ART DEWULF, Catholic University of Leuven (KUL) - Center for Organizational and Personnel Psychology
Email: art.dewulf@psy.kuleuven.be
RENI BOUWEN, Catholic University of Leuven (KUL)
Email: Rene.Bouwen@psy.kuleuven.ac.be

In this paper we analyze how differences in issue framing emerge in multi-stakeholder conversations. From a discursive approach to issue framing we draw on conversational studies of disagreement, difference and conflict to build up a theoretical framework. This leads us to understand differences in issue framing as relationally significant, sequentially relevant and discursively constructed incompatibilities between two or more issue elements. In the study of multi-stakeholder conversations in the context of natural resources management in Southern Ecuador, we analyzed 8 difference emergence episodes during three interaction moments. We show that the discursive structure of the difference-initiating speaking turns is multi-layered. The differences emerge by working cautiously towards a specific but clear challenge and then adding further challenging layers of implications, and can be understood as oriented to simultaneously being to the point and being relevant. As was the case in 4 of the studied difference emergence episodes, this multi-layered structure can be exploited by interrupting a divergent movement in order to prevent the emergence of a difference. Finally, the interaction contexts in which the differences emerge can be characterized as asymmetrical, putting the burden of the risky business of initiating differences on the shoulders of the weaker parties, who proceed very prudently and produce generally weak signals of difference.

LARRY CRUMP, Griffith University - School of International Business & Asian Studies
Email: L.Crump@griffith.edu.au

Negotiation linkage (the way that one discrete negotiation influences the process or outcome of another discrete negotiation) presents challenges that are complex and real, although its management receives limited attention in the negotiation literature. This study examines four linked bilateral trade treaty negotiations conducted by Australia, Chile, the European Union, Singapore and the United States to develop understanding about negotiation linkage dynamics and its management. This study introduces the concept of "degree of linkage dynamics" (robust, moderate and modest) based on structural and contextual factors. This study also describes five specific techniques that parties can employ to produce tangible gains in linked negotiations. Data analysis develops a role-based typology that identifies strategic opportunities and challenges for each role, and establishes seven testable propositions.

EHAB FARAH, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor - Law School
Email: efarah@umich.edu

Many commentators have addressed the question of resolution of international tax disputes through various alternative mechanisms beginning with negotiations, mediation, voluntary arbitration (either binding or non-binding) and ending with mandatory and binding arbitration. The literature on this topic is full of suggestions including discussions about the necessity of such mechanisms, the probability of their success and more. All these discussions, generally speaking, deal with the basic question whether or not mandatory arbitration in the treaty network is in need and if so, how can this be feasible. From a first glance at the extensive literature that exists in this area of tax law, it appears as if an additional contribution is not an easy task to fulfill. Nevertheless, recent developments in this field deserve further investigation, namely, the recent efforts by the Organization of Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) to include a provision addressing mandatory and binding arbitration in its Model Convention and the recently ratified protocols by the United States, Germany and Belgium which, inter alia, brought the inclusion of such a clause to the Double Tax Treaties (DTTs) between the United States and both Germany and Belgium. I wish to attempt to evaluate these proposals and predict the probability of their success. In the following part, addressing the OECD proposal, I will present an argument that the proposed structure has a built in flaw which can, in certain circumstances strike the core of the idea of having mandatory and binding arbitration as a final resort for the resolution of international tax disputes. In addition, I argue that the current structure of the proposal could in fact harm the notable success of the MAP Article which the proposal was intended to enhance.

DAVID E. KATZ, Harvard Law School
Email: katzd2@gmail.com

NFL franchises are extremely profitable and rank as the highest valued teams in all of sports. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) attempts to maximize the league's value and profitability and share the wealth equitably between players and management by creating, among other things, free agency, a salary cap, and mandatory retirement benefits. However, the main CBA provisions along with a tradition of not guaranteeing yearly salary disadvantage young players and veteran reserves. Players are not eligible for true free agency until their fourth year in the league, dead money from signing bonus cap charges attributed to players no longer on the team limits what organizations can spend on reserves, and rising minimum salaries and retirement benefit contributions make many veterans too expensive for teams to sign. Although teams should prefer having experienced players as backups and on special teams, the NFL regulatory structure gives teams the incentive to sign young and inexperienced players to those roles.