The Dispute between Shylock and Antonio Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

The Dispute between Shylock and Antonio - Essay ExampleIt is ineffective when one or both parties argon bargaining from an extreme position, in that one company either has a high demand and cedes ground s clinical depressionly, or that one political party has a low demand and cedes ground quickly (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992). Mediation is negotiation between two parties, with a neutral third party guiding the process (Goltsman, et al). Mediation whitethorn be successful in traditionally high fighting situations like divorces. That said, it is not successful in divorce cases where one party is unreasonable, one party dominates the new(prenominal), or one party is unable to approach the issues in a fair way (Gold, 1992). Litigation is the solution when the other strategies fail, and the parties appear before a judge and allow the judge to decide the case (Fox & Nelson, 1999). In this case, Shylock is not rational, is operating from emotion, and cannot approach the issues in a fair way . Beca phthisis of the nature of the parties, and the conflict of the situation, litigation would be the most appropriate method of settling this dispute. Discussion Negotiation and mediation are both non-coercive actions that help parties come to an transcription (Bercovitch & Jackson). The set-back type of legal maneuver that go away be examined will be negotiation. Carnevale & Pruitt (1992) democracy that negotiation is basically a discussion between the parties in an go about to get to a goal. Goltsman et al. state that negotiation may end with one party winning a compromise no agreement or a win-win, where both parties end up with an agreement that leaves them in a better position than if there were a straight compromise. The strategies of negotiation are that one party may concede some ground one party may contend, in that they try to make the other person concede by stating that they will not concede or problem-solving, in which both parties work together to find a solut ion that may be beneficial for both (Chapman, 1996). Carnevale & Pruitt (1992) state that all three strategies are needed to come to an agreement, even if each of the strategies seem to be mutually incompatible. Mediation is another tactic that may be used. Mediation is basically negotiation between the parties, but with a neutral third party guiding the proceedings (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992). Goltsman et al. state that mediation has an advantage all over negotiation only in the situations where conflict is high. If conflict is low, then non-mediated negotiation may produce favorable outcomes with just two sessions (Goltsman et al.). Mediation may be effective, if the mediator is able to make each side see the others point of view. A mediator may also make use of a caucus, where the mediator meets privately with either side. Carnevale & Pruitt (1992) states that this is most effective when the parties show a high level of hostility towards one another and a sum agreement seems unl ikely. That said, a mediator may be misled by one of the parties, who might make a derogatory statement about the other party, and the other party is not around to rebut the statement. Mediators may be helpful in the negotiation process, as they may help one party consider how to save face may help them resolve internal disagreements or may help them talk to their constituents. They may also help the parties reach agreement by adding in incentives for agreement, or issuing threats for non-agreements. They may als