Conclusion
It is unfortunate that procedural controversies about the appropriate forum for negotiations often delay substantive talks on how to accommodate conflicting interests. But historical experience indicates that the participants believe the forum to be important. If and when a decision to renew negotiations is reached, the choice of the forum and the shaping of its structure will not be determined by its effectiveness as a vehicle for conflict resolution, but by the political calculus of bargaining power, and side effects, that such a forum would entail.
International negotiations are aimed at conflict resolution. But they cannot be divorced from competitive power politics. The disputes about fora for negotiations are not about choosing an effective structure for making peace, but about seizing the high ground for the diplomatic battles ahead.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Additional information
Saadia Touval is Professor of Political Science at Tel Aviv University in Israel. During the 1986–87 academic year, he is Visiting Professor of Political Science at Brown University in Providence, R.I. and Visiting Scholar at Harvard University's Centers for International Affairs and for Middle Eastern Studies. His recent publications includeThe Peace Brokers (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982, and (with I.W. Zartman),International Mediation in Theory and Practice (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1985).
About this article
Cite this article
Touval, S. Frameworks for Arab-Israeli negotiations—What difference do they make?. Negot J 3, 37–52 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999031
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999031