Breaking Through The Structural Dilemma: The Internationalization Strategy Of Small Countries In Asymmetric Negotiations

In early studies of international negotiation,researchers were inclined to believe that countries with more resources were in a position to achieve better result in negotiations.However,in reality weak countries can often enjoy true benefits in asymmetrical negotiations with strong states.Though drawing considerable attention of negotiation scholars over the past few decades,this structure dilemma has not yet been identified accurately.By differentiating aggregate and issue-specific structural power,asymmetrical negotiation can be divided into two types.The true structure dilemma comes out when the two powers favor the same party rather than different parties.Currently the accepted wisdom is that weak countries may endeavor to use various tactics to overcome power inferiority in asymmetrical negotiations.As most of tactics studies concentrate on process and procedure of negotiation,tactics deriving from small countries' character,namely fragility,is a promising but still unrecognized subfield.To some extent,fragility brings small states moral advantage and thus preference for multilateral diplomacy in the world arena,which makes it possible to draw international attention and create favorable public opinion environment.In this circumstance the strong power may have to make more compromise than expected in asymmetrical negotiation due to pressures from other parities at large.Factors facilitating the internationalization process includes the type of and the phase of negotiation as well as small states' engagement in international institutions.The negotiation between Panama and the United States on the Panama Canal issue in1970 s sets an example of small states utilizing international institution and moral advantage in asymmetrical negotiations.