Are just negotiators more effective than others? International negotiations are an essential tool to tackle global issues and problems. Yet they have faced repeated stalemates or slowed down in a number of areas. While the reasons are many and complex, justice issues are at the heart of the matter in many cases: Vivid examples are found in areas as diverse as negotiations to end civil war, climate change negotiations, arms control and nonproliferation talks (e.g., under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty) and multilateral trade negotiations (the current Doha Round).
Drawing on over 60 cases of negotiations over the environment, arms control and trade, this paper discusses relationships between two types of justice - procedural justice (PJ) and distributive justice (DJ) - and the effectiveness of outcomes in international negotiations. It evaluates the impacts of these types of justice on negotiation effectiveness. PJ is defined in terms of four key principles: transparency, fair representation, fair treatment and fair play, and voluntary agreement. DJ is defined in terms of the principles of equality, proportionality, compensation and need. "Effective agreements" is examined along several dimensions: extent of agreement (among parties, on issues), time to reach agreement, comprehensiveness, and quality.
The results clearly demonstrate that justice plays a central role in contributing to effectiveness. But the variations and nuances are many, particularly when it comes to what type of justice is important and its effect on the outcome. The implications of these findings in terms of the future research agenda and advice for negotiators are also discussed.
