Search results

This study aims to examine the effects of ethnic and social identities on negotiation decision making in the context of the Cyprus conflict.

The author conducts a theory‐driven case study of the 1959 Zurich‐London agreements on Cyprus, analyzing the positions of Turkey, Greece, Britain, and the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities during the negotiation process. The analytical method is the applied decision analysis procedure.

The analysis of the Zurich‐London negotiations over Cyprus suggests that even in the presence of adversarial ethnic ties, decision makers who have a shared (and salient) social identity are more likely to employ collective‐serving decision strategies and seek even‐handed solutions that will not jeopardize their mutual interests. Here, Turkey and Greece – both NATO members – decided to settle on a commonly agreed negotiation outcome despite their ethnicity‐driven, clashing interests over Cyprus. In contrast, decision makers with severe ethnic fragmentation with no shared social identity (as with the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities) are more prone to employ self‐serving decision strategies and seek zero‐sum negotiation outcomes that will exclusively benefit them.

Regarding the applied decision analysis procedure employed in this study, it is necessary to acknowledge the subjective nature of the construction of the decision matrices with respective values/ratings, even though such procedure is based on empirical and situational evidence.

The study introduces a novel theoretical and analytical framework to the literature on negotiation decision making in identity‐based conflicts by combining the social contextualist perspective with the polyheuristic decision model and using applied decision analysis. By anchoring the analysis in the historical context of the Cyprus conflict, the study also contributes to the relatively underdeveloped literature on conflict management in the Middle East.

Crises are moments when citizens are beckoning on the political leaders for necessary action. As a president, one is expected to change the narratives during the pandemic that split the world. This analysis aimed at investigating the American government’s response to the critical crisis of COVID-19 and its policy implementation.

The study explored a case point method using a narrative and qualitative analysis to diagnose the USA’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. An exploratory approach was further adopted to finetune the case study report.

The analysis demonstrates that Trump’s power dynamics were weak in the USA and lacked crisis control even as the President that the entire nations of the world were looking up to. The case study report also showed that Trump did not possess the audacity of resilience to manage the crisis. The analysis provides us with how presidential leadership under Trump placed the USA in a state of colossal failure enmeshed with high rates of COVID-19 cases, deaths and unending incapacity to create a fundamental consensus in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic today. This report shows Trump aged prolonged inability to drive governance mechanisms in the US and illustrated pockets of failures in decision analysis and information dissemination as a leader.

The study revealed how incompetent Trump was in responding to the crisis. This study has provided academia with an understanding of leadership dynamics and behaviour through a Nigerian scholar lens and a sociological perspective.

This study aims to explore the effects of political information and anger on the public's cognitive processing and foreign policy preferences concerning third‐party interventions in ethnic conflict.

The study employs an experimental design, wherein the authors manipulate policy‐specific information by generating ad hoc political information related to ethnic conflict. The statistical methods of analysis are logistic regression and analysis of covariance.

The results demonstrate that both political information and anger have a significant impact on an individual's cognitive processing and policy preferences regarding ethnic conflict interventions. Specifically, political information increases one's proclivity to choose non‐military policy options, whereas anger instigates support for aggressive policies. Both factors result in faster decision making with lower amounts of information accessed. However, the interaction of political information and anger is not significant. The study also finds that policy‐specific information – rather than general political information – influences the public's policy preferences.

This study confronts and advances the debate over whether political information is significant in influencing the public's foreign policy preferences and, if so, whether such an effect is the product of general or domain‐specific information. It also addresses an under‐studied topic – the emotive repercussions of ethnic conflicts among potential third‐party interveners. In addition, it tackles the argument over whether political information immunizes people against (or sensitizes them to) the effects of anger on their cognitive processing and foreign policy preferences. The study also introduces a novel approach for examining political information through an experimental manipulation of policy‐specific information.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a gaming approach to making key theoretical ideas accessible, understandable and useful for security practitioners confronting “terrorism” in the real world.

The tool is instrumental “red-team” matrix gaming: a structured way to first build and then wargame instrumental “terrorist” attack plans. The working assumption is that “terrorist” violence is designed with purpose, and that it reflects Fromkin’s understanding that terrorism is a form of jujitsu to manipulate more powerful opponents into politically and ideologically self-destructive behaviours. By designing and gaming attack plans with political objectives as the focus, practitioners quickly gain a deeper understanding of the processes of violent influence and the role of responders and decision makers. The paper is structured to, first, provide a theoretical explanation of contemporary conflict, focussing on the public support and how violence can be differently designed to political ends. On this foundation, the methods for learning are explained. A “playing-card” technique for setting students objectives in terms of psychological levers, vulnerabilities, political purposes and influence targets is described and options for participants generating scenarios outlined. Then the matrix-gaming approach, where play progresses according to the result of a dice roll applied to a probability based on the merit of participants’ competing arguments is explained with an example.

The described method of creating and wargaming terrorist attack plans offers a new and engaging method of exploring and understanding the processes of terrorism while preparing practitioners by potentially developing both their decision making and resilience.

The method described has potential value for teaching about terrorism by generally improving student engagement, preparing practitioners to respond to terrorism and wider application (of matrix gaming) to other topics.

This is a novel application of matrix gaming in a simplified format suited for classrooms.