ABSTRACT
This chapter argues strategic barriers to the resolution of conflict – those that may arise because rational self-interested actors try to maximize individual returns – in two party and multi-party negotiations. It explores strategic barriers, both in the bilateral and multilateral context and it begins with the case of a buyer and seller simply negotiating over price – distributive bargaining. The chapter suggests that the Pareto-criterion may not provide an appropriate standard to evaluate efficiency in multiparty bargaining because a requirement of unanimity may create potential holdout problems that pose severe strategic barriers. A variety of procedural rules may permit decision-making without unanimity in multiparty negotiations. Majority voting is but one of many possible mechanisms to allocate decision-making authority. The chapter also explores the application of an unusual procedural rule – the "sufficient consensus" standard – that was employed in the multiparty "constitutional" negotiations in South Africa and in Northern Ireland.
