Diplomatic Negotiation

292 Diplomatic Negotiation
other states followed the exercise. The second TTE conducted by the PTS was aimed
at studying the functioning of the Operations Support Centre for on-site inspections,
with fifteen participants from ten states. These exercises were conducted in the Vienna
International Centre.
The third exercise (TTE-3 in 2003) was dedicated to case studies focused on the
negotiation processes during an OSI. TTE-3 was based on an overall scenario describing
an OSI situation, as triggered by a request from an imaginary state party. The exercise
included seven case studies of specific negotiation situations that may occur during
an OSI, involving sixteen experts from twelve states, and was hosted by the Russian
Federation and conducted in an institute near the town of Snezhinsk in the Urals. The
exercise was planned and managed by a control team (CT) that also participated as the
ISP team during the exercise. The IT was composed of selected experts nominated by
states signatories. Half a day was dedicated for each of the seven case studies, including
the role-play and a debriefing session at the end of each case. The balance between
the use of OSI technological expertise and negotiation processes under the treaty’s
provisions was a main objective of the TTE-3. Negotiation and technical skills were
exercised and technical solutions were reached by varying negotiation methods. The
importance and complementarity of both aspects was highlighted during the exercise.
Proficient negotiating was recognized as an important tool that needs appropriate training
to support it just as much as other inspection activities.
The special issues of the seven case studies mainly covered problems of access created
by limitations imposed by the ISP. The technical details of each case, which were irrelevant
to the next case study, were put aside, but the experience and lessons learned about
behaviour and the methodology of negotiating access to an ISP were utilized. Together
with the evaluators and observers, participants discussed these lessons immediately after
each case study.
The conspicuous use of such immediate lessons was evident already after the first
case study, which was an example of a strong positional negotiation style based on the
decision of the nominated team leader. The negotiation process became confrontational
at some points and caused a change in the participants’ behaviour into more cooperative
conduct for later case studies.
The case included managing access by the ISP to a military training area, especially
to the boundaries of a restricted access site (RAS). As time is of the essence for some
inspection technologies, especially for seismic measurements, and referring to its rights
provided by the CTBT, the IT tried to gain access to at least the boundaries of the RAS
earlier than the planned end of the military exercise as declared by the ISP. The ISP’s
minimum suggestions of two escorted IT members to visit the RAS boundary and the
explanation that full access would be granted at a later time were refused by the IT as
unsatisfactory. The IT’s leadership for this case nominated two members of the IT as legal
advisers, who conducted intricate legal discussions on treaty provisions with the ISP. After
long, and occasionally very confrontational, negotiations between the IT and the ISP, no
agreement was reached; nor was access to the RAS boundaries concluded.
The second case study dealt with over-flight issues. The over-flight, which is a CTBT
obligatory activity, introduced the problematic of transparency. Whereas the IT’s wish is
to view quickly most of the inspection area by sending a visual inspection team on an
aircraft, the ISP has its reservations about viewing some areas that are not relevant and