of decision-making authority is used to allow further concessions each time the agreement goes through a different level of authority.^[36] In other words, each time the offer goes to a decision maker, that decision maker asks to add another concession to close the deal.
Deadlines: Give the other party a deadline forcing them to make a decision. This method uses time to apply pressure to the other party. Deadlines given can be actual or artificial.
Flinch: Flinching is showing a strong negative physical reaction to a proposal. Common examples of flinching are gasping for air, or a visible expression of surprise or shock. The flinch can be done consciously or unconsciously.^[37] The flinch signals to the opposite party that you think the offer or proposal is absurd in hopes the other party will lower their aspirations.^[38] Seeing a physical reaction is more believable than hearing someone saying, "I'm shocked."
Good Guy/Bad Guy: The good guy/bad guy approach is typically used in team negotiations where one member of the team makes extreme or unreasonable demands, and the other offers a more rational approach.^[39] This tactic is named after a police interrogation technique often portrayed in the media. The "good guy" appears more reasonable and understanding, and therefore, easier to work with. In essence, it is using the law of relativity to attract cooperation. The "good guy" appears more agreeable relative than the "bad guy."
Highball/Lowball: Depending on whether selling or buying, sellers or buyers use a ridiculously high, or ridiculously low opening offer that is not achievable. The theory is that the extreme offer makes the other party reevaluate their own opening offer and move close to the resistance point (as far as you are willing to go to reach an agreement).^[39] Another advantage is that the party giving the extreme demand appears more flexible when they make concessions toward a more reasonable outcome. A danger of this tactic is that the opposite party may think negotiating is a waste of time.
The Nibble: Nibbling is asking for proportionally small concessions that haven't been discussed previously just before closing the deal.^[35] This method takes advantage of the other party's desire to close by adding "just one more thing."
Snow Job: Negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that they have difficulty determining what information is important, and what is a diversion.^[40] Negotiators may also use technical language or jargon to mask a simple answer to a question asked by a non-expert.
Mirroring: When people get on well, the outcome of a negotiation is likely to be more positive. To create trust and a rapport, a negotiator may mimic or mirror the opponent's behavior and repeat what they say. Mirroring refers to a person repeating the core content of what another person just said, or repeating a certain expression. It indicates attention to the subject of negotiation and acknowledges the other party's point or statement.^[41] Mirroring can help create trust and establish a relationship.

Nonverbal communication

Communication is a key element of negotiation. Effective negotiation requires that participants effectively convey and interpret information. Participants in a negotiation communicate information not only verbally but non-verbally through body language and gestures. By understanding how nonverbal communication works, a negotiator is better equipped to interpret the information other participants are leaking non-verbally while keeping secret those things that would inhibit his/her ability to negotiate.^[42]

Examples

Non-verbal "anchoring" In a negotiation, a person can gain the advantage by verbally expressing a position first. By anchoring one's position, one establishes the position from which the negotiation proceeds. In a like manner, one can "anchor" and gain advantage with nonverbal (body language) cues.

Personal space: The person at the head of the table is the apparent symbol of power. Negotiators can negate this strategic advantage by positioning allies in the room to surround that individual.
First impression: Begin the negotiation with positive gestures and enthusiasm. Look the person in the eye with sincerity. If you cannot maintain eye contact, the other person might think you are hiding something or that you are insincere. Give a solid handshake.^[43]^{[full citation needed]}^{[page needed]}

Reading non-verbal communication Being able to read the non-verbal communication of another person can significantly aid in the communication process. By being aware of inconsistencies between a person's verbal and non-verbal communication and reconciling them, negotiators can to come to better resolutions. Examples of incongruity in body language include:

Nervous Laugh: A laugh not matching the situation. This could be a sign of nervousness or discomfort. When this happens, it may be good to probe with questions to discover the person's true feelings.
Positive words but negative body language: If someone asks their negotiation partner if they are annoyed and the person pounds their fist and responds sharply, "what makes you think anything is bothering me?"^[44]^{[page needed]}
Hands raised in a clenched position: The person raising his/her hands in this position reveals frustration even when he/she is smiling. This is a signal that the person doing it may be holding back a negative attitude.^[45]^{[page needed]}
If possible, it may be helpful for negotiation partners to spend time together in a comfortable setting outside of the negotiation room. Knowing how each partner non-verbally communicates outside of the negotiation setting helps negotiation partners sense incongruity between verbal and non-verbal communication.

Conveying receptivity The way negotiation partners position their bodies relative to each other may influence how receptive each is to the other person's message and ideas.

Face and eyes: Receptive negotiators smile, make plenty of eye contact. This conveys the idea that there is more interest in the person than in what is being said. On the other hand, non-receptive negotiators make little to no eye contact. Their eyes may be squinted, jaw muscles clenched and head turned slightly away from the speaker
Arms and hands: To show receptivity, negotiators should spread arms and open hands on table or relaxed on their lap. Negotiators show poor receptivity when their hands are clenched, crossed, positioned in front of their mouth, or rubbing the back of their neck.
Legs and Feet: Receptive negotiators sit with legs together or one leg slightly in front of the other. When standing, they distribute weight evenly and place hands on their hips with their body tilted toward the speaker. Non-receptive negotiators stand with legs crossed, pointing away from the speaker.
Torso: Receptive negotiators sit on the edge of their chair, unbutton their suit coat with their body tilted toward the speaker. Non-receptive negotiators may lean back in their chair and keep their suit coat buttoned.

Receptive negotiators tend to appear relaxed with their hands open and palms visibly displayed.^[46]^{[page needed]}

Barriers

Die-hard bargainers
Lack of trust
Informational vacuums and negotiator's dilemma
Structural impediments
Spoilers
Cultural and gender differences
Communication problems
The power of dialogue^[47]^{[page needed]}

Emotion

Emotions play an important part in the negotiation process, although it is only in recent years that their effect is being studied. Emotions have the potential to play either a positive or negative role in negotiation. During negotiations, the decision as to whether or not to settle rests in part on emotional factors. Negative emotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior, and can cause conflicts to escalate and negotiations to break down, but may be instrumental in attaining concessions. On the other hand, positive emotions often facilitate reaching an agreement and help to maximize joint gains, but can also be instrumental in attaining concessions. Positive and negative discrete emotions can be strategically displayed to influence task and relational outcomes^[48] and may play out differently across cultural boundaries.^[49]

Affect effect

Dispositional affects affect various stages of negotiation: which strategies to use, which strategies are actually chosen,^[50] the way the other party and their intentions are perceived,^[51] their willingness to reach an agreement and the final negotiated outcomes.^[52] Positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) of one or more of the negotiating sides can lead to very different outcomes.

Positive affect

Even before the negotiation process starts, people in a positive mood have more confidence,^[53] and higher tendencies to plan to use a cooperative strategy.^[50] During the negotiation, negotiators who are in a positive mood tend to enjoy the interaction more, show less contentious behavior, use less aggressive tactics^[54] and more cooperative strategies.^[50] This in turn increases the likelihood that parties will reach their instrumental goals, and enhance the ability to find integrative gains.^[55] Indeed, compared with negotiators with negative or natural affectivity, negotiators with positive affectivity reached more agreements and tended to honor those agreements more.^[50] Those favorable outcomes are due to better decision making processes, such as flexible thinking, creative problem solving, respect for others' perspectives, willingness to take risks and higher confidence.^[56] Post-negotiation positive affect has beneficial consequences as well. It increases satisfaction with achieved outcome and influences one's desire for future interactions.^[56] The PA aroused by reaching an agreement facilitates the dyadic relationship, which brings commitment that sets the stage for subsequent interactions.^[56]
PA also has its drawbacks: it distorts perception of self performance, such that performance is judged to be relatively better than it actually is.^[53] Thus, studies involving self reports on achieved outcomes might be biased.

Negative affect

Negative affect has detrimental effects on various stages in the negotiation process. Although various negative emotions affect negotiation outcomes, by far the most researched is anger. Angry negotiators plan to use more competitive strategies and to cooperate less, even before the negotiation starts.^[50] These competitive strategies are related to reduced joint outcomes. During negotiations, anger disrupts the process by reducing the level of trust, clouding parties' judgment, narrowing parties' focus of attention and changing their central goal from reaching agreement to retaliating against the other side.^[54] Angry negotiators pay less attention to opponent's interests and are less accurate in judging their interests, thus achieve lower joint gains.^[57] Moreover, because anger makes negotiators more self-centered in their preferences, it increases the likelihood that they will reject profitable offers.^[54] Opponents who get really angry (or cry, or otherwise lose control) are more likely to make errors: make sure they are in your favor.^[25] Anger does not help achieve negotiation goals either: it reduces joint gains^[50] and does not boost personal gains, as angry negotiators do not succeed.^[57] Moreover, negative emotions lead to acceptance of settlements that are not in the positive utility function but rather have a negative utility.^[58] However, expression of negative emotions during negotiation can sometimes be beneficial: legitimately expressed anger can be an effective way to show one's commitment, sincerity, and needs.^[54] Moreover, although NA reduces gains in integrative tasks, it is a better strategy than PA in distributive tasks (such as zero-sum).^[56] In his work on negative affect arousal and white noise, Seidner found support for the existence of a negative affect arousal mechanism through observations regarding the devaluation of speakers from other ethnic origins." Negotiation may be negatively affected, in turn, by submerged hostility toward an ethnic or gender group.^[59]

Conditions for emotion affect

Research indicates that negotiator's emotions do not necessarily affect the negotiation process. Albarracın et al. (2003) suggested that there are two conditions for emotional affect, both related to the ability (presence of environmental or cognitive disturbances) and the motivation:

Identification of the affect: requires high motivation, high ability or both.
Determination that the affect is relevant and important for the judgment: requires that either the motivation, the ability or both are low.

According to this model, emotions affect negotiations only when one is high and the other is low. When both ability and motivation are low, the affect is identified, and when both are high the affect is identified but discounted as irrelevant to judgment.^[60] A possible implication of this model is, for example, that the positive effects PA has on negotiations (as described above) is seen only when either motivation or ability are low.

Effect of partner's emotions

Most studies on emotion in negotiations focus on the effect of the negotiator's own emotions on the process. However, what the other party feels might be just as important, as group emotions are known to affect processes both at the group and the personal levels. When it comes to negotiations, trust in the other party is a necessary condition for its emotion to affect,^[51] and visibility enhances the effect.^[55] Emotions contribute to negotiation processes by signaling what one feels and thinks and can thus prevent the other party from engaging in destructive behaviors and to indicate what steps should be taken next: PA signals to keep in the same way, while NA points that mental or behavioral adjustments are needed.^[56]
Partner's emotions can have two basic effects on negotiator's emotions and behavior: mimetic/ reciprocal or complementary.^[52] For example, disappointment or sadness might lead to compassion and more cooperation.^[56] In a study by Butt et al. (2005) that simulated real multi-phase negotiation, most people reacted to the partner's emotions in reciprocal, rather than complementary, manner. Specific emotions were found to have different effects on the opponent's feelings and strategies chosen:

Anger caused the opponents to place lower demands and to concede more in a zero-sum negotiation, but also to evaluate the negotiation less favorably.^[61] It provoked both dominating and yielding behaviors of the opponent.^[52]
Pride led to more integrative and compromise strategies by the partner.^[52]
Guilt or regret expressed by the negotiator led to better impression of him by the opponent, however it also led the opponent to place higher demands.^[51] On the other hand, personal guilt was related to more satisfaction with what one achieved.^[56]
Worry or disappointment left bad impression on the opponent, but led to relatively lower demands by the opponent.^[51]

Dealing with emotions

Make emotions explicit and validate - Taking a more proactive approach in discussing one's emotions can allow for a negotiation to focus on the problem itself, rather than any unexpressed feelings. It is important to allow both parties to share any emotions he or she may have.
Allow time to let off steam - It is possible that one party may feel angry or frustrated at some point during the negotiation. Rather than try to avoid discussing those feelings, allow the individual to talk it out. Sitting and listening, without providing too much feedback to the substance itself, can offer enough support for the person to feel better. Once the grievances are released, it may become easier to negotiate.
Symbolic gestures - Consider that an apology, or any other simply act, may be one of the most effective and low cost means to reduce any negative emotions between parties.^[14]

Problems with laboratory studies

Negotiation is a rather complex interaction. Capturing all its complexity is a very difficult task, let alone isolating and controlling only certain aspects of it. For this reason most negotiation studies are done under laboratory conditions, and focus only on some aspects. Although lab studies have their advantages, they do have major drawbacks when studying emotions:

Emotions in lab studies are usually manipulated and are therefore relatively 'cold' (not intense). Although those 'cold' emotions might be enough to show effects, they are qualitatively different from the 'hot' emotions often experienced during negotiations.^[62]
In real life, people select which negotiations to enter, which affects emotional commitment, motivation and interests —but this is not the case in lab studies.^[56]
Lab studies tend to focus on relatively few well defined emotions. Real life scenarios provoke a much wider scale of emotions.^[56]
Coding the emotions has a double catch: if done by a third side, some emotions might not be detected as the negotiator sublimates them for strategic reasons. Self-report measures might overcome this, but they are usually filled only before or after the process, and if filled during the process might interfere with it.^[56]

Group composition

Multi-party

While negotiations involving more than two parties is less often researched, some results from two-party negotiations still apply with more than two parties. One such result is that in negotiations it is common to see language similarity arise between the two negotiating parties. In three-party negotiations, language similarity still arose, and results were particularly efficient when the party with the most to gain from the negotiation adopted language similarities from the other parties.^[63]

Team

Students from University of Tromsø and University of Toronto during 5th International Negotiation Tournament – Warsaw Negotiation Round in the Polish Senate (2014).

Due to globalization and growing business trends, negotiation in the form of teams is becoming widely adopted. Teams can effectively collaborate to break down a complex negotiation. There is more knowledge and wisdom dispersed in a team than in a single mind. Writing, listening, and talking, are specific roles team members must satisfy. The capacity base of a team reduces the amount of blunder, and increases familiarity in a negotiation.^[64]
However, unless a team can appropriately utilize the full capacity of its potential, effectiveness can suffer. One factor in the effectiveness of team negotiation is a problem that occurs through solidarity behavior. Solidarity behavior occurs when one team member reduces his or her own utility (benefit) in order to increase the benefits of other team members. This behavior is likely to occur when interest conflicts rise. When the utility/needs of the negotiation opponent does not align with every team member's interests, team members begin to make concessions and balance the benefits gained among the team.^[65]
Intuitively, this may feel like a cooperative approach. However, though a team may aim to negotiate in a cooperative or collaborative nature, the outcome may be less successful than is possible, especially when integration is possible. Integrative potential is possible when different negotiation issues are of different importance to each team member. Integrative potential is often missed due to the lack of awareness of each member's interests and preferences. Ultimately, this leads to a poorer negotiation result.
Thus, a team can perform more effectively if each member discloses his or her preferences prior to the negotiation. This step will allow the team to recognize and organize the team's joint priorities, which they can take into consideration when engaging with the opposing negotiation party. Because a team is more likely to discuss shared information and common interests, teams must make an active effort to foster and incorporate unique viewpoints from experts from different fields. Research by Daniel Thiemann, which largely focused on computer-supported collaborative tasks, found that the Preference Awareness method is an effective tool for fostering the knowledge about joint priorities and further helps the team judge which negotiation issues were of highest importance.^[66]

Women

Many of the strategies in negotiation vary across genders, and this leads to variations in outcomes for different genders, often with women experiencing less success in negotiations as a consequence. This is due to a number of factors, including that it has been shown that it is more difficult for women to be self-advocating when they are negotiating. Many of the implications of these findings have strong financial impacts in addition to the social backlash faced by self-advocating women in negotiations, as compared to other advocating women, self-advocating men, and other advocating men. Research in this area has been studied across platforms, in addition to more specific areas like women as physician assistants.^[67] The backlash associated with this type of behavior is attributed to the fact that to be self-advocated is considered masculine, whereas the alternative, being accommodating, is considered more feminine.^[68] Males, however, do not appear to face any type of backlash for not being self-advocating.^[69]
This research has been supported by multiple studies, including one which evaluated candidates participating in a negotiation regarding compensation. This study showed that women who initiated negotiations were evaluated more poorly than men who initiated negotiations. In another variation of this particular setup, men and women evaluated videos of men and women either accepting a compensation package or initiating negotiations. Men evaluated women more poorly for initiating negotiations, while women evaluated both men and women more poorly for initiating negotiations. In this particular experiment, women were less likely to initiate a negotiation with a male, citing nervousness, but there was no variation with the negotiation was initiated with another female.^[70]
Research also supports the notion that the way individuals respond in a negotiation varies depending on the gender of the opposite party. In all-male groups, the use of deception showed no variation upon the level of trust between negotiating parties, however in mixed-sex groups there was an increase in deceptive tactics when it was perceived that the opposite party was using an accommodating strategy. In all-female groups, there were many shifts in when individuals did and did not employ deception in their negotiation tactics.^[68]

Academic negotiation

The academic world contains a unique management system, wherein faculty members, some of which have tenure, reside in academic units (e.g. departments) and are overseen by chairs, or heads. These chairs/heads are in turn supervised by deans of the college where their academic unit resides. Negotiation is an area where faculty, chairs/heads and their deans have little preparation; their doctoral degrees are typically in a highly specialized area according to their academic expertise. However, the academic environment frequently presents with situations where negotiation takes place. For example, many faculty are hired with an expectation that they will conduct research and publish scholarly works. For these faculty, where their research requires equipment, space, and/or funding, negotiation of a "start-up" package is critical for their success and future promotion.^[71]^[72] Also, department chairs often find themselves in situations, typically involving resource redistribution where they must negotiate with their dean, on behalf of their unit. And deans oversee colleges where they must optimize limited resources, such as research space or operating funds while at the same time creating an environment that fosters student success, research accomplishments and more.^[71]^[72]^[73]
Integrative negotiation is the type predominately found in academic negotiation – where trust and long-term relationships between personnel are valued. Techniques found to be particularly useful in academic settings include:^[71]^[72] (1) doing your homework – grounding your request in facts; (2) knowing your value; (3) listening actively and acknowledging what is being said,^[74] (4) putting yourself in their shoes, (5) asking – negotiation begins with an ask, (6) not committing immediately, (7) managing emotion and (8) keeping in mind the principle of a "wise agreement",^[74] with its associated emphasis on meeting the interests of both parties to the extent possible as a key working point. The articles by Callahan, et al.^[71] and Amekudzi-Kennedy, et al.^[72] contain several case studies of academic negotiations.

Etymology

The word "negotiation" originated in the early 15th century from the Old French and Latin expressions "negociacion" and "negotiationem". These terms mean "business, trade and traffic". By the late 1590s negotiation had the definition, "to communicate in search of mutual agreement." With this new introduction and this meaning, it showed a shift in "doing business" to "bargaining about" business.^[75]

References

deCallières, François (2002). Lempereur, Alain Pekar, ed. De la manière de négocier avec les souverains. France: Droz. ISBN 978-2-600-00685-9.

deCallières, François (2000). Handy, Charles, ed. On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes. United States: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-618-05512-8.

de Felice, Fortune Barthélémy (1976). "The 50%Solution". In Zartman, I William. Negotiation, or the art of Negotiating. United States: Doubleday Anchor. p. 549.

Fisher, Roger; Ury, William (1984). Patton, Bruce, ed. Getting to yes : negotiating agreement without giving in (Reprint ed.). New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0140065343.

Chris Honeyman & Andrea Kupfer Schneider, eds., The Negotator's Handbook (Dispute Resolution Institute Press, 2017; Victor Kremenyuk, ed., International Negotiation. JosseyBass, 2nd ed. 2002)

Richard Walton & Robert McKersie, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations [McGraw-Hill 1965]; Leigh Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator [Prentice-Hall 2001]; I William Zartman & Victor Kremenyuk, eds., Peace vs Justice: Negotiating Forward- vs Backward-Looking Outcomes. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005]

Shell, G Richard (1999). Bargaining for Advantage. United States: Penguin. ISBN 9780670881338.

Saner, Raymond. The Expert Negotiator, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2000 (p. 40)

McDermott, Rose (2009). "Negotiated Risks". In Avenhaus, Rudolf[; Sjösted, Gunnar. Prospect Theory and Negotiation. Germany: Springer. p. 372. ISBN 978-3-540-92992-5.

John Nash, "The Bargaining problem," Econometrica XVIII 1:155-162, 1950; G C Homans, Social Behavior. Harcourt, Brace and world, 1961

Follett, Mary (1951). Creative Experience. United States: P Smith.

Trotschel; Hufmeier; Loschelder; Schwartz; Collwitzer (2011). "Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself in the opponents shoes helps to walk towards agreements" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101 (4): 771–790. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.728.9853. doi:10.1037/a0023801. PMID 21728447.

Gregory Brazeal, "Against Gridlock: The Viability of Interest-Based Legislative Negotiation", Harvard Law & Policy Review (Online), vol. 3, p. 1 (2009).

Fisher, Roger, Ury, Wiliam, & Paten, Bruce (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin: New York. Chapter 2

Johnston, Peter D (2008). Negotiating with Giants. United States: Negotiation Press. pp. Pages 4 to 5. ISBN 978-0980942101.

Chernow, Ron (2004). Titan, The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. United States: Penguin Random House. pp. Pages 111 to 112. ISBN 978-1400077304.

"Athletes' performance declines following contract years". ScienceDaily. January 22, 2014.

Johnston, Peter D. (2008). Negotiating with Giants. United States: Negotiation Press. pp. Page 4. ISBN 978-0980942101.

Johnston, Peter D. (2008). Negotiating with Giants. United States: Negotiation Press. pp. Page 168. ISBN 978-0980942101.

"negotiating in bad faith", example of use of "bad faith" definition in Oxford Online Dictionary

IBHS Union Voice (2008-12-03). ""Bad Faith Negotiation", Union Voice". Unitas.wordpress.com. Retrieved 2014-08-24.

example of use - "the Republicans accused the Democrats of "negotiating in bad faith", Oxford Online Dictionary

Douglas Stuart and Harvey Starr, "The 'Inherent Bad Faith Model' Reconsidered: Dulles, Kennedy, and Kissinger", Political Psychology(subscription required)

"... the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one's opponent ...", The handbook of social psychology, Volumes 1-2, edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, Gardner Lindzey

Churchman, David. 1993. Negotiation Tactics. Maryland: University Press of America. p. 13.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (5) (2002), pp. 1131–1140

Thomas, Kenneth W (2006-11-21). "Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 13 (3): 265–274. doi:10.1002/job.4030130307. hdl:10945/40295.

Shell, R. G. (2006). Bargaining for advantage. New York: Penguin Books.

Marks, M; Harold, C (2011). "Who Asks and Who Receives in Salary Negotiation". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 32 (3): 371–394. doi:10.1002/job.671.

Sorenson, R; Morse, E; Savage, G (1999). "The Test of the Motivations Underlying Choice of Conflict Strategies in the Dual-Concern Model". The International Journal of Conflict Management.

Forsyth, David (2009). Group dynamics. Wadsworth Pub Co. pp. 379–409.

Gates, Steve (2011). The Negotiation Book. United Kingdom: A John Wiley and Sons, LTD., Publication. p. 232. ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9.

Gates, Steve (2011). The Negotiation Book. United Kingdom: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Publication. p. 240. ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9.

Goldman, Alvin (1991). Settling For More: Mastering Negotiating Strategies and Techniques. Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-87179-651-6.

Lewicki, R. J.; D. M. Saunders; J. W. Minton (2001). Essentials of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-07-231285-0.

Gates, Steve (2011). The Negotiation Book. United Kingdom: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Publication. p. 246. ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9.

Coburn, Calum. "Neutralising Manipulative Negotiation Tactics". Negotiation Training Solutions. Retrieved 1 October 2012.

Gates, Steve (2011). The Negotiation Book. United Kingdom: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Publication. p. 245. ISBN 978-0-470-66491-9.

Lewicki, R. J.; D.M. Saunders; J.W. Minton (2001). Essentials of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-07-231285-0.

Lewicki, R. J.; D. M. Saunders; J. W. Minton (2001). Essentials of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-07-231285-0.

Vecchi, G. M.; Van Hasselt, V. B.; Romano, S. J. (2005). "Crisis (hostage) negotiation: Current strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution". Aggression and Violent Behavior. 10 (5): 533–551. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2004.10.001.

Hui, Zhou; Tingqin Zhang. "Body Language in Business Negotiation". International Journal of Business and Management. 3 (2).

Body Language Magic.

Donaldson, Michael C. (2011-04-18). Negotiating For Dummies. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-06808-3.

Pease, Barbara and Alan (2006). The Definitive Book of Body Language. New York: Bantam Dell. ISBN 978-0-553-80472-0.

Donaldson, Michael C.; Donaldson, Mimi (1996). Negotiating for dummies. New York: Hungry Minds. ISBN 978-1-56884-867-9.

Richard Luecke (2003). Negotiation. Harvard Business Essentials. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 9781591391111.

Kopelman, S.; Rosette, A.; and Thompson, L. (2006). "The three faces of eve: Strategic displays of positive neutral and negative emotions in negotiations". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (OBHDP), 99 (1), 81-101.

Kopelman, S. and Rosette, A. S. (2008). "Cultural variation in response to strategic display of emotions in negotiations". Special Issue on Emotion and Negotiation in Group Decision and Negotiation (GDN), 17 (1) 65-77.

Forgas, J. P. (1998). "On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and behavior". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74 (3): 565–577. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.565. PMID 11407408.

Van Kleef, G.A.; De Dreu, C.K.W.; Manstead, A.S.R. (2006). "Supplication and Appeasement in Conflict and Negotiation: The Interpersonal Effects of Disappointment, Worry, Guilt, and Regret". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 91 (1): 124–142. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.124. PMID 16834484.

Butt, AN; Choi, JN; Jaeger, A (2005). "The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: a comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 26 (6): 681–704. doi:10.1002/job.328.

Kramer, R. M.; Newton, E.; Pommerenke, P. L. (1993). "Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judgment: Effects of self-esteem and mood". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 56: 110–133. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1047.

Maiese, Michelle "Emotions" Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2005 downloaded: 30 August 2007

Carnevale, P. J. D.; Isen, A. M. (1986). "The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 37: 1–13. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90041-5. hdl:2027.42/26263.

Barry, B.; Fulmer, I. S.; & Van Kleef, G. A. (2004) "I laughed, I cried, I settled: The role of emotion in negotiation". In M. J. Gelfand & J. M. Brett (Eds.), The handbook of negotiation and culture (pp. 71–94). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Allred, K. G.; Mallozzi, J. S.; Matsui, F.; Raia, C. P. (1997). "The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 70 (3): 175–187. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2705.

Davidson, M. N.; Greenhalgh, L. (1999). "The role of emotion in negotiation: The impact of anger and race". Research on Negotiation in Organizations. 7: 3–26.

Seidner, Stanley S. (1991). "Negative Affect Arousal Reactions from Mexican and Puerto Rican Respondents". Washington, D.C.: ERIC.

Albarracin, D.; Kumkale, G.T. (2003). "Affect as Information in Persuasion: A Model of Affect Identification and Discounting". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (3): 453–469. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.453. PMC 4797933.

Van Kleef, G. A.; De Dreu, C. K. W.; Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). "The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86 (1): 57–76. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.57. PMID 14717628.

Bazerman, M. H.; Curhan, J. R.; Moore, D. A.; Valley, K. L. (2000). "Negotiation". Annual Review of Psychology. 51: 279–314. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.279. PMID 10751973.

Sagi, Eyal; Diermeier, Daniel (2015-12-01). "Language Use and Coalition Formation in Multiparty Negotiations". Cognitive Science. 41 (1): 259–271. doi:10.1111/cogs.12325. ISSN 1551-6709. PMID 26671166.

Sparks, D. B. (1993). The Dynamics of Effective Negotiation (second edition). Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.

Wang, J., & Gong, J. (n.d.). Team Negotiation Based on Solidarity Behavior: A Concession Strategy in the Team. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7515883

Thiemann, D., & Hesse, F. W. (2015). Learning about Team Members' Preferences: Computer-Supported Preference Awareness in the Negotiation Preparation of Teams.

Brianne, Hall,; Tracy, Hoelting, (2015-04-24). "Influence of negotiation and practice setting on salary disparities between male and female physician assistants".

Gladstone, Eric; O'Connor, Kathleen M. (2014-09-01). "A counterpart's feminine face signals cooperativeness and encourages negotiators to compete". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 125 (1): 18–25. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.05.001.

Amanatullah, Emily T.; Tinsley, Catherine H. (2013-01-01). "Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much…or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 120 (1): 110–122. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.006.

Bowles, Hannah; Babcock, Linda; Lai, Lei (2006). "Social incentives for gender diVerences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask" (PDF). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 103: 84–103. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001.

Callahan, J; Besterfield-Sacre, M.E.; Carpenter, J.P.; Needy, K.L.; Schrader, C.B. (2016). "Listening and Negotiation". 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. doi:10.18260/p.25571.

Amekudzi-Kennedy, A.A.; Hall, K.D.; Harding, T.S.; Moll, A.J.; Callahan, J. (2017). "Listening and Negotiation II". 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio.

McKersie, R.B. (2012). "The Day-to-Day Life of a Dean: Engaging in Negotiations and negotiations". Negotiation Journal 475-488.

Fisher, R.; Ury, W.; Patton, B. (2012). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin: New York.

* "Negotiation Etymology". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved May 11, 2014.

Definitions of terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.^[1]^[2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon and legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.^[3] In the United States of America, for example, Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."^[4]

It is the use of violence or threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, ideological or social objectives.
It can be committed by governments, non-state actors, or undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments.
It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.
It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is inherently immoral or wrong).

The following criteria of violence or threat of violence fall outside of the definition of terrorism:^[5]^[6]

Wartime (including a declared war) or peacetime acts of violence committed by a nation state against another nation state regardless of legality or illegality that are carried out by properly uniformed forces or legal combatants of such nation states.
Reasonable acts of self-defense, such as the use of force to kill, apprehend, or punish criminals who pose a threat to the lives of humans or property.
Legitimate targets in war, such as enemy combatants and strategic infrastructure that are an integral part of the enemy's war effort.
Collateral damage, including the infliction of incidental damage to non-combatant targets during an attack on or attempting to attack legitimate targets in war.

There are many reasons as to why there is no universal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."^[7] These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.^[8]
In the meantime, the international community adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. In addition, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."^[9]
A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the United States Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.^[10] Record continued "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls".^[11]

Etymology

A 30 January 1795 use of the word 'terrorism' in The Times, an early appearance in English. The excerpt reads: "There exists more than one system to overthrow our liberty. Fanaticism has raised every passion; Royalism has not yet given up its hopes, and Terrorism feels bolder than ever."

The term "terrorism" comes from French terrorisme, from Latin: terror, "great fear", "dread", related to the Latin verb terrere, "to frighten". The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BCE. The French National Convention declared in September 1793 that "terror is the order of the day". The period 1793–94 is referred to as La Terreur (Reign of Terror). Maximilien Robespierre, a leader in the French revolution proclaimed in 1794 that "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible."^[12]
The Committee of Public Safety agents that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as "Terrorists".^[13] The word "terrorism" was first recorded in English-language dictionaries in 1798 as meaning "systematic use of terror as a policy".^[14]
Although the Reign of Terror was imposed by the French government, in modern times "terrorism" usually refers to the killing of people by non-governmental political activists for political reasons, often as a public statement. This meaning originated with Russian radicals in the 1870s. Sergey Nechayev, who founded the People's Reprisal (Народная расправа) in 1869, described himself as a "terrorist".^[15] German radicalist writer Johann Most helped popularize the modern sense of the word by dispensing "advice for terrorists" in the 1880s.^[16]
According to Myra Williamson: "The meaning of "terrorism" has undergone a transformation. During the reign of terror a regime or system of terrorism was used as an instrument of governance, wielded by a recently established revolutionary state against the enemies of the people. Now the term "terrorism" is commonly used to describe terrorist acts committed by non-state or subnational entities against a state."^[17]

In international law

The need to define terrorism in international criminal law

Ben Saul has noted that a "A combination of pragmatic and principled arguments supports the case for defining terrorism in international law",^[18] including the need to condemn violations to human rights, to protect the state and deliberative politics, to differentiate public and private violence, and to ensure international peace and security.
Carlos Diaz-Paniagua, who coordinated the negotiations of the proposed United Nations Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, noted, on his part, the need to provide a precise definition of terrorist activities in international law: "Criminal law has three purposes: to declare that a conduct is forbidden, to prevent it, and to express society's condemnation for the wrongful acts. The symbolic, normative role of criminalization is of particular importance in the case of terrorism. The criminalization of terrorist acts expresses society's repugnance at them, invokes social censure and shame, and stigmatizes those who commit them. Moreover, by creating and reaffirming values, criminalization may serve, in the long run, as a deterrent to terrorism, as those values are internalized."^[19] Thus, international criminal law treaties that seek to prevent, condemn and punish terrorist activities, require precise definitions:

The definition of the offence in criminal law treaty plays several roles. First and foremost, it has the symbolic, normative role of expressing society's condemnation of the forbidden acts. Second, it facilitates agreement. Since states tend to be reluctant to undertake stringent obligations in matters related to the exercise of their domestic jurisdiction, a precise definition of the crime, which restricts the scope of those obligations, makes agreement less costly. Third, it provides an inter-subjective basis for the homogeneous application of the treaty's obligations on judicial and police cooperation. This function is of particular importance in extradition treaties because, to grant an extradition, most legal systems require that the crime be punishable both in the requesting state and the requested state. Fourth, it helps states to enact domestic legislation to criminalize and punish the wrongful acts defined in the treaty in conformity with their human rights' obligations. The principle of nullum crimen sine lege requires, in particular, that states define precisely which acts are prohibited before anyone can be prosecuted or punished for committing those same acts.^[20]

Saul noted in this sense that, missing a generally agreed, all-encompassing, definition of the term:

'Terrorism' currently lacks the precision, objectivity and certainty demanded by legal discourse. Criminal law strives to avoid emotive terms to prevent prejudice to an accused, and shuns ambiguous or subjective terms as incompatible with the principle of non-retroactivity. If the law is to admit the term, advance definition is essential on grounds of fairness, and it is not sufficient to leave definition to the unilateral interpretations of States. Legal definition could plausibly retrieve terrorism from the ideological quagmire, by severing an agreed legal meaning from the remainder of the elastic, political concept. Ultimately it must do so without criminalizing legitimate violent resistance to oppressive regimes – and becoming complicit in that oppression.^[21]

Obstacles to a comprehensive definition

Diaz-Paniagua has noted that, to "...create an effective legal regime against terrorism, it would be necessary to formulate a comprehensive definition of that crime that, on the one hand, provides the strongest moral condemnation to terrorist activities while, on the other hand, has enough precision to permit the prosecution of criminal activities without condemning acts that should be deemed to be legitimate.^[22] Nonetheless, due to major divergences at the international level on the question of the legitimacy of the use of violence for political purposes, either by states or by self-determination and revolutionary groups, this has not yet been possible."^[23] In this sense, M. Cherif Bassiouni notes:

to define 'terrorism' in a way that is both all-inclusive and unambiguous is very difficult, if not impossible. One of the principle difficulties lies in the fundamental values at stake in the acceptance or rejection of terror-inspiring violence as means of accomplishing a given goal. The obvious and well known range of views on these issues are what makes an internationally accepted specific definition of what is loosely called 'terrorism,' a largely impossible undertaking. That is why the search for and internationally agreed upon definition may well be a futile and unnecessary effort.^[24]

Sami Zeidan, a Lebanese diplomat and scholar, explained the political reasons underlying the current difficulties to define terrorism as follows:

There is no general consensus on the definition of terrorism. The difficulty of defining terrorism lies in the risk it entails of taking positions. The political value of the term currently prevails over its legal one. Left to its political meaning, terrorism easily falls prey to change that suits the interests of particular states at particular times. The Taliban and Osama bin Laden were once called freedom fighters (mujahideen) and backed by the CIA when they were resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Now they are on top of the international terrorist lists. Today, the United Nations views Palestinians as freedom fighters, struggling against the unlawful occupation of their land by Israel, and engaged in a long-established legitimate resistance, yet Israel regards them as terrorists. Israel also brands the Hizbullah of Lebanon as a terrorist group, whereas most of the international community regards it as a legitimate resistance group, fighting Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon. In fact, the successful ousting of Israeli forces from most of the South by the Hizbollah in 2000 made Lebanon the only Arab country to actually defeat the Israeli army. The repercussion of the current preponderance of the political over the legal value of terrorism is costly, leaving the war against terrorism selective, incomplete and ineffective.^[25]

In the same vein, Jason Burke, a British reporter who writes about radical Islamist activity, said:

There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as "the use or threat of serious violence" to advance some kind of "cause". Some state clearly the kinds of group ("sub-national", "non-state") or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term "war on terrorism" is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term "Militancy". This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way.^[26]

The political and emotional connotation of the term "terrorism" makes difficult its use in legal discourse. In this sense, Saul notes that:

Despite the shifting and contested meaning of "terrorism" over time, the peculiar semantic power of the term, beyond its literal signification, is its capacity to stigmatize, delegitimize, denigrate, and dehumanize those at whom it is directed, including political opponents. The term is ideologically and politically loaded; pejorative; implies moral, social, and value judgment; and is "slippery and much-abused." In the absence of a definition of terrorism, the struggle over the representation of a violent act is a struggle over its legitimacy. The more confused a concept, the more it lends itself to opportunistic appropriation.^[27]

Historically, the dispute on the meaning of terrorism arose since the laws of war were first codified in 1899. The Martens Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture, and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.^[28]^[29]
More recently the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, which applies in situations Article 1. Paragraph 4 "... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes...", contains many ambiguities that cloud the issue of who is or is not a legitimate combatant.^[30] These difficulties have led Pamala Griset to conclude that: "the meaning of terrorism is embeded in a person's or nation's philosophy. Thus, the determination of the 'right' definition of terrorism is subjective." ^[31]

The sectoral approach

To elaborate an effective legal regime to prevent and punish international terrorism—rather than only working on a single, all-encompassing, comprehensive definition of terrorism—the international community has also adopted a "...'sectoral' approach aimed at identifying offences seen as belonging to the activities of terrorists and working out treaties in order to deal with specific categories thereof".^[32] The treaties that follow this approach focus on the wrongful nature of terrorist activities rather than on their intent:

On the whole, therefore, the 'sectoral' conventions confirm the assumption that some offences can be considered in themselves as offences of international concern, irrespective of any 'terrorist' intent or purpose. Indeed, the principal merit of the 'sectoral approach' is that it avoids the need to define 'terrorism' of 'terrorist acts' ... So long as the 'sectoral' approach is followed, there is no need to define terrorism; a definition would only be necessary if the punishment of the relevant offences were made conditional on the existence of a specific 'terrorist' intent; but this would be counter-productive, inasmuch as it would result in unduly restricting their suppression.^[32]

Following this approach, the international community has adopted the following sectoral counter-terrorism conventions, open to the ratification of all states:

Analyzing these treaties, Andrew Byrnes observed that:

These conventions – all of which are described by the United Nations as part of its panoply of anti-terrorist measures – share three principal characteristics:
(a) they all adopted an "operational definition" of a specific type of terrorist act that was defined without reference to the underlying political or ideological purpose or motivation of the perpetrator of the act – this reflected a consensus that there were some acts that were such a serious threat to the interests of all that they could not be justified by reference to such motives;
(b) they all focused on actions by non-state actors (individuals and organisations) and the State was seen as an active ally in the struggle against terrorism – the question of the State itself as terrorist actor was left largely to one side; and
(c) they all adopted a criminal law enforcement model to address the problem, under which States would cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of those alleged to have committed these crimes.^[33]

Byrnes notes that "this act-specific approach to addressing problems of terrorism in binding international treaties has continued up until relatively recently. Although political denunciation of terrorism in all its forms had continued apace, there had been no successful attempt to define 'terrorism' as such in a broad sense that was satisfactory for legal purposes. There was also some scepticism as to the necessity, desirability and feasibility of producing an agreed and workable general definition."^[34] Nonetheless, since 2000, the United Nations General Assembly has been working on a proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism.

Comprehensive conventions

The international community has worked on two comprehensive counter-terrorism treaties, the League of Nations' 1937 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which never entered into force, and the United Nations' proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, which hasn't been finalized yet.

League of Nations

In the late 1930s, the international community made a first attempt at defining terrorism. Article 1.1 of the League of Nations' 1937 Convention for the prevention and punishment of Terrorism,^[35] which never entered into force, defined "acts of terrorism" as "criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public". Article 2 included as terrorist acts, if they were directed against another state and if they constituted acts of terrorism within the meaning of the definition contained in article 1, the following:

1. Any willful act causing death or grievous bodily harm or loss of liberty to:

a) Heads of State, persons exercising the prerogatives of the head of the State, their hereditary or designated successors;
b) The wives or husbands or the above-mentioned persons;
c) Persons charged with public functions or holding public positions when the act is directed against them in their public capacity.
2. Willful destruction of, or damage to, public property or property devoted to a public purpose belonging to or subject to the authority of another High Contracting Party.
3. Any willful act calculated to endanger the lives of members of the public.
4. Any attempt to commit an offence falling within the foregoing provisions of the present article.
5. The manufacture, obtaining, possession, or supplying of arms, ammunition, explosives or harmful substances with the view to the commission in any country whatsoever of an offence falling within the present article.^[36]

Proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism

Since 2000, the United Nations General Assembly has been negotiating a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. The definition of the crime of terrorism, which has been on the negotiating table since 2002 reads as follows:

1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:

(a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
(b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or
(c) Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.^[37]

Among the negotiators, that definition is not controversial in itself; the deadlock in the negotiations arises instead from the opposing views on whether such a definition would be applicable to the armed forces of a state and to self-determination movements. Thalif Deen described the situation as follows: "The key sticking points in the draft treaty revolve around several controversial yet basic issues, including the definition of ´terrorism´. For example, what distinguishes a "terrorist organisation" from a 'liberation movement'? And do you exclude activities of national armed forces, even if they are perceived to commit acts of terrorism? If not, how much of this constitutes 'state terrorism'?"^[38] The coordinator of the negotiations, supported by most western delegations, proposed the following exceptions to address those issues:

1. Nothing in this Convention shall affect other rights, obligations and responsibilities of States, peoples and individuals under international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and international humanitarian law.
2. The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention.
3. The activities undertaken by the military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention.
4. Nothing in this article condones or makes lawful otherwise unlawful acts, nor precludes prosecution under other laws.^[39]

The state members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference proposed instead the following exceptions:

2. The activities of 'the parties' during an armed conflict, 'including in situations of foreign occupation', as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention.
3. The activities undertaken by the military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, 'inasmuch as they are in conformity' with international law, are not governed by this Convention.^[39]

Sectoral conventions

The various sectoral counter-terrorism conventions defines as terrorist particular categories of activities.

Terrorist Bombings Convention

Article 2.1 of the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings defines the offence of terrorist bombing as follows:

Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility:

a) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or
b) With the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility or system, where such a destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss.^[40]

Article 19 expressly excluded from the scope of the convention certain activities of state armed forces and of self-determination movements as follows:

1. Nothing in this Convention shall affect other rights, obligations and responsibilities of States, and individuals under international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and international humanitarian law.
2. The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention, and the activities undertaken by the military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention.^[41]

Terrorist Financing Convention

Article 2.1 of the 1999 sectoral United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (Terrorist Financing Convention) defines the crime of terrorist financing as the offence committed by "any person" who "by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out" an act "intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

Nuclear Terrorism Convention

The 2005 United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism defines the crime of nuclear terrorism as follows:

Article 2
1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally: (a) Possesses radioactive material or makes or possesses a device:

(i) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or
(ii) With the intent to cause substantial damage to property or to the environment;
(b) Uses in any way radioactive material or a device, or uses or damages a nuclear facility in a manner which releases or risks the release of radioactive material:

(i) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or
(ii) With the intent to cause substantial damage to property or to the environment; or
(iii) With the intent to compel a natural or legal person, an international organization or a State to do or refrain from doing an act.^[42]

Article 4 of the convention expressly excluded from the application of the convention the use of nuclear weapons during armed conflicts without, though, recognizing the legality of the use of those weapons:

1. Nothing in this Convention shall affect other rights, obligations and responsibilities of States and individuals under international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international humanitarian law.
2. The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law are not governed by this Convention, and the activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention.
3. The provisions of paragraph 2 of the present article shall not be interpreted as condoning or making lawful otherwise unlawful acts, or precluding prosecution under other laws.
4. This Convention does not address, nor can it be interpreted as addressing, in any way, the issue of the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons by States.^[43]

Definitions of terrorism in other UN decisions

In parallel with the criminal law codification efforts, some United Nations organs have put forward some broad political definitions of terrorism.

UN General Assembly Resolutions

A 1996 non-binding United Nations Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, annexed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 51/210, described terrorist activities in the following terms:^[44]

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

Antonio Cassese has argued that the language of this and other similar UN declarations "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."^[45]

UN Security Council

In 2004, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 condemned terrorist acts as:

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and the Secretary General

Also in 2004, a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change composed of independent experts and convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations called states to set aside their differences and to adopt, in the text of a proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, the following political "description of terrorism":

any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.^[46]

The following year, Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan endorsed the High Level Panel's definition of terrorism and asked states to set aside their differences and to adopt that definition within the proposed comprehensive terrorism convention before the end of that year. He said:

It is time to set aside debates on so-called "State terrorism". The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians. I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. I believe this proposal has clear moral force, and I strongly urge world leaders to unite behind it and to conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.^[47]

The suggestion of incorporating this definition of terrorism into the comprehensive convention was rejected. Some United Nations' member states contended that a definition such as the one proposed by the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, and endorsed by the Secretary General, lacked the necessary requirements to be incorporated in a criminal law instrument. Carlos Diaz-Paniagua, who coordinated the negotiations of the proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, stated that a comprehensive definition of terrorism to be included in a criminal law treaty must have "legal precision, certainty, and fair-labeling of the criminal conduct - all of which emanate from the basic human rights obligation to observe due process."^[48]

European Union

The European Union defines terrorism for legal/official purposes in Art. 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002).^[49] This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list consisting largely of serious offences against persons and property that;

...given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NATO defines terrorism in the AAP-06 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, Edition 2014 as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives".^[50]

In national law

Argentina

The Argentine National Reorganization Process dictatorship, which lasted from 1976 to 1983, defined "terrorist" as "not only who set bombs and carry guns, but also those who spread ideas opposite to Christian and western civilization".^{[citation needed]}

France

In 1986, France adopted its first "anti-terrorism" law.^[51] The French legal definition of "acts of terrorism" as in force since 2016 is to be found in the French Code pénal, article 421. The article starts with:

Acts of terrorism – provided they are intentional, connected to either an individual or a collective enterprise, and intended to gravely disturb the public order by way of intimidation or terror – are: 1º deliberate assaults on life or on personal integrity; the hijacking of an aeroplane, ship or other means of transport; 2º theft, extorsion, destruction, degradation, deterioration; infractions on computerized information; ... [etc.]^[52]

India

The Supreme Court of India adopted Alex P. Schmid's definition of terrorism in a 2003 ruling (Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar), "defin[ing] acts of terrorism veritably as 'peacetime equivalents of war crimes.'"^[53]^{[dubious – discuss]} The now lapsed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act specified the following definition of terrorism:

Whoever with intent to overawe the Government as by law established or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people or to alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to cause, or as is likely to cause, death of, or injuries to, any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act.

Pakistan

The Pakistan Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999 states:
A person is said to commit a terrorist act if he,
(a) in order to, or if the effect of his actions will be to, strike terror or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people, or any section of the people, does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive or inflammable substances, or such fire-arms or other lethal weapons as may be notified, or poisons or noxious gases or chemicals, in such a manner as to cause, or be likely to cause, the death of, or injury to, any person or persons, or damage to, or destruction of, property on a large scale, or a widespread disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, or threatens with the use of force public servants in order to prevent them from discharging their lawful duties; or
(b) commits a scheduled offence, the effect of which will be, or be likely to be, to strike terror, or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people, or any section of the people, or to adversely affect harmony among different sections of the people; or
(c) commits an act of gang rape, child molestation, or robbery coupled with rape as specified in the Schedule to this Act; or
(d) commits an act of civil commotion as specified in section &A." ^[54]

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Interior Ministry issued a set of anti-terrorist laws in 2014. According to Article 1 and 2:
“Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based” and anyone who questions the King or the government or supports any group, party, organization other than that of the ruling elite inside or outside the Kingdom is a terrorist^[55]^[56].

Syria

After the United States attack on Abu Kamal, the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem defined terrorism as "Killing civilians in international law means a terrorist aggression."^[57]

Turkey

The definition of "Terrorism" in Article 1 of Anti-Terror Law 3713 is: "Terrorism is any kind of act done by one or more persons belonging to an organization with the aim of changing the characteristics of the Republic as specified in the Constitution, its political, legal, social, secular and economic system, damaging the indivisible unity of the State with its territory and nation, endangering the existence of the Turkish State and Republic, weakening or destroying or seizing the authority of the State, eliminating fundamental rights and freedoms, or damaging the internal and external security of the State, public order or general health by means of pressure, force and violence, terror, intimidation, oppression or threat."^[58]

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.^[59]

Section 34 of the Terrorism Act 2006 amended sections 1(1)(b) and 113(1)(c) of Terrorism Act 2000 to include "international governmental organisations" in addition to "government".^{[citation needed]}
Successive Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation (most recently in a report of July 2014) have commented on the UK's definition of terrorism.

United States

U.S. Code (U.S.C.)

Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:

[T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.^[60]

Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:

(1) [T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that —

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended —

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum".^[61]

Commenting on the genesis of this provision, Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq (under Jimmy Carter) and former ambassador to Mauritania said:

In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. […] After the task force concluded its work, Congress [passed] U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331 ... the US definition of terrorism. […] one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." […] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. […] And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.^[62]

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

U.S. Department of Defense

The U.S. Department of Defense recently changed its definition of terrorism. Per Joint Pub 3-07.2, Antiterrorism, (24 November 2010), the Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political."
The new definition distinguishes between motivations for terrorism (religion, ideology, etc.) and goals of terrorism ("usually political"). This is in contrast to the previous definition which stated that the goals could be religious in nature.

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency

The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contains a definition of terrorism, which reads:

Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom. Terrorists often use threats to:

Create fear among the public.

Try to convince citizens that their government is powerless to prevent terrorism.

Get immediate publicity for their causes.

The new definition does not require that the act needs to be politically motivated. The FEMA also said that terrorism "include threats of terrorism; assassinations; kidnappings; hijackings; bomb scares and bombings; cyber attacks (computer-based); and the use of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons" and also states that "[h]igh-risk targets for acts of terrorism include military and civilian government facilities, international airports, large cities, and high-profile landmarks. Terrorists might also target large public gatherings, water and food supplies, utilities, and corporate centers. Further, terrorists are capable of spreading fear by sending explosives or chemical and biological agents through the mail."^[63]

U.S. National Counterterrorism Center

The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) define terrorism the same as United States Code 22 USC § 2656f(d)(2). The Center also defines a terrorist act as a "premeditated; perpetrated by a sub-national or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a non-combatant target."^[64]

U.S. national security strategy

In September 2002, the U.S. national security strategy defined terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."^[65] This definition did not exclude actions by the United States government and it was qualified some months later with "premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".^[66]

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 defines domestic terrorism as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act

Section 102(1)(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act contains a definition of terrorism in order for insurance companies to provide coverage to all prospective policy holders at time of purchase and to all current policyholders at renewal and requires that the federal government pay 90 percent of covered terrorism losses exceeding the statutorily established deductible paid by the insurance company providing the coverage. It reads:

(1) ACT OF TERRORISM-

(A) CERTIFICATION- The term 'act of terrorism' means any act that is certified by the Secretary [of Treasury], in concurrence with the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General of the United States--

(i) to be an act of terrorism;
(ii) to be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to--

(I) human life;
(II) property; or
(III) infrastructure;

(iii) to have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside of the United States in the case of--

(I) an air carrier or vessel described in paragraph
(5)(B); or
(II) the premises of a United States mission; and

(iv) to have been committed by an individual or individuals as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the United States or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United States Government by coercion.^[67]

In general insurance policies

Some insurance companies exclude terrorism from general property insurance (e.g. home insurance). An insurance company may include a specific definition of terrorism as part of its policy, for the purpose of excluding at least some loss or damage caused by terrorism. For example, RAC Insurance in Australia defines terrorism thus:

terrorism – includes but is not limited to the use of force or violence and/or threat, by any person or group of persons done for or in connection with political, religious, ideological or similar purposes including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public, or any section of the public, in fear. ^[68]

Social

As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."^[3] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.^[69]^[70]
The term has been depicted as carrying racist, xenophobic and ethnocentric connotations when used as an ethnic slur aimed at Arabs or Middle Easterners, or at someone of Arab or Greater Middle Eastern descent or when used by white supremacists.^[71]^[72]^[73]^[74]^[75]^[76]

Timeline of political definitions

Listed below are some of the historically important understandings of terror and terrorism, and enacted but non-universal definitions of the term:

1795. "Government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France." The general sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" was first recorded in English in 1798.^[77]
1916. Gustave LeBon: "Terrorization has always been employed by revolutionaries no less than by kings, as a means of impressing their enemies, and as an example to those who were doubtful about submitting to them...."^[78]
1937. League of Nations convention language: "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public."^[79]
1987. A definition proposed by Iran at an international Islamic conference on terrorism: "Terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt (mufsid) objective, and involving [a] threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind."^[80]
1988. A proposed academic consensus definition:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators.^[81]

1989. United States: premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.^[82]
1992. A definition proposed by Alex P. Schmid to the United Nations Crime Branch: "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime."^[79]
2002. European Union:

. . . given their nature or context, [acts which] may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population.^[83]

2003. India: Referencing Schmid's 1992 proposal, the Supreme Court of India described terrorist acts as the "peacetime equivalents of war crimes."^[84]
2005. United Nations General Assembly's statement with relation to terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.^{[citation needed]}

2008. Carsten Bockstette, a German military officer serving at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, proposed the following definition: "political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols)."^[85]
2014. Contained in a Saudi Arabia terrorism law taking effect 1 February 2014, the following definition has been criticized by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for being overly broad:

Any act carried out by an offender in furtherance of an individual or collective project, directly or indirectly, intended to disturb the public order of the state, or to shake the security of society, or the stability of the state, or to expose its national unity to danger, or to suspend the basic law of governance or some of its articles, or to insult the reputation of the state or its position, or to inflict damage upon one of its public utilities or its natural resources, or to attempt to force a governmental authority to carry out or prevent it from carrying out an action, or to threaten to carry out acts that lead to the named purposes or incite [these acts].^[86]^[87]

Scholars and recognized experts on terrorism

Numerous scholars have proposed working definitions of terrorism. Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has thus noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt. "Ten years of debates on typologies and definitions," he responded to a survey on definitions to conducted by Schmid, "have not enhanced our knowledge of the subject to a significant degree." Laqueur's contention is supported by the twenty-two different word categories occurring in the 109 different definition that Schmid identified in survey. At the end of this exhaustive exercise, Schmid asks "whether the above list contains all the elements necessary for a good definition. The answer," he suggests" is probably 'no'." If it is impossible to define terrorism, as Laqueur argues, and fruitless to attempt to cobble together a truly comprehensive definition, as Schmid admits, are we to conclude that terrorism is impervious to precise, much less accurate definition? Not entirely. If we cannot define terrorism, then we can at least usefully distinguish it from other types of violence and identify the characteristics that make terrorism the distinct phenomenon of political violence that it is.^[88]

Hoffman believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:

The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.

By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is:

ineluctably political in aims and motives;

violent – or, equally important, threatens violence;

designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target;

conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by individuals or a small collection of individuals directly influenced, motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders;

and

perpetrated by a subnational group or nonstate entity.^[89]

A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states.^[85]

In this sense, after surveying the various academic definitions of terrorism, Vallis concluded that:

Most of the formal definitions of terrorism have some common characteristics: a fundamental motive to make political/societal changes; the use of violence or illegal force; attacks on civilian targets by 'nonstate'/'Subnational actors'; and the goal of affecting society. This finding is reflected in Blee's listing of three components of terrorism:

Acts or threats of violence;

The communication of fear to an audience beyond the immediate victim, and;

Political, economic, or religious aims by the perpetrator(s).^[90]

Academics and practitioners may also be categorized by the definitions of terrorism that they use. Max Abrahms has introduced the distinction between what he calls "terrorist lumpers" and "terrorist splitters." Lumpers define terrorism broadly, brooking no distinction between this tactic and guerrilla warfare or civil war. Terrorist splitters, by contrast, define terrorism narrowly, as the select use of violence against civilians for putative political gain. As Abrahms notes, these two definitions yield different policy implications:

Lumpers invariably believe that terrorism is a winning tactic for coercing major government concessions. As evidence, they point to substate campaigns directed against military personnel that have indeed pressured concessions. Salient examples include the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon in 1984, and the French withdrawal from Algeria in 1962. Significantly, terrorist splitters do not regard these substate campaigns as evidence of terrorism's political effectiveness. Rather, they contend that disaggregating substate campaigns directed against civilian targets versus military ones is critical for appreciating terrorism's abysmal political record.^[91]

Date	Name	Definition and notes
1987	L. Ali Khan	"Terrorism sprouts from the existence of aggrieved groups. These aggrieved groups share two essential characteristics: they have specific political objectives, and they believe that violence is an inevitable means to achieve their political ends. The political dimension of terrorist violence is the key factor that distinguishes it from other crimes."^[92]
1988	Schmid and Jongman	"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-)clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought".^[93]
1989	Jack Gibbs	"Terrorism is illegal violence or threatened violence directed against human or nonhuman objects, provided that it: (1) was undertaken or ordered with a view to altering or maintaining at least one putative norm in at least one particular territorial unit or population: (2) had secretive, furtive, and/or clandestine features that were expected by the participants to conceal their personal identity and/or their future location; (3) was not undertaken or ordered to further the permanent defense of some area; (4) was not conventional warfare and because of their concealed personal identity, concealment of their future location, their threats, and/or their spatial mobility, the participants perceived themselves as less vulnerable to conventional military action; and (5) was perceived by the participants as contributing to the normative goal previously described (supra) by inculcating fear of violence in persons (perhaps an indefinite category of them) other than the immediate target of the actual or threatened violence and/or by publicizing some cause."^[94]
1992	Alex P. Schmid	short legal definition proposed to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime".^[95]
1997	Rosalyn Higgins	Judge at the International Court of Justice, "Terrorism is a term without any legal significance. It is merely a convenient way of alluding to activities, whether of States or of individuals widely disapproved of and in which wither the methods used are unlawful, or the targets protected or both."^[96]
1999	Louise Richardson	"Without attempting a lengthy rationalization for the definition I employ, let me simply assert that I see terrorism as politically motivated violence directed against non-combatant or symbolic targets which is designed to communicate a message to a broader audience. The critical feature of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocents in an effort to convey a message to another party."^[97]
2002	Walter Laqueur	"Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted."^[98]
2002	James M. Poland	"Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience".^[99]
2004	M. Cherif Bassiouni	"'Terrorism' has never been defined..."^[100]
2004	Bruce Hoffman	"By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is : ineluctably political in aims and motives violent—or, equally important, threatens violence designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity. We may therefore now attempt to define terrorism as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. Terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack. It is meant to instil fear within, and thereby intimidate, a wider 'target audience' that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party, or public opinion in general. Terrorism is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale."^[101]
2004	David Rodin	"Terrorism is the deliberate, negligent, or reckless use of force against noncombatants, by state or nonstate actors for ideological ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal process."^[102]^[103]
2004	Peter Simpson	"Terrorism consists of acts of indiscriminate violence directed at civilians or non-hostile personnel, in order to terrorize them, or their governments, into carrying out or submitting to the demands of the terrorists."^[104]
2005	Boaz Ganor	"Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends."^[105]
2005	Gabriel Palmer-Fernandez	"Terrorism is the organized use of violence against civilians or their property, the political leadership of a nation, or soldiers (who are not combatants in a war) for political purposes."^[106]
2007	Daniel D. Novotny	"An act is terrorist if and only if (1) it is committed by an individual or group of individuals privately, i.e. without the legitimate authority of a recognized state; (2) it is directed indiscriminately against non-combatants; (3) the goal of it is to achieve something politically relevant; (4) this goal is pursued by means of fear-provoking violence."^[107]
2008	Carsten Bockstette	"Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."^[108]
2008	Lutz, James M. Lutz, Brenda J	"Terrorism involves political aims and motives. It is violent or threatens violence. It is designed to generate fear in a target audience that extends beyond the immediate victims of the violence. The violence is conducted by an identifiable organization. The violence involves a non-state actor or actors as either the perpetrator, the victim of the violence, or both. Finally, the acts of violence are designed to create power in a situation in which power previously had been lacking."^[109]
2008	Tamar Meisels	advocates a consistent and strict definition of terrorism, which she defines as "the intentional random murder of defenseless non-combatants, with the intent of instilling fear of mortal danger amidst a civilian population as a strategy designed to advance political ends."^[110]
2018	De Leon petta	"In fact a "terrorist group" is just a label, a layer of interaction between the political groups inside the core of the government with groups outside this governmental sphere. Interpreting the terrorist label by understanding the different levels of interaction and the function of the state may help to explain when such group will or will not be described as terrorist group rather than “just” a criminal organization."^[111]

Notes

Williamson, Myra (2009). Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Really aj 2001. Ashgate Publishing. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-7546-7403-0.

Schmid, Alex P. (2011). "The Definition of Terrorism". The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. Routledge. p. 39. ISBN 0-203-82873-9.

Hoffman (1998), p. 23, See the 1 Nov 1998 review by Raymond Bonner in The New York Times of Inside Terrorism

law.cornell.edu: "U.S. Code › Title 22 › Chapter 38 › § 2656f - Annual country reports on terrorism"

Terrorism: Concepts, Causes, and Conflict Resolution, Jan 2003

Various Definitions of Terrorism Archived 2016-03-19 at the Wayback Machine.

Angus Martyn, The Right of Self-Defence under International Law-the Response to the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September Archived April 29, 2009, at the Wayback Machine., Australian Law and Bills Digest Group, Parliament of Australia Web Site, 12 February 2002.

Diaz-Paniagua (2008), p. 47.

1994 United Nations Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism annex to UN General Assembly resolution 49/60 ,"Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism", of December 9, 1994, UN Doc. A/Res/60/49

Record, p. 6 (page 12 of the PDF document), citing in footnote 10 Alex P. Schmid, Albert J. Jongman, et al., Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1988, pp. 5-6.

Record, p. 6 (page 12 of the PDF document) citing in footnote 11: Walter Laqueur, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 6.

Burgess

Early History of Terrorism, http://Terrorism-Research.com

Harper

Crenshaw, p.77

Crenshaw, p. 44.

Williamson, Myra (2009). Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001. Ashgate Publishing. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-7546-7403-0.

Ben Saul, "Defining 'Terrorism' to Protect Human Rights" in Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 08-125 (2008) p. 1

C.F. Diaz-Paniagua, Negotiating terrorism: The negotiation dynamics of four UN counter-terrorism treaties, 1997-2005, City University of New York (2008) p. 41.

C.F. Diaz-Paniagua, Negotiating terrorism: The negotiation dynamics of four UN counter-terrorism treaties, 1997-2005, City University of New York (2008) pp. 46-7.

Ben Saul, "Defining 'Terrorism' to Protect Human Rights" in Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 08-125 (2008) p. 11.

See Marsavelski, A. (2013) The Crime of Terrorism and the Right of Revolution in International Law'' (In Chapter II.A.4., entitled "Criteria for the Use of Revolutionary Force", Marsavelski provides four guiding principles for distinguishing legitimate acts of freedom fighters from terrorist acts). (Connecticut Journal of International law, Vol. 28) at pp. 278-75.

C.F. Diaz-Paniagua, Negotiating terrorism: The negotiation dynamics of four UN counter-terrorism treaties, 1997-2005, City University of New York (2008) p. 47.

M. Cherif Bassiouni, "A Policy-oriented Inquiry of 'International Terrorism'" in: M. Cherif Bassiouni, ed., Legal Responses to International Terrorism: U.S. Procedural Aspects, (Dordrecht, Boston and London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988) xv – xvi.)

Sami Zeidan, Desperately Seeking Definition: The International Community's Quest for Identifying the Specter of Terrorism, 36 Cornell International Law Journal (2004) pp. 491-92

Jason Burke. Al Qaeda, ch. 2, p. 22)

Ben Saul, Defining Terrorism in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 3.

Rupert Ticehurst (references) in hist footnote 1 cites The life and works of Martens are detailed by V. Pustogarov, "Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens (1845-1909) — A Humanist of Modern Times", International Review of the Red Cross (IRRC), No. 312, May–June 1996, pp. 300-14.

Rupert Ticehurst (references) in hist footnote 2 cites F. Kalshoven, Constraints on the Waging of War, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1987, p. 14.

Gardam p. 91

Griset, p. xiii. See also: Smelser, p. 13

Andrea Gioia, "The UN Conventions on the Prevention and Suppression of International Terrorism" in Giuseppe Nesi, ed., International Cooperation in Counter-terrorism: The United Nations And Regional Organizations in the Fight Against Terrorism, p. 4 (2006).

Byrnes (2002), p. 11

League of Nations' 1937 Convention for the prevention and punishment of Terrorism Archived 2011-07-24 at the Wayback Machine.

League of Nations, 1937 Convention for the prevention and punishment of Terrorism Archived 2011-07-24 at the Wayback Machine., art 2.

United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, Sixth session (28 January-1 February 2002) Archived 13 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine., Annex II, art. 2.1.

Thalif Deen, POLITICS: U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism Archived June 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine., IPS 25 July 2005.

Terrorist Bombings Convention art. 2.1.

Terrorist Bombings Convention art. 19.

Nuclear Terrorism Convention, art. 2.

Nuclear Terrorism Convention, art. 4.

"A/RES/51/210. Measures to eliminate international terrorism".

Cassese (2002), p. 449.

Report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change "A more secure world: Our shared responsibility" (2004) para. 164.

United Nations General Assembly, Secretary General, Report of the Secretary-General In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all Chapter 3 (2005) para. 91.

Robert P. Barnidge, Non-State Actors and Terrorism: Applying the Law of State Responsibility and the Due Diligence Principle 2007, p. 17.

State Watch.

http://nso.nato.int/nso/zPublic/ap/aap6/AAP-6.pdf^{[permanent dead link]}

(in French) 'Quand parler de « terrorisme » ?' ('When to speak of "terrorism"?') Vincent Sizaire, in: Le Monde diplomatique, August 2016. Retrieved 3 November 2016.

(in French) Code pénal, article 421 ('Des actes de terrorisme'), Légifrance. Retrieved 3 November 2016.

"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1285 OF 2003 Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar". 2003.

Pakistan Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999

"All atheists are terrorists, Saudi Arabia declares". The Independent. 2014-04-01. Retrieved 2018-12-09.

Gupta, Manas Sen (2017-05-22). "The Reason Why Facebook's AI Research Director Did Not Visit Saudi Arabia Has Set The Internet On Fire". TopYaps. Retrieved 2018-12-09.

"Middle East | Syria hits out at 'terrorist' US". BBC News. 2008-10-28. Retrieved 2010-02-22.

"Anti-Teror (sic) Law No. 3713" (PDF). The Financial Crimes Investigation Board of Turkey.

UK Terrorism Act 2000 art. 1.

"22 U.S. Code § 2656f - Annual country reports on terrorism". LII / Legal Information Institute.

"18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions". LII / Legal Information Institute.

Democracy Now Archived 2006-07-31 at the Wayback Machine..

"Federal Emergency Management Agency — Terrorism" (PDF).

"GHR International Definitions". Archived from the original on 2009-04-22.

Halibozek, Edward P.; Jones, Andy; Kovacich, Gerald L. (2007). The corporate security professional's handbook on terrorism (illustrated ed.). Elsevier. p. 5. ISBN 0-7506-8257-4.

Rockmore, Tom; Margolis, Joseph; Marsoobian, Armen (2005). The philosophical challenge of September 11: Metaphilosophy. 35. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 15. ISBN 1-4051-0893-2.

The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002(TRIA), as amended by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (TRIEA) and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorizaton Act of 2007 (TRIPRA)

RAC Building, Contents and Personal Valuables Insurance : Combined Product Disclosure Statement and Financial Services Guide (PDF), RAC Insurance, 2015-04-15, p. 42, retrieved 2017-01-01

Staff, City Diary: Reuters sticks to the facts, City Diary, The Daily Telegraph, 28 September 2001

Hoffman, (2006) pp. 28–30

"Racism Against Middle Easterners In America Is Strong". Blogcritics. 10 August 2009. Retrieved 23 March 2016.

"Of attacks, fear and changed lives". Sify. Archived from the original on 5 April 2016. Retrieved 23 March 2016.

Yahya R. Kamalipour (2000). "The TV Terrorist: Media Images of Middle Easterners". 2 (4). Centre for World Dialogue. Archived from the original on 2014-02-24.

Language Justice Network (2013). Social Justice Glossary of Terms - The Mccune Foundation (PDF). Middle Easterners also often experience discrimination as a result of societal prejudice around Muslims, Arabs and terrorists all being seen as the same group.

Salaita, Steven G. (2007). "Beyond orientalism and Islamophobia: 9/11, anti-Arab racism, and the mythos of national pride". CR: the New Centennial Review. 6 (2). tired strategy of demonizing the Other—in this case Arabs, all of whom, according to the totalized pronoun usage common in the United States, are terrorists

Mufdi, JL (2012). Constructing the collective experience of being Arab American in post-9/11 America (Dissertation). Archived from the original on 2016-04-05. Demeaning representations of Arabs come from multiple sources. The entertainment industry is guilty of frequently portraying Arab men as terrorists

"Terrorism - Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 27 November 2015.

Gustave LeBon, The Psychology of the Great War, 1916, p. 391. Google Books: [1]

"Criminology". google.com. Retrieved 27 November 2015.

"JUST Response - Ayatollah Taskhiri - Definition of terrorism". justresponse.net. Retrieved 27 November 2015.

"Definitions of Terrorism". United Nations. Archived from the original on 2007-01-29. Retrieved 2007-07-10.

U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

Art. 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002)

Schmid's definition of terrorism was adopted in a 2003 ruling (Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar); See http://www.sacw.net/hrights/judgementjehanabad.doc

Bockstette, Carsten (2008). "Jihadist Terrorist Use of Strategic Communication Management Techniques" (PDF). George C. Marshall Center Occasional Paper Series (20). ISSN 1863-6039. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-02-01. Retrieved 2009-01-01.

Stork, Joe (February 6, 2014). "Saudi Arabia: Terrorism Law Tramples on Rights". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved February 25, 2014.

"Saudi Arabia: New terrorism law is latest tool to crush peaceful expression". Amnesty International. February 3, 2014. Retrieved May 4, 2010.

Bruce Hoffman, Inside terrorism, 2 ed., Columbia University Press, 2006, p. 34.

Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, 2 ed., Columbia University Press, 2006, p. 40.

Rhyll Vallis, Yubin Yang, Hussein A. Abbass, Disciplinary Approaches to Terrorism: A Survey, University of South Wales, p. 7. For similar surveys see also: Hoffman, Bruce Inside terrorism, 2 ed. Columbia University Press, 2006, p. 34; and Alex Schmid, Statistics on Terrorism: The Challenge of Measuring Trends in Global Terrorism" in Forum on Crime and Society, v. 4, N. 1-2 (2004) pp. 52-53.

Abrahms, Max. "Lumpers versus Splitters: A Pivotal Battle in the Field of Terrorism Studies." Cato. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/02/10/max-abrahms/lumpers-versus-splitters-a-pivotal-battle-in-the-field-of-terrorism-studies/.

Ali Khan, A Legal Theory of International Terrorism, Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 19, p. 945, 1987

Academic Consensus Definition of "Terrorism," Schmid 1988, United Nations website Archived May 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.. See also: Schmid, Jongman et al. Political terrorism: a new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data bases, theories, and literature. Amsterdam: North Holland, Transaction Books, 1988.p.28

Dallas A. Blanchard, Terry James Prewitt. Religious Violence and Abortion: The Gideon Project, 303,333. Cites Gibbs, Jack P. 1989. "The Conceptualization of Terrorism." American Sociological Review 54, no. 2 (June): 329-40.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,Definitions of Terrorism^{[verification needed]} Archived May 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.

Rosalyn Higgins, "The General International Law of Terrorism" in Rosalyn Higgins and M. Flory, International Law and Terrorism (1997) p. 28.

Louise Richardson, "Terrorists as Transnational Actors", Terrorism and Political Violence: Volume 11, Issue 4, (1999) p. 209-219.

Tony Coady, et al. Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World Melbourne University Publishing, 2002 ISBN 978-0-522-85049-9 p. 8. Cites Walter Laqueur The Age of Terrorism

A.K.M. Atiqur Rahman Economic Cost Of Terrorism In South Asia: The Case Of Bangladesh p. 3. Paper presented at the International Conference on Terrorism in South Asia: Impact on Development and Democratic Process Soaltee Crowne Plaza, Kathmandu, Nepal November 23–25, 2002.

36 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 2&3, 2004, p. 305

Bruce Hoffman, Inside terrorism, 2 ed., Columbia University Press, 2006, p. 41.

[2] Chicago Journals - Ethics 114 (July 2004): 647–649

Uwe Steinhoff. On the Ethics of War and Terrorism p. 119

Violence and Terrorism in Northern Ireland", in Primoratz (ed), Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004, p.161

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "The Relationship Between International and Localized Terrorism", Vol. 4, No. 26, 28 June 2005

Gabriel Palmer-Fernandez, "Terrorism, Innocence and Justice", Philosophy and Public Quarterly, Vol. 25, no3, summer 2005, p.24

Linden, Edward V., ed. (2006). "2". What is Terrorism?. Focus on Terrorism. 8. Nova Publishers. pp. 23–32. ISBN 978-1-60021-315-1. Retrieved 2010-02-22.

Bockstette

James M. Lutz and Brenda J. Lutz, Global Terrorism. London: Routledge, 2008, p. 9

THE TROUBLE WITH TERROR: THE APOLOGETICS OF TERRORISM -- A REFUTATION, by Tamar Meisels [3]

Petta, De Leon (2018). "Why there is no real difference between a Terrorist Organization and an Organized Crime faction, just a matter of interaction towards the State" (PDF)|format= requires |url= (help). Contemporary Voices: St Andrews Journal of International Relations. ISSN 2516-3159. Missing or empty |url= (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)

References

Bockstette, Carsten (December 2008). Jihadist Terrorist Use of Strategic Communication Management Techniques, George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies no 20, p. 1-28 ISSN 1863-6039
Burgess, Mark. A Brief History of Terrorism, Center for Defense Information.
Byrnes, Andrew (2002). Apocalyptic Visions and the Law: The Legacy of September 11 – A professorial address by Andrew Byrnes at the ANU Law School for the Faculty's 'Inaugural and Valedictory Lecture Series', May 30, 2002.
Diaz-Paniagua, Carlos Fernando (2008), Negotiating terrorism: The negotiation dynamics of four UN counter-terrorism treaties, 1997-2005, Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York, July 2008, AAT 3296923
Cassese, A. (2002), International Law, Oxford University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-19-925939-9
Crenshaw, Martha, Terrorism in Context
Gardam, Judith Gail (1993). Non-combatant Immunity as a Norm of International Humanitarian, Martinus Nijhoff ISBN 0-7923-2245-2.
Griset, Pamala L. & Mahan, Sue (2003). Terrorism in perspective, SAGE, 2003, ISBN 0-7619-2404-3, ISBN 978-0-7619-2404-3
Hoffman, Bruce (1998). "Inside Terrorism" Columbia University Press 1998 ISBN 0-231-11468-0.
Hoffman, Bruce (2006),Inside terrorism, Edition 2, Columbia University Press, 2006. ISBN 0-231-12699-9, ISBN 978-0-231-12699-1.
Khan, Ali (Washburn University - School of Law. 1987). A Theory of International Terrorism, Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 19, p. 945, 1987
Novotny, Daniel D. (2007). "What is Terrorism?" in: Linden, Edward V., ed. Focus on Terrorism 8, ch. 2, pp. 23–32. (ISBN 1-60021-315-4).
Primoratz, Igor (2007/2011). "Terrorism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
Record, Jeffrey (December 2003). Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, December 1, 2003 ISBN 1-58487-146-6.
Smelser, Neil J.; et al. (2002). Terrorism: perspectives from the behavioral and social sciences, National Academies Press, 2002, ISBN 0-309-08612-4, ISBN 978-0-309-08612-7
Ticehurst, Rupert. The Martens Clause and the Laws of Armed Conflict 30 April 1997, International Review of the Red Cross no 317, p. 125-134 ISSN 1560-7755

External links

Introductory note by A. Rohan Perera and procedural history note on the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism and the 1996 Supplementary Declaration thereto in the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law

Paella

Thursday, 20 December 2018

Negotiate With A Terrorist?

Negotiation

Contents

Types

Distributive negotiation

Integrative negotiation

Stages in the Negotiation Process

Integrated negotiation

Bad faith

Strategies

Employing an advocate

BATNA

Conflict styles

Types of negotiators

Tactics

Nonverbal communication

Examples

Barriers

Emotion

Affect effect

Positive affect

Negative affect

Conditions for emotion affect

Effect of partner's emotions

Dealing with emotions

Problems with laboratory studies

Group composition

Multi-party

Team

Women

Academic negotiation

Etymology

See also

References

Further reading

Definitions of terrorism

Contents

Etymology

In international law

The need to define terrorism in international criminal law

Obstacles to a comprehensive definition

The sectoral approach

Comprehensive conventions

League of Nations

Proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism

Sectoral conventions

Terrorist Bombings Convention

Terrorist Financing Convention

Nuclear Terrorism Convention

Definitions of terrorism in other UN decisions

UN General Assembly Resolutions

UN Security Council

The High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and the Secretary General

European Union

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

In national law

Argentina

France

India

Pakistan

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

U.S. Code (U.S.C.)

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

U.S. Department of Defense

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency

U.S. National Counterterrorism Center

U.S. national security strategy

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act

In general insurance policies

Social

Timeline of political definitions

Scholars and recognized experts on terrorism

See also