Oborune

Simulationskurs Entscheidungspr Oborune

Seminar paper from the year 2008 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: European Union, grade: A-, University of Basel (Europainstitute), course: Simulation course, language: English, abstract: 1. Definition of the Position (Simons/Tripp (2003) ?The Negotiation Checklist") 1.1. What is negotiation purpose of FINLAND? The aim of negotiations is to allow the use of vegetable substitutes (production of chocolate consisting of vegetable fat other than cocoa butter) not just among seven Member States, but also in the European Union 1.2. What are the negotiations subjects? 1.3. How important are these subjects for FINLAND? 1.4. What is ?BATNA" (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (Fisher/Ury)) for FINLAND? 1.5. Partners of negotiation: what are their purposes? How important for them are their purposes? What are their BATNAs? 1.6. Negotiations situation: Are there temporal restrictions? Who is in to the most impatient one? Which justice-norms are there? 1.7. Relations between the negotiations participants. Which strategies and tactics turn other negotiations participants in? 2. Which negotiation outcome would be a) in ideal, b) realistical evaluation of situation? 3. How I evaluate proposal of Commission in the light of preferences of FINLAND? 4. If FINLAND would be member of Presidency of Council: how I would evaluate proposal of Commission in the light of preferences of Council Presidency? 5. Which negotiation strategies will help to achieve aims of FINLAND (Presidency)? 6. Does FINLAND see any differences between their position of strategy in the first and second reading in the Council of Ministers and does FINLAND think that strategies of negotiation will be different between readings? 7. What would failure of directive mean for FINLAND (Presidency)? 8. What kind of consequences do I except for FINLAND'S negotiation manner? (If I am not BELGIUM or UK). 9. What will mean failure of directive for both antipodes - BELGIUM and UK? 10. What kin