Page 1 of 25
APPLYING THE BARGAINING MODEL OF WAR TO
CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES:
SUCCESSES AND LIMITATIONS
Introduction
Bargaining model of war: A rational approach to conflict analysis
The bargaining model of war provides the rationale of the choice theory on why fights
occur between states and other players. It does not consider war in a way of being as a
psychological crisis, or as a failure in diplomacy, but rather as a multi-party bargaining process
and war occurs when the acceptable settlement interval of one side does not accept the interval of
the other side. In the model of crisis management, war and conflict are seen as costly activities
necessary in one case to make the other party yield to the demands that could be met during the
negotiations. But conflict increases the price to such a level that there is a tendency of pressure
on both parties to discharge conflict. According to that model the actors are rational and war start
if the state or a non-state actor has an entitlement, if the actor believes that peaceful negotiations
will not meet the entitlement and if cost of war is perceived less than the probability of success
for enforcing the acceptable bargain. In general, two parties have different expectations
regarding chances to win a battle over the other and hence, different sets of options that are
acceptable. The bargaining model can be applied to interstate as well as the civil war and
explains why some of the cases of a conflict are resolved without the military actions while in
the other cases diplomacy is attempted and a war takes place. The conflict literature also shows
that the rest of the bargaining models’ main processes and key hypotheses were offered with
confirmations across different samples and methods. The bargaining model is one of the possible
Page 2 of 25
and believable rationalist model especially when explaining the strategies and reasons of the
conflicts and war between the states and other political actors.
Contemporary security challenges testing traditional theoretical frameworks
Contemporary security challenges testing traditional theoretical frameworks is making
security analysis in the twenty first century to be a challenge to the traditional theoretical
frameworks that have been the backbone of the security analysis in the past. New threats such as
Global warming, epidemiology, computer borne diseases, and international terrorism cannot be
contained within a single state or a system of checks and balances as per realism or balance of
power. These are new forms of challenges that are post-modern, global, fragmented, and not
amenable to being solved by conventional kinetic or coercive means. The same can be seen in
the case of COVID-19, as the virus does not care about borders and has showcased the
dependency of countries in the present world. Such issues need combined responses from several
countries and international organizations, which are unable to solve with the help of traditional
approaches and frameworks. With the emergence of new power players on the world scene,
ranging from the global terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS to the Postmodern
hacktivist groups like Anonymous, the very ideas of power and security are being put to a great
deal of stress. These are informal networks that operate across the borders but they do not fit well
into the IR theories that tend to see states as the main players. In addition, the increasing
phenomenon of global warming and its capability to cause significant social and political
upheavals such as, resource constrains, refugee influx, and instabilities also do not fall under a
coherent theory of security in the traditional security studies. As a result of these modern
changes, several scholars have come up with theories stating that realism and liberalism do not
suffice. It may require more sophisticated, structure involving non- traditional security threats
Page 3 of 25
and risks interventions together with the conventional strategic military capabilities and national
self-interest. There are some scholars who have endeavored to conceptualize human security
with respect to various types of security threats that affect human beings economically, health
wise, and environmentally. In the context of the formation of policies and the governments’
security services, the conventional systems continue to exert a strong influence over the way of
thinking and the planning processes. It will always be a continuous struggle to link these
theoretical and policymaking gaps. Old paradigms of security are still not entirely useless but
there is a need to keep adjusting them to incorporate modern security features of the 21st
century.
Evaluating the model's applicability in complex modern conflicts
Since the aim of the work is to examine how relevant and useful the developed model is,
breaks on the nature of the contemporary conflicts and the wars, as well as their suitability in the
present day, must be provided. Modern conflicts can comprise armies of states and unsanctioned
organizations, armed groups, and even terror and militias that apply strategies of guerrilla
warfare. They may also describe, for instance, invasion by several powerful states of the armed
forces, or many-side warfare when there are no clear parties to the conflict and definite roles.
That is why it is necessary to know, if these formulations are useful to describe this complexity.
For the understanding of conflict situations where there are many states and non-state actors,
which are often located in one political space, models of conflict that presuppose conflict as the
relation between states are insufficient. However, the models that have, to some extent, reflect
the complexity of the world around can generate useful knowledge. For instance, knowing that
violent NSAs involve the connection of ideology and material interest can help identify
potentials for influence related to counterterrorism operations. It is in the analysis of warfare
Page 4 of 25
interconnection in different regions that might be the uncovering of these relations that can be
leveraged to bargain for non-violent solutions. However, the level of coverage does this at the
cost of simplicity, which is usually the case when one wants to ensure the inclusion of as many
entities as possible. Potential disadvantages that could be associated with the application of more
comprehensive components in models include the fact that they can be deleterious in application
when it comes to discovering general trends. The art is to make it just complex enough to
describe the significant real-world features and at the same time construct lessons P-K
transferable theories from them. In the process, it is important to carefully pinpoint what
variations are negligible in regard to the general picture from what variations are crucial to
explain the causal processes that constitute the modern warfare.
As an example, general models can exclude encoding of concise characteristics of the
numerous constituent fighter groups in Syria. However, it seems that it could be essential to
determine whether it is typical for conflicts to include sectarian issues or the resources. Another
problem which is associated with the topic is the application of the frameworks derived from
today’s more ambiguous warfare, which is state against state, and eliminating any biases from
such an approach. It is necessary to pay attention to such empirical details and implication of the
theorists involved to understand the disparities or requirement of a makeover of the existing
theories. If one spends time investigating and tuning it to perfection, theory has the ability to
provide clarity to many modern wars’ core processes even under certain civil or even proxy
complexities. However, the models that have made the significant variable to look like
something else or to be made simple may be faced with the situation where the original model is
not applicable.
Page 5 of 25
Information Asymmetry in Cyber Warfare Contexts
Digital espionage altering traditional intelligence gathering dynamics
Foreign intelligence services have been influenced by the technological advances in the
world today especially through use of digital technology and the internet. While personal
espionage was much depending on spies and contacts to feed it with information, the question of
cyber espionage has developed new ways of getting a hold of such information. Subterfuge
comprises such acts as breaking into computer networks and wiretapping lays open vast stores of
information which otherwise would have been very difficult to obtain. This shift is rapidly
changing the very character of espionage and international politics for which most players are
unable to forecast the outcomes. There are several state sponsored groups that are at the forefront
of implementing intelligence agendas through cyberspace together with sophisticated application
and viruses that can easily permeate both government and private firms. Chinese cyber espionage
groups especially have been most forceful in their acquisition of intellectual property and
propriety information from Western high-tech and defense organizations in what some analysts
consider as a form of hybrid war. Russian intelligence units have also been involved in Digital
spying campaigns primarily for getting intelligence on foreign policies of NATO member
countries and elected representatives. Outside the state, terrorists and organized criminals are
also using cybertactics for espionage, synchronization, and enrolment. Although HI remains
essential for context and perspective and for analysis, the quantity and quality of information
available through digital espionage is incomparable. It is from hitherto undisclosed briefings on
trade negotiations, the latest weapons design blueprints to topographical maps of energy grids,
this wealth of information is exponentially causing a shift of power in the cyber domain.
Cognitive diathesis implies that intelligence agencies unable or unwilling to adapt risk blindness
Page 6 of 25
to the plans and capabilities of potential adversaries. These trends of the ‘‘digital revolution’’ of
spycraft suggest that the future is going to be even more dangerous with the increase in the levels
of intelligence activities around the world.
Cyber capabilities' opacity complicating credible threat assessments
Currently, there is a high level of uncertainty regarding the role and capabilities of nation
states in cyberspace, the ability to gauge risks and enforce deterrence being affected. At the same
time, the use of cyber operations involves challenges in determining the actor and obscurity of
the capabilities compared to kinetic weapons. Such obscurity of one’s cyber armories and plans
constitutes the principal challenge for intelligence agencies and policy makers to determine the
intentions of potential counterparts, evaluate threats, and outline appropriate response measures.
Further, this opacity makes signaling and perceiving signaling in cyberspace challenging, hence
(re)shaping the process of deterrence. For example, one state may initiate an attack with the
intention of sending a signal that it is dissatisfied with the target state’s policy, but the latter may
not be able to pick this signal because attribution is uncertain. Moreover, states can also blend
and aggressively conceal their cyber capabilities so they can surprise adversaries at one point in
time, giving them more opportunities to perform first-strike capabilities. The fact that cyber
operations are not only stealthy but also instantaneous and potentially encompassing in range
means that states find themselves in a state of increased uncertainty regarding when, where and
how they might be attacked or intend to attack in and through cyberspace. The inherent attribute
of cyber capabilities is that offense wins over defense and destructive uses over restraint as such
activities are covert. Since trust between states is the opposite of contingency where intentions
are ambiguous and risks are concealed, opacity destabilizes crisis and escalates it. As such, more
signaling and diplomacy on the part of states involved is required to make cyber policies,
Page 7 of 25
doctrines, redlines etc. more transparent to build confidence and reduce likelihood of accidental
escalation. It is impossible to completely eliminate capability opacity but certain measures to
explain thresholds, enhance identification, and create lines of communication together with the
development of trust between cyber commands will decrease the negative effects of opacity.
Creating clear and agreed upon processes for cyber crisis management will also assist in the
mitigations of escalation threats in the context of cyberspace. It is important to note that the
approach to solve the opacity challenge is crucial to build the framework for restraint, crisis
stability, and predictable deterrence in the context of cyber space.
Misinformation campaigns obscuring true bargaining positions online
The population has been subjected to than half-truths and fake news due to internet and
especially through the social media. A new threat coming up is fake news which can create an
impression of bargaining powers of organizations which may be in a process of bargaining or
searching for a solution to a conflict. Indeed, in these campaigns, the dissemination of the
falsehood is done deliberately, with the intention of altering the perception of the people, putting
pressure on the decision-making table, or to get some concessions. For instance, Contract
renewal between a big organization and employees union; cyber trolls and cheaters develop fake
twitter accounts for the organization and employees union and enslave the468 twitter account
with fake info on each side’s stand, demands and capacity to sustain a strike or lockout. This
further complicates the questions and conceals the difference between what is on the table as
well as what is seen by the public, the workers and the employees. The internet allows some
individuals to cause as much uproar as a list of people with real concerns and to also propagate
fake information to a massive audience. Similarly leaders may misunderstand real life moves as
a potential aggression; invent a war to have a provocation to invade; or make the enemy nation
Page 8 of 25
look far more willing to go on with war than is the case. It reduces confidence in representatives
in conflict situations, orchestrates home actors for unyielding stances and offers demands to
negotiators in terms of perceived risks. These strategies need more openness especially where the
governments and organizations that employ such strategies are involved in public negotiations.
The functions of exposing the fakes and going for the source to bring out the offenders are just as
essential. Last but not the least, the strategies that are likely to complicate bargaining positions
are disadvantageous for conflict transformation. They decrease the possibility of the contending
sides attaining a rational settlement of on-going conflict. Instead of helping to delineate what is
out of question in this conflict it only served to establish confusion and betrayal that makes it
even more challenging to determine reason of the conflict. New opponents are getting into the
scene, and any business disagreement or conflict is largely being influenced or possibly
Transformed by the following aspects of the internet. Concerning the topic under discussion, it
must be pointed out that performers have topped viral falsehoods in pitches to achieve control
and introduce societal shifts.
Reputation and Credibility in Modern Conflict Bargaining
Social media amplifying reputational costs in negotiations
What social media has done is alter the nature of negotiations thorough and increase the
stakes that are attached to such risks. Originally, most negotiations involved only the interested
parties without the influence of outsiders or the public in general. Yet now debates can easily
turn into public discussions on sites like Twitter and Facebook. This is particularly the case
where the negotiation involves specific public personalities/people or huge
companies/organizations. Many of the conflicts we witnessed in the past years resulted in the
disclosure of sensitive information publicly, especially through social networks. Thus, the public
Page 9 of 25
discussions of issues on SNSs alter the nature of incentives and potential costs and benefits for
all the negotiators involved. As soon as the negotiations are tense and conflicts of interest are
observed or stated, one false step or a single wrong statement can cause public backlash and
criticism. With the trends that are currently present in negotiations, there is little to no time for
‘hearing oneself out’ as concepts are shared then exposed to millions of viewers. This is
exacerbated by how the requirement to adhere to script-like language ensures that negotiators
have to strictly follow talking points that have been legally and publicly approved beforehand
and therefore may not be very creative in the actual negotiating process. Moreover, the
statements made by each side to their own people can be easily exploited by the other side and
negative reactions can be used as pressure. This is therefore to mean that even the sensible
proposals will receive a raw deal instantly if it is received by the audience on social media tuning
in. It also limits the possibility of choices that one has at his/her disposal in the given situation
significantly. In essence, through social media, negotiating power is shifted to the spectators, and
thus negotiators are confined to certain leeway in the concessions they can offer without being
perceived as weak or ineffective. The increased role of social media in the high-profile
negotiations nowadays means that reputation becomes amplified factor on social media. The
press conference is also a battle in which parties have to win at least as much as in the
conference and negotiation is as much about gaining the upper hand in the press as it is in the
conference. This leads to more blustering and stiffening which in turn is again bad for
negotiations and discourages creativity, adaptability and experimentations – all of which are
often essential in negotiations.
Historical precedents shaping expectations in bargaining processes
Page 10 of 25
Over the centuries, there have been numerous instances where bargaining and negotiation
procedures have occurred and set new standards for the next time it happens. These prior
negotiations set the tone, the methods of approach, and results, which the parties draw upon
when engaging in a new round of talks. Organizing union contracts between car workers and
auto manufactures like General Motors and Ford over the past century set up establishments for
union negotiations that are still present in present day contract negotiations between unions and
companies in different industries. The proposals, bargaining, retreats, and a variety of further
moves in those early and archetypal automobile industry bargaining set the frame of what is
considered as acceptable requests and expectations on the part of the unions and the
corporations. Likewise, top-level political talks in countries change the existing environment of
future negotiations between the countries in question. The Iran nuclear deal or the US-Mexico-
Canada trade agreement left benchmarks that further negotiations revisit as they develop new
trades and diplomacy frameworks. Local political bargaining processes can set expectancies,
even where policy issues are of a local nature, such as budgets and regulations; politicians as
well as citizens learn from previous years and use previous years’ debates as reference points for
setting their expectations. This reliance on precedent and expectation-setting from history is seen
equally in the private contract, including but not limited to home and land transactions and
corporate mergers and acquisitions. In commoditized markets such as real estate or M&A,
buyers and sellers rely on prior sales and transaction as indicators of pricing and feasible offers.
It is a mutual recursive process of one creating expectations and then following expectations set
by another, when one negotiation depends on another, and at the same time each high-profile
negotiation creates its own high-profile precedents.
Domestic political pressures influencing international bargaining positions
Page 11 of 25
Domestic political factors are prominent in the determination of bargaining power that
national leaders assume in the international domain. As leaders who are accountable to a
domestic audience, presidents, prime ministers, and other heads of state must always consider
how any given action within the domain of foreign policy is going to be received back home. In
general, if a policy has political costs, they will be high if the policy challenges the current public
opinion or if it is criticized by powerful interest groups. For instance, if a leader is perceived as
having conceded too much during trade talks, then backlash may come from domestic industries
outraged by an expected flood of imported goods. Commitments to address global warming
could be perceived as undesirable by domestic players in the fossil fuel sector. But it is also true
that domestic politics can limit the countries’ bargaining power internationally. They may come
to bargaining with fixed list of issues which no side can give away on account of high
ideological concern or other domestic political factors. In democracies, opposition parties can
also employ the matters of foreign policy to ‘pull the leg’ of the ruling parties, if they deemed
that the chosen international position is wrong for the country. It can restrict the freedom of
bargaining to a great extent. Election timelines also add dimensionality since leaders signing
agreements that may need ratification domestically will want to be certain on passage through
parliaments where their parties might not even have majority support. Even political power in
bargaining is not exempted from this reality that context plays a central role in the influence of
domestic politics on international bargaining. Because leaders ‘make’ security, they behave more
independently, caring less about partisan issues back home, while economic or environment
affairs directly affect various industry ‘gainers’ and ‘losers,’ attracting more domestic attention
and constraining politicians in negotiations. However, domestic politics always dictate what kind
of deals are achievable and marketable once leaders leave the table to sell the agreements to their
Page 12 of 25
respective constituents. The dangers of not paying heed to either the public or the elites are that
disastrous electoral and political ramifications may be experienced even if the international
agreement in question looks reasonable and has no substantive and superficial problems on the
surface.
Nuclear Proliferation and Deterrence in Bargaining
New nuclear states altering regional power dynamics
The entry of new actors into the nuclear weapons club has certainly shifted balance of
power and strategic equations in the regions. For instance, when countries add more nuclear
weapons to their defense systems, it triggers security threats and weapon development among
countries that surround the nuclear power. Oldcomer states of nuclear weapons also have to
realign their strategic approaches and defensive postures to meet these new nuclear players.
Iran’s steady sneak towards nuclear weapon has already increased tension in the Middle East
region. They view an Iranian bomb as an existence threat and have thought of preemptive
measure to halt the program. Saudi Arabia has also inherently warned that it too would follow
the same suit if Iran decided to deviate on the same by going nuclear thus boosting the dangers of
proliferation. One of essential strategic assets and security guarantors in the area, the United
States has been faced with the problem of nonproliferation together with obligations toward its
allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The expenses incurred for stopping the proliferation of
nuclear weapons or for averting the impacts of nuclear utilization may pull the key players into
other wars. Likewise, recent events such as the nuclear tests by North Korea by displaying some
of its new nuclear devices and long-range missiles have again brought in question among the
South Korean and Japanese about possessing nuclear weapons. Japan has very solid antinuclear
taboos, as it is the only country that was ever nuked; however, they could be far from irreversible
Page 13 of 25
if Pyongyang goes on intensifying and actively promoting its nuclear capabilities. China and
Russia have had to deal with such a hostile nuclear-armed State while the United States has been
unable to manage North Korean nuclear tests through sanctions or diplomatic measures.
Managing just one new nuclear actor, like North Korea or Iran, overburdens the international
instruments to prevent proliferation and thus may lead to significantly higher insecurity in
unstable parts of the globe. The complexity and risks increase even more when new nuclear
weapon states are created to begin more multidirectional arms competition. The inability to
uphold the nonproliferation norm or encourage the established nuclear state to disarm also
reduces the chances of other players to refrain from the same. Without sustained efforts towards
confidence building measures and security architectures appropriate for the emerging post-Soviet
geo-strategic environment, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by more states could be highly
damaging for the region and the world in the 21st century.
Non-proliferation treaties impacting international bargaining frameworks
The treaties to banning the use and possession of WMD accorded with the characteristic
of bargaining in world politics within the last two decades. NPT is the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons signed in 1968 which is the foundation of today’s Non-
Proliferation regime. It explains when nuclear-weapon States and non-nuclear-weapon States
come to their decisions on cooperation and collaboration including nuclear export controls of
sensitive technology and nuclear power supply agreements within the framework of civil uses of
atomic energy. Likewise identified in the NPT, the recognized nuclear weapons states were
restricted and the non-nuclear weapons states were also distinguished and thus a halt was put to
the spread of the nuclear weapons in more or less reckless manner. This norm has limited the
bargaining options that are conceivable on Arabian states that want to own the nuclear weapons.
Page 14 of 25
Therefore, it is vital to substantiate the fact that NPT does not only inherently lay out state
incentives by defining bargaining situations but also gives positive incentives and threats before
they occur. However, in return for that which did not possess nuclear weapons, the NPT
regulates the provision of civilian nuclear power for some states. However, as for the states
violating the non-proliferation obligations stipulated by the treaty, it enables such international
activities as the application of sanctions and buying constraints. This practice entails a behaviour
modification technique that incorporates positive reinforcement negative punishment that shifts
costs and/or benefits that the participants in a treaty have to undertake and it offers membership
in the treaty it represents and the treaty itself like dealing with nuclear countries and the global
community in areas such as economically, diplomat and security. This explains why the
continued attainment of nuclear program in cancellation of the treaty commitments is a threat of
suffering more in economic burden and exclusion from the global community. The following
incentives and disincentives have made the treaty participants to search and secure the
alternatives to disagree to agree instead of recourse to overbearing and invasive measures on the
unilateral plane.
The NPT, thus, has been quite successful as a tool of controlling the spread of nuclear
weapons by limiting its access more or less to the state members, but the disadvantage of its
limited applicability has confined it somewhat as a universal non-proliferation treaty. Still,
present-day international actors like the USA, Russia, UK, France are not the party to NPT; other
states like India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, etc., have either not signed the treaty or not
limited the extent to which rules and norms in regard to nuclear weapons are set. This has had
the net result of making the non-proliferation standards differential between the treaty members
and the other guys. It has also meant that there are more complex and diverse negotiating
Page 15 of 25
processes of bargaining over nuclear issues depending on one’s status in the NPT. Concerning
the further practice of non-proliferation and the ways for extension of the norms concerning the
states which do not cooperate at present, this question remains to be solved as the problem of
further evolution of disarmament diplomacy. In summation, the dominate non-proliferation
regime based on the NPT despite the problems in implementing and compliance has become an
essential tool of the nuclear bargaining for over half a century.
Nuclear technology advancements affecting deterrence credibility
Recent development in nuclear technology has brought up some questions on how the
new development could affect the concept of deterrence credibility in the world’s nuclear states.
Both innovations that enhance the accuracy and flexibility of nuclear weapons may enhance the
credibility of deterrence inasmuch as nuclear-weapon states will have more ways to respond in
case of an attack. The old technical yields of the warheads ensure that the response is
proportional and does not necessarily have to go up to the catastrophic level. It could make
nuclear powers feel that they have other good options to respond in kind and proportion without
having to leave their nuclear options to be the only rational response to violent acts or
aggression. More flexibility could help improve stability since people lack motivation to be
activated in a crisis only to be deemed obsolete afterward. But this same technology also poses
dangers of reducing nuclear use’s threshold for the thinkable by making smaller attacks possible.
There are also risks that first-strike capabilities seek to enhance could turn stable mutual
vulnerability into a race of disarmament strikes against the other side’s weapons stockpiles. This
could create a destabilizing arms race dynamic because each side will be trying to develop new
weapons to combat the technology on the other side. Therefore, as technology enhances the
ability to craft deterrent postures for stability, technology is also the main source of danger for
Page 16 of 25
crisis instability if such advance is seen as seeking superiority for war rather than for a second
strike capability. Overcoming this instability is exacerbated by the development of cyber and
counter-space capabilities that establish new windows of exposure from traditional nuclear
assets. Finally, mitigating these impacts on stability in strategic relationships will need a stable
strategic discourse among nuclear weapon states accompanied by rigorous T&CBM in respect to
doctrine, capabilities, and postures. Rather than the idea of the technological revolution beyond
the control of nuclear powers, the role of technology has to be defined in ways to support the
strategic stability based on the defensive settings and absence of dangerous misunderstanding of
aims and actions of each other. This will require prudence and honesty at the top political levels
to maintain confidence in nuclear deterrents’ stability and to avoid provocative consequent
nuclear employment.
Transnational Security Threats and Collective Bargaining
Terrorism necessitating multilateral approaches to security bargaining
Terrorism is considered as one of the paramount security threats in the modern global
society and that it is a phenomenon which requires collective approach for addressing. Terrorism
has become one of the biggest woes that are still very difficult to fight, as the terrorists and their
enablers have roots in many aspects, and no state can single-handedly tackle them. These evil
men and women exploit weak borders and internet connection to call their followers, source for
funds, advertise for their course and plan and execute their operation in different regions. These
groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS and all other groups related to them have been able to found
structural networks worldwide and have been in a position to claim physical control over
territory in weak or insecure states hence making them a global menace. On the other hand, the
legal systems of the states that comprise the federation may be dissimilar; their security
Page 17 of 25
capacities may vary, and so does the relations with the concerned public as well as the political
commitment they have to combating terrorism domestically and globally. The indicated
approaches lack efficiency in disassembling the intricate transnational organizational systems
employed by terrorists as a tool of their actions. Some of the strategic coordination functions are
played by the multilateral security platforms.
International organizations including United Nations, Interpol, regional bodies like the
African Union and the alliance forces have established counter-terrorism policies and
procedures, intelligence exchange mechanism, warning systems, cooperation in border control
and legal issues, and combined military, police and intelligence operations. Considering the
recognition that multi-stakeholder collaborations can rely on content knowledge from a range of
disciplines, precursors of violent radicalization can be mitigated by means of humanitarian aid,
education, advocacy, and communities’ engagement programs. In sharing and follow up of
intelligence, follow up on funds, international hunt for the suspects, foreign fighters’ problem,
and follow up of reintroduction and radicalization, partnership has also proved crucial. But
counterterrorism cooperation within the multilateral format is politically, in terms of the capacity
to act, financing, and legally challenged. Sovereignty-related approaches perceived as infringing
on national sovereignty or opening the door to outside interference have caused suspicion. We
also see that a differing level of commitment, distinct legal frameworks as well as information
exchange limitations have also posed a challenge in coordination. The modern day terrorism
networks are extensive and all-encompassing in their threat and require a collective response
from the international community. The States must learn to negotiate ways of coming up with
multilateral security frameworks that are perishable but usable to counter this fast changing
threat.
Page 18 of 25
Pandemic responses requiring coordinated international negotiation efforts
As in the current COVID-19 pandemic it has been evidenced that the pathogen
transmission is not limited within the country boundaries and weak cooperation when combating
a disease results in poor outcomes. As to the novel coronavirus, some countries locked their
borders and restricted the people’s mobility from the outset, while others initially did not take the
threat too seriously and then had to change their minds and apply severe measures to curb the
epidemic. This served to create a hurried and disjointed method regarding the virus that let it to
prolong its infecting of the globe. In pandemic situations, however, there is a need, to have
agreements, and structures where different countries share information, make announcements on
travel alerts and advisories at the same time, carry out research together, share resources and
vaccines (among other necessities), and give a unified message that needs to be forwarded to the
public. Nevertheless, these alignments may be constructed in multiple and long sequential
bilateral and multilateral governmental and WHO institutional negotiations involving different
stakeholders including pharma manufacturers. Others like the EU can also prescribe and
orchestrate the standards for the handling of response to the pandemic for the member countries.
It then becomes a matter of compliance and timely implementation which is likely to be affected
by the following: Such international commitments are however likely to be honored this is
despite political pressures at the domestic level. Battling needs to take a place in international
relations as the recognition of mutuality in the sphere of disease is essential for the success of the
pandemics’ prevention strategy. The expenditures that will be incurred today especially on
surveillance systems, medical facilities, open research networks and governmental collaboration
will help reduce unnecessary loss of lives and other losses tomorrow. Pandemics play the crucial
role in finding out our vulnerability and connectedness in the contemporary world. Thus, as the
Page 19 of 25
incidence of acute infectious diseases increases, the definition and stimulation of systems and
standards for transnational cooperation in combating outbreaks through patient diplomacy and
negotiations can determine the readiness of the entire world for pandemics.
Climate security issues broadening scope of bargaining
Fear remains an effective way of discussing climate change as an emerging threat, which
broadens the discourses in the climate negotiations. Frequent cases of natural disasters, climate
change, and other related incidences which foster resource degradation post even national and
human security risks which include calamities such as droughts, floods, heat waves and the
others, which are dislocating people, destroying infrastructures and crops and even leading to
conflict. Such a construction of climate change as a security threat has enticed defense
departments and militaries to the climate negotiations table. As in the previous climate
negotiations, people were focused on cuts on greenhouse gases, finance and adaptation here and
there, and security issues are now turning climate talks into risk management, more readiness for
impacts and provisions for loss and damage. This has led to the developed countries being called
upon to increase the technology provision and capacity building that would ensure that the
vulnerable countries are able to deal with the locked-in climate change effects. Other stake
holders that include the developing countries also expect that there should be sources for
compensation for Climate change loss and damage. The countries that rely on fossil fuel exports
are also doing the same and one of them is to assessing economic vulnerability and opportunities
in a low carbon world. As the climate change is behind various problems, it opens more
opportunities so far as the field of cooperation is concerned though the issue is how to prevent
the discussions from being rapidly dispersed. Thus, while this article demonstrates securitizing
climate action results in responses when done so it should be done carefully, where climate
Page 20 of 25
action is not cast in a way that positions national security as a winner-loser game. On the case of
cooperation, frames can influence interdependencies to flow towards positive complementarity.
The idea of collective security is not possible through individual endeavors, but through a
collective approach on matter of the climate change. The threats associated with climate change
and their scope only continue to grow which underlines the urgency of having a comprehensive,
ensemble approach towards the climate change problem which has been identified much earlier.
Cultural and Ideological Factors in Modern Bargaining
Religious extremism challenging rational actor model assumptions
The rational actor model is among the main paradigms of political sciences and economy
to describe a human’s behavior and decisions. It expects people to be selfish, and they make
choices following the rule of receiving higher returns. However, there is one phenomenon that
knowingly goes against these basics and could, to some extent, be viewed as a sort of challenge –
religious extremism. Another reason why religious fanatics do not make up the business circuit is
due to non-economic motivation; this is because they are motivated by ideologies as opposed to
self interest; therefore, more often than not they would have to incur a lot more than they would
be benefiting therefore not making any economic sense viewed within the context of cost benefit
analysis. For example, suicide bombers are people willing to perpetrate actions that may include
killing and ‘suicide’ for religious-political cause. The main apparent driving force behind their
actions is a combination of enthusiasm for the cause which they represent and desire to force
their politics on others over a clear and concrete plan on how to achieve their goals. Therefore,
the religious extremist cannot be explained or justified within the objectives and assumptions of
the rational actor model. It is a technical and hermeneutical means of calculation that has
ideological, religious, societal, and ethical values apart from egoism. In addition, religious
Page 21 of 25
extremists tend to have an end-of-days, messianic view of the world which means that they are
prepared to undertake extremely high-risk behaviors which, to an outside, rational observer,
would well be irrational. One of the issues that mainstream political science theory cannot
engage is the process of when the personal self-volition is significantly dominated by ideology
and religious passion as in cases of martyrdom or cult like follower ship. Summing up, it is
necessary to remark that assumptions of rational choice approach are not taking into account the
phenomenon of extreme movements. The concepts of social, psychological and religious
ideational determinants suggest that they play a significant role in overshadowing individual
rationality; thus, it is necessary to shift the key paradigms influencing the main approaches in the
academia. For the development of the field in the future, it is required getting aspects of identity,
belief system and social embededness into the field because these aspects define preferences and
perceived pay offs which are not defined by the concept of self-interest.
Nationalistic sentiments influencing public support for concessions
The performance of patriotic feelings is highly likely to define how much people are
ready to sacrifice during an agreement or a conflict solution. Since nationalism implies that a
population is more or less united in political concerns, people opt for national interests rather
than absorbent compromises, thus limiting flexibility. To this end, governments may exploit such
nationalist sentiments to rally support for aggressive positions even where more diplomatic
approaches would provide better and lasting solutions to the problems. Nevertheless, the kind of
nationalism that is stirred up by political speeches and discussions limits the freedom of
governments’ actions during delicate negotiations because it exerts pressure on the leaders not to
give the impression that they are weaker than the rival national group. For instance, the conflicts
related to disputes over islands or boundaries are highly sensualized because people feel pride in
Page 22 of 25
their country. The simple concept of ceding any part of the homeland to a historic foe, even a
relatively insignificant piece of territory, can provoke a hostile reaction during the negotiations.
Likewise, demands for apology or compensation for past enmity or genocide may attract
extremely massive criticism as nation degradation if it is framed by nationalist activists in a win-
lose attitude rather than in a win-win approach. They are accused of selling out the heritage or
the ideals of the nation whenever the discussions enter areas that open up old nationalist account
of unfair treatment of the people. As a result, even reasonable, mutually beneficial exchanges are
difficult to reach for, if the concessions sound like the loss of national status in absolute terms
and not as a reasonable claim given to the other party. However, as public nationalism gets
aroused this flexibility is limited, but at the same time, positive leadership will be able to channel
this nationalism to ensure that the public gives its support for some sacrifices for a cause that
benefits a greater whole such as the stability of a region or even humanitarian interest. In other
words, the construction of a popular allegiance necessitates the creation of a persuasive story of
policy decisions that will fit into a nation’s and human identity, so that the public assesses
compromises as sound moral sense rather than a sign of vulnerability. That is why the successful
appeal to nationalist energy can potentially liberate reconciliation as well as resistance. The path
is determined by the way leadership constructs the frame around the events as diplomacy is
sensitive, especially when conducted in the presence of the public, who may have strong
emotions towards the events.
Social media's impact on domestic audience costs
The current development in the social sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram has
seen the political leaders have a direct means of communicating with the people and at the same
time feel the temperature of the people they represent. This can dramatically cut the so called
Page 23 of 25
Domestic Audience Costs, which is the political cost a country’s leadership incurs when it backs
down from a stated position in international diplomacy. Historically, leaders used to have
privacy and more influence in the kind of information they gave to their home populace.
However, the social networks give the citizens much more opportunities to get the information
and also give the opportunity to voice their opinion regarding certain decision made in the sphere
of foreign policy. Thus, there is arguably a much greater expectation on governments to be more
sensitive to what people want and how they feel about the world. If they post an aggressive
position towards another country that is perceived by the audience of the state as reckless or
unnecessary, then there will be a damn storm on social networks. Crisis can attract more
attention as recording and sharing of videos has become common place through smart phone
gadgets. All of this forces the political leaders to consider possible domestic audience costs at an
early stage while initially threatening their bargaining power. But it is important to understand
that cultural preferences and ideology do not disappear in the modern world and continue to
significantly influence audience costs. People themselves cannot be rational in their evaluation of
the effectiveness and inefficiency of the negotiating activity carried out by their government. It
favors messages that have low-grade appeal, especially those that appeal to nationalism or hatred
between nations. Even if the described type of Tweeting is not always rational and beneficial for
politicians in terms of voting outcomes, skillful utilization of social media can always generate
enthusiasm for rebellious positions. While new media bring more audience costs with social
media, sociocultural factors may bias negotiations even deeper.
Conclusion
The bargaining model of war is still one of the most suitable theories for identifying the
roots of the conflict in the contemporary framework of international relations because it provides
Page 24 of 25
a rationalistic angle on actor’s behavior, which is due to the fact that the issues of info
asymmetry, credible commitment, and the issues of bargaining failures in conflict initiation
aspects are relevant to the understanding of contemporary threats and security. However, the
picture changes as soon as the model is applied to the highly plural and diverse character of the
modern threats to global security. These are, for instance, the emergence of new players apart
from state levels, which involve: international terrorism; transnational organized crimes; Al
Qaeda; ISIS among others; new threats, for instance cyber warfare. Additionally, firstly and
foremost, due to the main focus of power being transferred to the domestic political actors, the
public as well as the social media as the primary determinant of the foreign policy is far from
being predictable, thus, has not been envisaged in the suggested model. Further, the model
assumes that the actors make the best strategic decisions while in most of the conflicts such as,
ideological or religious, this may not be the case. Nevertheless, one can admit that the principles
of the bargaining model remain basically valid today; whereas it is only required to refine and
supplement it to reflect the specifics of the contemporary world and the modern global security
environment. It also covers such aspects, for instance, how the situation with developing
response to cyber warfare can be expressed in terms of information differential balance; or such
phenomena, as climate change or viral pandemic the negotiation aspect of which implies
collective reaction strategies. The model must also offer increased details on the processes of the
action of non-state actors; the roles of social networking sites on the outcomes of reputational
and credibility crises and the decision–making process of multilateralism in a new age globalized
world. Nonetheless, these restrictions can also be regarded as advantages: to increase the model’s
utility and use it for today’s threats understanding and mitigation, policymakers and scholars
only have to make certain modifications that free the model from these limitations.
Page 25 of 25
