| Purpose. Negotiation research has been biased toward the analysis of win-lose behaviors in bilateral situations. This study responds to the need for a systems framework to monitor consensus building in complex, multi-party ecological negotiations. The study demonstrates how multilateral negotiations contribute to the dynamics of conflict resolution.; Methods. A conflict resolution systems framework is used to analyze the integrative (win-win) and distributive (win-lose) features of climate change negotiations. Content analysis determines associations between forms of power and preferred levels of integration. Interviews with expert informants provide low and high power perspectives on symbolic, social and material issues. Secondary sources of documentation provide evidence of situations and preferences.; Results. The 1992 and 1997 climate change agreements included flexible (integrative and distributive) statements. The majority were integrative (79%). Preferred levels of integration were related to the forms of power under consideration. Consensus building moved from holistic levels of symbolic appreciation, to the cooperative establishment of social roles and rules, to distributive approaches to the regulation and management of material resources. Parties avoided centralizing sanctions and funding in the United Nations. High and low power parties had significant differences in preferences (t-test, t = 5.89, df = 214, p < .001). The Alliance of Small Island States draft protocol (1994) proposed a high percentage of integrative solutions. The United States position paper (1996) prioritized distributive interests.; Conclusions. The 1992–2000 climate change negotiations had multiple functions, and there were indicators of conflict resolution. First, multilateral negotiations provided opportunities for low power parties to raise awareness of threatening ecological conditions and propose integrative multi-party solutions. Second, the benefits of inclusive, transparent and flexible negotiations to low power groups included capacity building, the formation of extensive partnerships and increased access to technical resources. Third, high power groups developed innovative technical solutions. Constraints to the dynamics of conflict resolution included sovereign economic interests. High power parties have protected their advantages. |
