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

The Dispute between Shylock and Antonio - Essay Example It is ineffective when one or both parties are bargaining from an extreme position, in that one party either has a high demand and cedes ground slowly, or that one 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 may be successful in traditionally high conflict situations like divorces. That said, it is not successful in divorce cases where one party is unreasonable, one party dominates the other, 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. Because of the nature of the parties, and the conflict of the situation, litigation would be the most ap propriate method of settling this dispute. Discussion Negotiation and mediation are both non-coercive actions that help parties come to an agreement (Bercovitch & Jackson). The first type of legal maneuver that will be examined will be negotiation. Carnevale & Pruitt (1992) state that negotiation is basically a discussion between the parties in an attempt 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 solution that may be beneficial for both (Chapman, 1996). Carnevale & Pruitt (1992) state that all three strategies are needed to co me 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 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 other’s 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 joint agreement seems unlikely. That said, a mediator may be misled by one of the parties, who might make a derogatory statement about the other par ty, 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 realize 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