View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository

Fuller (1992:206) mentions other types of intimidation, which are used in
specialised negotiation situations, like threats to strike in labour negotiations, and
"sabre-rattling" in intemational negotiations. There are actually no limits to negotiation
intimidation. However, the final step to take is not to succumb to intimidation.
NEGOTIATION lOOPBACKS
In the previous paragraph it has been said that threats can be used to get the
parties to agree to a settlement. Sometimes parties do this if they think they can get a
better deal by making a threat than by negotiating. This is called the best alternative to a
negotiated settlement BATNA. (http://w\vw.colomdo.edu/conflict/peace/
treatmentingloops.htmp.l)
This is usually done by parties that feel they have more
power than their opponents. The power may be military, political, legal or nonviolent
action. The powerful party threatens to take action ifthe other party does not succumb.
However, it does not have to carry out the threat once it becomes clear who has more
power. At this point the opponents may agree to go back to negotiation. This is called
the negotiation loopback. It enables the parties to reach a settlement. It also indicates
that the conflict is ripe for negotiation. This is how many "out ofcourt" settlements are
reached.
TESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE BATNA
It has been mentioned that during negotiation one party may resist negotiation
because it thinks it has a better alternative to a negotiated settlement (BATNA).
However, this may turn out to be an illusion; therefore it is recommended that the
BATNA be tested before the disputing parties drift apart. Dry in his book Getting Past
No, is mentioned as saying the mediator can perform this task by talking to each of
274