Conflict Analysis and Negotiations

Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 29)


Pairwise-comparison methods can effectively be used to generate ratio information about the benefits and the costs of possible concessions which may be exchanged between two parties in mutual conflict. The basic step is the evaluation of a one-to-one deal where each party offers exactly one concession. The trade-off between benefits and costs is judged in verbal terms which are subsequently converted into numerical values on a geometric scale. The information to be used by a mediator between the two parties appears to be scale-independent. The approach, originally developed for a conflict between two parties, can easily be extended to situations where three or more parties have conflicting interests.


Comparative Judgement Emission Target Geometric Scale Gradation Index Labour Capacity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References to Chapter 9

  1. 1.
    Grübler, A., and Fuyii, Y., “Inter-Generational and Spatial Equity Issues of Carbon Accounts”. Energy 16, 1397–1416, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    IPCC, “Integrated Analysis of Country Case Studies”. “Report of the US/Japan Expert Group to the Energy and Industry Subgroup of the International Panel on Climatic Change”. United Nations, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lootsma, FA., “Conflict Resolution via Pairwise Comparison of Concessions”. European Journal of Operational Research 40, 109–116, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lootsma, F.A., “Comment on the Negotiation and Resolution of the Conflict in South-Africa”. OriON, Journal of the Operational Research Society in South-Africa 5, 52—54, 1989. In the same issue there is a Response by T.L. Saaty (pp. 55–57).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lootsma, F.A., Sluijs, J.M., and Wang, S.Y., “Pairwise Comparison of Concessions in Negotiation Processes”. Group Decision and Negotiation 3, 121–131, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Messner, S., and Nakicénovic, N., “A Comparative Assessment of Different Options to Reduce CO2 Emissions”. Working Paper WP-92-27, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saaty, T.L., “The Negotiation and Resolution of the Conflict in South-Africa: the AHP”. OriON, Journal of the Operational Research Society in South-Africa 4, 3–25, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, S.Y., “An Approach to Resolve Conflicts by Trade-Off Analysis”. Systems Science and Mathematical Sciences 3, 1–15, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Personalised recommendations