Models

One recurring theme in complex negotiations is the potential for informational models to be useful in driving outcomes. Thus, for instance, some researchers credit the increasingly useful models of acid rain effects developed over the course of the acid rain negotiations for helping smooth the course of that negotiation.

Models also turn up in the Law of the Sea negotiations. A model developed by MIT for estimating the financial aspects of seabed mining became critical because it provided a neutral common ground that different countries could use to assess the expected outcomes of various proposed arrangements. Sebenius (1984) writes:

It is hard to overestimate the effect of the model on the deliberations of NG2 in Geneva and in subsequent sessions. In his report, Koh stated: 'In the group of financial experts we were immediately confronted with the need to agree on a set of assumptions. Without an agreed framework of assumptions it would not have been possible for us to carry on with our deliberations...' (27)

The problem is relevant to climate change. One problem climate change mitigation faces is that there's a lot of baseline argument about what's really likely to happen when the planet warms, and how fast. There are also arguments over the appropriate economic models to use to assess the costs and benefits of different response plans.

Sebenius goes on to describe why the MIT model was so easily accepted by negotiators with widely differing interests:

The model had clearly not been designed originally for the international use to which it was being put: for example, the U.S. tax system was built directly into the economic routine, and there was little discussion of the financial provisions in an eventual LOS treaty. These characteristics, perhaps a bit paradoxically, tended to reinforce perceptions of the model's independence. (28)

So in other words, it was the fact that the model had not been made for the purpose to which it was put that made it easily acceptable. Had a model been built specifically for the purpose, it would presumably have generated distrust (over who the builders were and what might have been their agenda) and controversy (over what assumptions ought to be designed in.)

A frustrating finding if your purpose is to understand how people faced with a negotiation can try to predispose it to be successful: go back in time 10 years and start an unrelated project.