IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijbglo/v10y2013i3p256-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The third who joins a negotiation: a systematic review of the literature

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Caputo

Abstract

The article is aimed at providing a different perspective on third parties and tries to systematise our understanding about multilateral negotiations and integrative agreements. The key concepts investigated were the connection between the third who joins and the negotiation process, outcome and effectiveness, within business contexts. Research was guided using the so-called negotiation theory as a framework. Insights and documentation that previous research was fragmented are provided. Even if contemporary approaches integrated third party intervention in a broad understanding of causes and dynamics of conflicts, by definition third parties do not have a strong partisan position on the substantive issues in dispute. They seem to have been considered mainly as external entities, not fully interested and involved in the negotiation, thus with a lack of real interest for the implementation of the final agreement.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Caputo, 2013. "The third who joins a negotiation: a systematic review of the literature," International Journal of Business and Globalisation, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(3), pages 256-277.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijbglo:v:10:y:2013:i:3:p:256-277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=52987
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caputo, Andrea, 2016. "Overcoming judgmental biases in negotiations: A scenario-based survey analysis on third party direct intervention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4304-4312.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijbglo:v:10:y:2013:i:3:p:256-277. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=245 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.