Girvetz 2320
When seeking to prevent or end situations of large-scale violence, there is a dominant paradigm or accepted wisdom about the “correct” or “ideal” way to negotiate. Though laudable in intent, the paradigm’s core principles and practices produce slow negotiation and rely on idealistic assumptions that likewise reduce pace. In aggregate, the paradigm’s features make it an increasingly obsolete mismatch with the urgent local needs, widespread polarization and speed of deterioration typical of most situations in today’s highly fragmented conflict landscape with its growing types of war (cyber wars, gang wars, climate wars and more), blurring of armed group categories (spanning cartels, jihadists, rebels, pirates, mafia, paramilitaries, self-defence groups and more), and increased varieties of autocracy. A new and different paradigm – “fast-track negotiation” – offers enlarged options for reaching agreements and surmounts the problematic overdependence on a single model. Fast-track negotiation relies on principles, practices and assumptions that promise greater speed and realism and thus help to restore the missing utility of negotiation in preventing and ending situations of large-scale violence. The model is built on the understanding that the primary goal of negotiation is “getting to yes” and that, in the absence of agreements, sustainability of implementation is a vacant ideal.