Negotiations are essential
Whether it’s heated discussions at the dinner table, power politics on the world stage, or Switzerland’s efforts to foster international relations—negotiations are essential.
Article by Dr. Nora Meier
Who isn’t familiar with heated discussions at the dinner table? One moment it’s about going out or screen time, the next it’s homework or allowance. The pattern, however, often remains the same: on one side are the parents—usually united and convinced of their point of view—and on the other, the child, often unreceptive to reason. The balance of power is uneven.
These scenes at the family table are representative of many conflict situations, whether interpersonal, internal, or international. Often, the issue is differing goals, values, or interests. Positions clash with positions. Solutions seem difficult, yet are often essential—at least for the party that is more dependent on reaching a deal.
There are essentially three approaches to resolving a conflict: First, the more powerful party dictates the terms. Second, the law decides. Third, a balance of interests is reached. From a sustainability perspective, the third approach would be preferable. Unlike in cases of dictated power or legal decisions, this approach produces neither clear winners nor unambiguous losers—and that reduces the risk of future disputes.
Yet pure balancing of interests has become rare today. On the world stage, the element of power is taking center stage. This is dramatically and tragically evident in the current wars in Europe and at Europe’s doorstep. Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine has now lasted over four years, and an end is still not in sight. Israel’s war against Lebanon and the U.S. war against Iran, supported by Israel, are also spreading fear and terror here at home.
On a far less dramatic but much deeper level, however, it is also evident for Switzerland that power politics is a concrete reality it must grapple with in managing its international relations. This is exemplified by the customs dispute with the U.S. or the Switzerland-EU negotiations. Depending on one’s political perspective, domestically the “Zoll” memorandum of understanding is sometimes viewed as a “surrender treaty,” while at other times the treaty package with the EU is seen as such. For both camps, one thing is clear: the two are not comparable. And yes—at least in terms of their scope, that is true.
To be clear, adhering to purely normative principles is of little help in assessing negotiation processes. Questions such as how the US or the EU, for example, should actually behave may be useful in theory, but in practice they hardly get us anywhere. For Switzerland must define its goals and strategies in the context of the respective realities, not in an idealized vacuum.
For neither Switzerland’s relationship with Washington nor that with Brussels is one of equals, if by that we mean that the negotiating power between the parties is balanced. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous. Both have played their power cards against Switzerland. The U.S. did so by first imposing incomprehensible tariffs on Switzerland, only to later use the reduction of those very tariffs as leverage to secure market access for chlorinated chicken or Cybertrucks. The EU did so by first cutting off university cooperation and stock market equivalence with Switzerland, so that Switzerland would then move in the “right” direction at the negotiating table. In terms of the approach taken, the two cases can therefore be compared.
Are you interested in strategic negotiations?
In the course "Strategische Verhandlungen", we aim to (i) introduce the fundamentals of negotiation and conflict theory, as well as the most important negotiation models. This should (ii) enable us to conduct as precise an analysis as possible of specific cases, in order to then (iii) derive strategic principles:
- Clarity of purpose is crucial. Only those who know their own goals can make rational decisions. And only those who accurately assess the other party’s goals can act strategically.
- The balance of power in negotiations determines the appropriate strategic approach. The stronger player can leverage their strength but must be aware of the long-term costs (loss of reputation, criticism of the system, counter-coalitions, potential for escalation).
- Those who find themselves in the weaker position, on the other hand, must continuously and carefully evaluate alternatives, think in terms of options, and put forward proposals.