	International Online Training Program On Intractable Conflict
	Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA

All or Nothing Approach

Glossary | Menu Shortcut Page

Sometimes disputants will refuse to consider any type of mutually beneficial agreement or relationship until the core intractable issues have been resolved. Usually, they hope that withholding normal relations will pressure an opponent into making concessions. While this strategy may be effective, it also blocks the relationship-building activities which can provide a basis for constructively addressing the core issues.

A similar problem is that disputants may be unwilling to pursue a short-term agreement and partial victory, because they fear that such an approach would undermine their long-term prospects of achieving their goals. Thus they take an all-or-nothing approach. They insist that the opponent be willing to make major concessions before they are even willing to open negotiations.

Examples of the All-or-Nothing Problem:

Gareth Evans -- Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait in 1990: A Failure to use Preventive Diplomacy: Evans argues that one of the reasons preventive diplomacy failed in this case is that both Iraq and Kuwait insisted on major concessions before they were willing to negotiate.

Links to Possible Treatments for This Problem:

Identifying and Pursuing Negotiable Sub-Issues

Incrementalism

Links to Related Problems:

Refusal to Negotiate

Limits to Agreement: Better Alternatives

International Online Training Program On Intractable Conflict

All or Nothing Approach