Having
explained some features of this imaginary story and some of the crucial
differences with real life, it is time to go back to the negotiations. To
recapitulate, we have three populations (Khemed,
Syldavia, and Borduria) that are part of a sovereignty conflict or
dispute. For whatever reason, each party claims exclusive sovereignty over
Khemed. Since their world might perish soon they have all decided to go into
negotiations in relation to the sovereignty over Khemed. That is mainly because
Khemed’s territory is rich in a very rare metal that happened to be necessary
for the construction of inter-stellar flying objects. All three parties think of using
these inter-stellar flying objects in the event the world came to an end and
needed to evacuate.
Each of the
parties has chosen a representative. The representatives of the three
populations will go into the negotiations without knowing whom they represent
but with access to any other information about the three parties, their claims,
and anything and everything related to Khemed and its sovereignty. By acting in
this way, they ensure that none of the parties is more or less advantaged or
disadvantaged when choosing how sovereignty will be allocated.
Decision making rules
The first
thing the representatives will have to agree upon is the procedure they will
follow in the negotiations, the applicable rule. When making decisions in cases
we have to choose, it is possible to abstract all of these decisions in three
very basic categories:
Maximax
One has to be
an optimist or a “risk-seeking” investor to choose this option. It is for
people who seek to achieve the best results if the best happens. We would have
to assume that whatever action is taken, the best will happen.
In the case of
sovereignty conflicts similar to our story that would mean that each of the representatives
would seek the complete and exclusive sovereignty over Khemed for the party
they represent.
Maximin
One has to be
a pessimist or a conservative individual who chooses the option that maximises
the minimum pay-off achievable. In our fictional story, each of the
representatives would look at the worst possible outcome, and then selects
the highest one of these. That is to say, our representatives would choose the
outcome which is guaranteed to minimise losses. By doing this, our
representative seeks to achieve the best results if the worst happens.
Minimax
This option
minimises the maximum regret. It is useful if our representatives are
risk-neutral decision maker. That is to say, the representatives in our story
would not wish to make the wrong decision.
More details
about decision theory following the link below:
Bearing in
mind the conditions under our representatives will have to select the
applicable rule to allocate the sovereignty over Khemed (they all have access
to all the available information but do not know who they represent) it is highly possible they will choose the maximin rule. It is reasonable to believe they would make a conservative
choice.
Each of the
representatives will consider a series of important points when making the decision.
First, any choice they make will have to be justified to the people they
represent either in Khemed, Syldavia and Borduria. Secondly, the decision they
make may imply gains but also loses. That is because, the party they represent
may not have for example the means to explore and exploit the rare metal; or if
they had the means to do it, they may not be geographically ideally placed or
may not have sufficiently specialised workforce to do it. Finally, the
situation in any case is volatile and has risks. The world is about to end,
there is only one solution to save them all, and in the case any of the parties
is left aside, it is unclear that party will accept such an agreement.
Let us assume
they selected the maximax rule. That would mean one of the parties would be
allocated the total and exclusive sovereignty over Khemed. In turn, that party
would be the sole responsible for the exploration and exploitation of the rare
metal. In principle, it seems to be a win-win situation for the chosen one. But
if the chosen one were to be Khemed, they would not have the means to do it. And
if the chosen ones were either Syldavia or Borduria, they would have to either send
their workforce to Khemed or agree with Khemedians to cooperate.
If they
selected minimax and did not want to make any wrong decision, they would
probably remain neutral. That is to say, the representatives would most likely
choose a status quo. If this was the case, all the parties would simply be
awaiting the end of the world unless any form of cooperation was agreed.
Therefore, it
is highly likely the representatives of Khemed, Syldavia and Borduria selected
the rule of maximin to allocate sovereignty over Khemed. That would mean that
all the parties would share a slice of the sovereignty. With this kind of
arrangement, even if they represented the party with the least advantaged position,
they would still be able to use the rare metal and escape from the end of the world. Why? If they were
Khemedians, they would have access not to technology and means for exploitation
and exploration that otherwise they would not. If they were Syldavians, they
would have access to the rare material that is not present in their territory
and they know it is necessary to avoid extinction. Finally, if they were
Bordurians, like Syldavians they would have access to this are material and
like Khemedians, they would have access to technology and means of exploration and
exploitation. Someone may ask, why Khemed and Syldavia would accept the
involvement of Borduria? Many reasons would justify their inclusion:
geographical proximity, local workforce, ties of various natures with
Khemedians.
Sovereignty
disputes are under an umbrella of uncertainty. All the parties start with a status
quo and any decision in the negotiations may imply actions on either side that
may result in gains but also losses for any of them.
The
representatives of Khemed, Syldavia and Borduria have to bear in mind that,
although they may have information about Khemed, they do not know its factual
features in the future and that they do not know whom they represent.
Indeed, maximin
is not a general rule in cases of uncertainty. However, it is the desirable one
in situations of high indeterminacy, when the stakes are high and the worst
position is tolerable.
The situation
is very similar to the one in which there are two people rowing a boat that
neither can row alone. These two people need each other in mutually beneficial
coordinative practice. Sovereignty conflicts are just in the same situation: if
none of the parties is willing to cooperate and start negotiations in order to
leave the zero sum game or non-zero sum game, they will all perish on the same
boat.
Jorge Emilio
Núñez
13th October
2017
No comments:
Post a Comment