Negotiating at an Uneven Table

Kritek in Negotiating at an Uneven Table discusses how interest-based approaches may seem counterintuitive to cultures that rely on “being right” to maintain their power. Humans, however, see the world from many vantage points and have different views of what is “right.” Each individual’s interests stem from a highly personal perspective on real­ ity. Through interest-based negotiations and the assistance of a mediator, each disputant has the opportunity to view the world as others see it.

Some disputes are inappropriate for the courts because they lack legal merit. A court is not the place to settle hurt feelings. When these cases somehow are framed in legal terms and taken to court, relationships may suffer as a result of the adversarial nature of the rights-based process. In addition, the anger, frustration, and hurt that brought the dispu­ tants to court could be deemed not relevant to the findings of legal facts.

Consider the relationship of Dana and the Klimes. In the rights-based system, each would take an adversarial position and attempt to convince a judge or jury to rule in her or his favor. While individuals may represent themselves in some courts, more often attorneys speak on behalf of the client-further removing those who have the conflict from the decision-making process. One side would “win” while the other would lose, leaving at least one person feeling unsatisfied with the outcome. At worst, the individuals will invest time waiting for their day in court, spend con­ siderable money on attorneys and fees, and still lack a guarantee that the judge will make a ruling that satisfies either party. Their future relationship could be marred by the escalation of the scenario to the courts and tainted by mistrust and anger. Possible consequences in Case include other neighbors choosing sides and continued unpleasant confrontations.