From consensus to confrontation - Studying strategies for states to negotiate with challenging partners in multilateral negotiations

Abstract: The purpose of this thesis is to explicate different strategies that states can, and do, use to negotiate with challenging partners in conflict situations. A challenging partner, as defined in this thesis, refers to a key player in minority position who is blocking negotiations from reaching consensus agreements. A theoretical model containing five different strategies is developed using theories gathered from both political science and organizational theory. The theoretical model originates from Kilmann and Thomas (1976) but is adapted to fit new aspects of multilateral negotiations and conflict management in situations of deadlock. The study is a qualitative case study of negotiations taken place in Council of Europe surrounding the situation in Ukraine during 2014, depicting Russia as the challenging partner. Semi-structured interviews are used as the main data collecting method. The empirical analysis shows that three out of five strategies in the model are used by member states in practice and a comprehensive discussion is held regarding this result and its implications for theory. The question ‘why’ states choose one strategy over another and which factors have an impact on this choice is discussed with the aim of opening up for future research. The study has proven the adequacy of combining theories as done when exploring obstacles to multilateral negotiations and has laid a foundation for studying challenging partners as a phenomenon in the multilateral context.