| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores the relationship between justice and effectiveness in bilateral and multilateral arms control negotiations. A set of hypotheses, derived from earlier research about the impacts of procedural and distributive justice on negotiation outcomes is evaluated. The sample consists of twenty cases, ten bilateral and ten multilateral. The results of statistical analyses show strong effects of procedural justice on the effectiveness of bilateral, but not multilateral, negotiations. Further analyses indicate that the effects are largely accounted for by half of the bilateral cases. Case-by-case analyses reveal some of the conditions that explain the correlation between pj principles and effective outcomes. Distributive justice correlated with more substantial agreements in the multilateral cases. Reasons for the limited effects of procedural justice on multilateral outcomes are discussed. The article concludes with more general implications and suggestions for further research.
|