Risk and negotiation is a familiar theme for academics concerned with international bargaining. It is likewise a topic of interest for diplomats, business people, and other practitioners of negotiation. The art of negotiation includes the skill of risk assessment. For example, a recurrent problem confronting negotiators and their advisors is whether to risk pursuing a hard, demanding strategy, try to work out a reasonable compromise, or attempt to construct a win–win solution.Pressuring the opposition to give concessions may help increase one’s own share of the disputed values. However, if the pressure is too hard, the other side may choose to withdraw from the negotiation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Avenhaus, R., Sjöstedt, G., Kremenyuk, V. (Eds.) (2002). Containing the atom– International negotiations on nuclear security and safety. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity[translated from German by Ritter, M.]. London, UK: Sage.
Bühlmann, H. (1970). Mathematical methods in risk theory. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Chapman, C., Ward, S. (2002). Managing project risk and uncertainty: A constructively simple approach to decision-making. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Covello, V. T., Merkhofer, M. W. (1994). Risk assessment methods–Approaches for assessing health and environmental risks(second edition). New York: Plenum Press.
Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Dupont, C., Faure, G. O. (2002). The negotiation process, in V. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues, second edition, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, pp. 39–63.
Eiser, J., Hannover, B., Mann, L., Morin, M., Van der Pligt, J. Webley, P. (1991). Nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl. A cross-national study. Organization and Environment 5(4): 253–269.
Ellis, R., Thompson, M. (Eds.) (1997). Culture matters: Essays in honor of Aaron Wildavsky. Boulder, Colorado:Westview Press.
Farmer, F. R. (1967). Reactor safety and siting: A proposed risk criterion. Nuclear Safety8(6): 539–548.
Faure, G. O., Rubin, J. (1993). Organizing concepts and questions, in: G. Sjöstedt (Ed.), International environmental negotiation. Newbury Park, UK: Sage Publications, pp. 17–26.
Fritzsche, A. F. (1986). Wie sicher leben wir?Verlag TüV Rheinland, Köln 1986 [in German].
Hampson, F. O. (1994). Multilateral negotiations. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hansson, O. (1987). Risk decisions and nuclear waste. SKN Report no. 19. Stockholm, Sweden: Nuclear Board for Spent Nuclear Fuel.
Kremenyuk, V. (Ed.) (2002). International negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues, second edition, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Lemonss, J. (1996). Scientific uncertainty and environmental problem solving. Cambridge Massachusetts: Blackwell Science.
Minzer, I. (Ed.) (1992). Confronting climate change. Risk, implications and responses. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, P. G. (1983). The business of risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council (1999). The use of drugs in food animals: Benefits and risks. Report of the Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals, Panel on Animal Health, Food Safety, and Public Health, Board of Agriculture, National Research Council,Wallingford, UK: CABI Publications.
Nilsson, Å., Sjöberg, L., Wõhlberg, A. (1997). Ten years after the Chernobyl accident: Reporting on nuclear and other hazards in six Swedish newspapers. Stockholm, Sweden: Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
Paulson, T. (2001). Decision-making, risk and utility: Assessments and applications of alternative decisions models. Jönköping, Sweden: Jönköping International Business School.
Rasmussen, N. C. (1975). Reactor safety study.WASH-1400, US NRC,Washington D.C.
Sebenius, N. C. (2001). Negotiations: Statistical aspects. In N. J. Smelser, P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences.Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, volume 15, pp. 10483–10490.
Sjöberg, L. (2000). Risk perception in commemoration of Chernobyl: A crossnational study. Stockholm, Sweden: Center for Risks Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
Sjöberg, L., Drotts-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1988). Radiation risks: Knowledge, perception and attitudes. A study of power plant personnel. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis. Washington D.C. October.
Tuinstra, W., Hordijk, L., Amann, M. (1999). Using computer models in international negotiations. The case of acidification in Europe. Environment41 (9): 33– 42.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Avenhaus, R., Sjöstedt, G. (2009). Introduction. In: Sjöstedt, G., Avenhaus, R. (eds) Negotiated Risks. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92993-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92993-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-92992-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-92993-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)