Article
Negotiation Journal

Avoiding the Costs of Negotiation: A Commentary on "Is Unilateralism Always Bad?"

Format:Print

Abstract

Why, if an outcome is in the interests of both sides, should it not be negotiated rather than unilaterally imposed? This comment offers additional reasons to prefer negotiation (beyond those adduced in the original article) over unilateral action, even where such action is possible. However, even outcomes in the clear interests of both sides may not be negotiable due to the costs to the negotiator, especially where important constituencies would exact high penalties for any perceived "concessions." In such cases, even substantively worse court or arbitral verdicts may be preferable for the negotiator since they are imposed rather than agreed to as the result of any weakness or concessions.