Strategic Negotiation for Resolving Infrastructure Development Disputes in the Belt and Road Initiative

Regional economic corridors are playing a role in uplifting the infrastructure of developing countries. But, such integrations are prone to some challenges emerging from the multilevel system of governance in participating countries. It is necessary that legitimate stakeholders get involved at national, provincial and local levels using collaborative planning and development. Exclusion at any level would ultimately lead to unsolicited and undesirable outcomes. The present study uses Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) as a primary conflict resolution tool to resolve Pakistan Railway (PR) infrastructure development disputes under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). This tool takes into consideration interests of all stakeholders. It could be used for future planning by policymakers.

[1]  John Pløger,et al.  Strife: Urban Planning and Agonism , 2004 .

[2]  D. Lutz,et al.  Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior , 1973 .

[3]  A. Kuklinski,et al.  Regional development, regional policies and regional planning , 1970 .

[4]  Haiyan Xu,et al.  The Analysis of Environmental Conflict in Changzhou Foreign Language School Using a Hybrid Game , 2017 .

[5]  Keith W. Hipel,et al.  Conflict resolution in construction disputes using the graph model , 2006 .

[6]  A. Ladkin,et al.  Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. , 2005 .

[7]  Kuo-Ann Chiao,et al.  Harmonious Urban Development and Strategic Transportation Planning in China , 2008 .

[8]  E. Kovacs,et al.  Towards understanding and resolving the conflict related to the Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) conservation with participatory management planning , 2016 .

[9]  J. Nash.  Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games. , 1950, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Li Gang,et al.  China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: Current Developments And Future Prospect for Regional Integration , 2016 .

[11]  Keith W. Hipel,et al.  The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future , 2005 .

[12]  J. Nash,et al.  NON-COOPERATIVE GAMES , 1951, Classics in Game Theory.

[13]  Keith W. Hipel,et al.  Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution , 2005, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[14]  Jaakko Kujala,et al.  A stakeholder network perspective on unexpected events and their management in international projects , 2010 .

[15]  Ângela Guimarães Pereira,et al.  Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation , 2012 .

[16]  Charles Leake.  Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution , 1993 .