Procedures matter: Justice and effectiveness in international trade negotiations
Procedures matter: Justice and effectiveness in international trade negotiations
复制标题
程序很重要：国际贸易谈判的公正性和有效性
DOI：
10.1177/1354066114523654
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
D. Druckman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Albin;D. Druckman
国际谈判人员在一些重要领域一再陷入僵局。在许多情况下，司法问题是问题的核心，贸易谈判，特别是多边一级的贸易谈判生动地说明了这一点。然而，在贸易谈判的研究中，正义问题受到的关注有限。本文提出的问题是：考虑正义原则的贸易谈判代表能否达成更有效的协议？具体而言，它探讨了两种类型的正义之间的关系在谈判过程中-程序和分配正义-和有效性的结果（协议）在22个双边和多边国际贸易谈判的情况。它评估了这些类型的正义对谈判有效性的影响。分析结果清楚地表明，程序正义在双边和多边贸易案件中发挥着核心作用，有助于取得有效结果。程序公正与效率之间的相关性非常强，且显著强于分配公正与效率之间的相关性。此外，只有在程序正义原则得到遵守的情况下，分配正义才会对效率产生影响。这些研究结果有助于了解在国际谈判中提高有效成果的因素。它们扩展了早先关于和平协定中的正义的工作，填补了研究文献中的空白。它们还为谈判者提供建议，并为未来的研究议程增加重要问题。
International negotiators have faced repeated stalemates in a number of significant areas. Justice issues are at the heart of the matter in many cases, as vividly illustrated by trade negotiations, particularly at the multilateral level. Yet, issues of justice have received limited attention in research on trade negotiation. This article asks: do trade negotiators who take justice principles into account arrive at more effective agreements? Specifically, it explores relationships between two types of justice during the negotiation process — procedural and distributive justice — and the effectiveness of outcomes (agreements) in 22 cases of bilateral and multilateral international trade negotiation. It evaluates the impacts of these types of justice on negotiation effectiveness. The results from analyses clearly demonstrate that procedural justice plays a central role in contributing to effective outcomes in both bilateral and multilateral trade cases. The correlations between procedural justice and effectiveness are very strong, and significantly stronger than between distributive justice and effectiveness. Moreover, distributive justice impacts upon effectiveness only when procedural justice principles are observed. These findings contribute knowledge about factors that enhance effective outcomes in international negotiations. They extend earlier work on justice in peace agreements and fill a gap in the research literature. They also provide advice for negotiators, and add important questions to the future research agenda.