| ID | 107967 |
| Title Proper | Decision control and the pursuit of binding conflict management |
| Other Title Information | choosing the ties that bind |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Gent, Stephen E ; Shannon, Megan |
| Publication | 2011. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | International relations scholars have garnered a good deal of evidence indicating that binding arbitration and adjudication are highly effective means for brokering agreements and ending conflict. However, binding third-party conflict management is rarely pursued to resolve interstate disputes over contentious issues like territorial or maritime control. While states value the effectiveness of binding procedures, they are reluctant to give up the decision control necessary to submit to arbitration or adjudication. The authors identify three factors that influence the willingness of states to give up decision control: issue salience, availability of outside options, and history of negotiations. An analysis of attempts to settle territorial, maritime, and river claims reveals that disputants are less likely to use binding conflict management when they have a greater need to maintain decision control. |
| `In' analytical Note | Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 55, No. 5; Oct 2011: p. 710-734 |
| Journal Source | Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 55, No. 5; Oct 2011: p. 710-734 |
| Key Words | Conflict Management ; Arbitration ; Adjudication ; Decision Control ; Contentious Issues |