IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v21y2012i3d10.1007_s10726-010-9195-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Formal Analysis of Multilateral Negotiations Over the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea

Author

Listed:
  • Majid Sheikhmohammady

    (K. N. Toosi University of Technology)

  • Keith W. Hipel

    (University of Waterloo)

  • D. Marc Kilgour

    (University of Waterloo
    Wilfrid Laurier University)

Abstract

The Evolutionary Model for Multilateral Negotiations (EMMN) is utilized to identify the most likely outcome of the Caspian Sea negotiations. Since 1993, the five littoral states have been negotiating over the legal status of the Caspian Sea but have not reached any agreement, causing a Tragedy of the Commons to unfold. EMMN is a methodology that focuses on asymmetric multilateral negotiations, like those over the Caspian Sea, in which each negotiator seeks to reach the most preferable outcome for which he or she can gain enough support from other negotiators. An advantage of the EMMN approach is that it considers the power of the negotiators as a determining factor in the final resolution. The results of this analysis are compared with those of other studies on Caspian Sea conflict where the powers of decision makers are not taken into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Majid Sheikhmohammady & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour, 2012. "Formal Analysis of Multilateral Negotiations Over the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 305-329, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-010-9195-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-010-9195-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-010-9195-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-010-9195-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe, 1994. "A multiple-criteria composite index model for quantitative and qualitative data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 367-379, November.
    2. D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2005. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 441-460, November.
    3. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour, 2001. "Fallback Bargaining," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 287-316, July.
    4. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Armaghan Abed-Elmdoust & Reza Kerachian, 2014. "Evaluating the Relative Power of Water Users in Inter-Basin Water Transfer Systems," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(2), pages 495-509, January.
    2. Shahryar Monghasemi & Mohammad Reza Nikoo & Mohammad Ali Khaksar Fasaee & Jan Adamowski, 2017. "A Hybrid of Genetic Algorithm and Evidential Reasoning for Optimal Design of Project Scheduling: A Systematic Negotiation Framework for Multiple Decision-Makers," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(02), pages 389-420, March.
    3. Jianan Qin & Xiang Fu & Shaoming Peng & Yuni Xu & Jie Huang & Sha Huang, 2019. "Asymmetric Bargaining Model for Water Resource Allocation over Transboundary Rivers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-23, May.
    4. Yinglan Xue & Yan Chen & Dan Cui & Yuxi Xie & Weihua Zeng & Jing Zhang, 2019. "Monthly Allocation of Water Resources and Pollutant Loads in a Basin Based on the Water Footprint and Fallback Bargaining," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Kaveh Madani & Majid Sheikhmohammady & Soroush Mokhtari & Mojtaba Moradi & Petros Xanthopoulos, 2014. "Social Planner’s Solution for the Caspian Sea Conflict," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 579-596, May.
    6. Bo Yu & Rustam Vahidov, 2019. "Applying Social Interaction Theory to Negotiation Modeling: Design of E-negotiation System," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 703-718, June.
    7. Fang Li & Feng-ping Wu & Liu-xin Chen & Yue Zhao & Xiang-nan Chen & Zhi-ying Shao, 2020. "Fair and Reasonable Allocation of Trans-Boundary Water Resources Based on an Asymmetric Nash Negotiation Model from the Satisfaction Perspective: A Case Study for the Lancang–Mekong River Bain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adler, Nicole & Friedman, Lea & Sinuany-Stern, Zilla, 2002. "Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 249-265, July.
    2. Chen, Ye & Su, Xin & Hipel, Keith W., 2009. "An index aggregation approach to comparing the overall performance of emerging and developed countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 25-39, March.
    3. Shaher Z. Zahran & Jobair Bin Alam & Abdulrahem H. Al-Zahrani & Yiannis Smirlis & Stratos Papadimitriou & Vangelis Tsioumas, 2020. "Analysis of port efficiency using imprecise and incomplete data," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 219-246, March.
    4. Reuben Elan & Verma Bharat Bhushan & Bhat Ramesh, 2001. "Hospital Efficiency: An Empirical Analysis of District and Grant-in-Aid Hospitals in Gujarat," IIMA Working Papers WP2001-07-05, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    5. Fusco, Elisa, 2015. "Enhancing non-compensatory composite indicators: A directional proposal," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 620-630.
    6. Laurens Cherchye & Willem Moesen & Nicky Rogge & Tom Puyenbroeck, 2007. "An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 111-145, May.
    7. L Cherchye & W Moesen & N Rogge & T Van Puyenbroeck & M Saisana & A Saltelli & R Liska & S Tarantola, 2008. "Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(2), pages 239-251, February.
    8. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1996. "An extreme‐point approach for obtaining weighted ratings in qualitative multicriteria decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 519-531, June.
    9. Kerstin Pull & Birgit Pferdmenges & Uschi Backes-Gellner, 2017. "Do Research Training Groups Operate at Optimal Size?," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 18(2), pages 129-145, May.
    10. Khezrimotlagh, Dariush & Kaffash, Sepideh & Zhu, Joe, 2022. "U.S. airline mergers’ performance and productivity change," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    11. Nurhan Davutyan & Canan Yildirim, 2013. "Competitiveness in Turkish Banking: 2002-2011," Working Papers 774, Economic Research Forum, revised Sep 2013.
    12. Premachandra, I.M. & Bhabra, Gurmeet Singh & Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki, 2009. "DEA as a tool for bankruptcy assessment: A comparative study with logistic regression technique," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(2), pages 412-424, March.
    13. Seufert, Juergen Heinz & Arjomandi, Amir & Dakpo, K. Hervé, 2017. "Evaluating airline operational performance: A Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicator," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 52-68.
    14. Agrell, Per J. & Teusch, Jonas, 2020. "Predictability and strategic behavior under frontier regulation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    15. Christian Growitsch & Tooraj Jamasb & Christine Müller & Matthias Wissner, 2016. "Social Cost Efficient Service Quality: Integrating Customer Valuation in Incentive Regulation—Evidence from the Case of Norway," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Joe Zhu (ed.), Data Envelopment Analysis, chapter 0, pages 71-91, Springer.
    16. Tengfei Wang & Jong Woo Kang & Vincent F. Valentine, 2020. "A holistic analysis of national e-commerce and logistics development," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 22(3), pages 500-513, September.
    17. Franz R. Hahn, 2007. "Determinants of Bank Efficiency in Europe. Assessing Bank Performance Across Markets," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 31499, August.
    18. Alperovych, Yan & Hübner, Georges & Lobet, Fabrice, 2015. "How does governmental versus private venture capital backing affect a firm's efficiency? Evidence from Belgium," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 508-525.
    19. Afsharian, Mohsen & Ahn, Heinz & Lopes, Ana & Vilela, Bruno, 2019. "Pitfalls in estimating the X-factor: The case of energy transmission regulation in Brazil," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-9.
    20. Huaimo You & Hong Fang & Xu Wang & Siran Fang, 2018. "Environmental Efficiency of Photovoltaic Power Plants in China—A Comparative Study of Different Economic Zones and Plant Types," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.

    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:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-010-9195-5. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.