The Single Negotiating Text

• Difficulty: Advanced
• Estimated effectiveness: Very high
• Time to implement: Iterative, several rounds of shuttling required
• Fields of application: Mediation, Diplomacy, Collective bargaining, Law, Co-ownership
• Synonyms: Single Negotiating Text, SNT, Single mediation text, Single draft agreement
• Tags: single text, SNT, Camp David, mediation, Fisher

The SNT defuses the positional battle by substituting a shared object for the rival proposals: amending a text that no one "owns" is not a defeat, which allows parties to save face. It gives the mediator control of the process and makes the discussion converge. Its imperative condition: a third party whose neutrality is beyond dispute, failing which the "single" text is perceived as partial.

Use it when the direct exchange of proposals bogs down or turns into a clash of platforms, and when a credible third party is available. Invaluable whenever face concerns prevent open concessions (diplomacy, cross-cultural settings, family disputes). Poorly suited to extreme urgency or to simple, bilateral negotiations without a mediator.

Recognise it: a third party proposes "a single text" to be amended and holds the pen. Neutralise it: pay close attention to the choice of wording, where the real power lies; amend precisely and keep a record of your reservations. Turn it around: weigh in on the drafter's mandate (criteria, scope) and propose your own wording for inclusion, rather than being subjected to the starting text.

The SNT grants the drafter considerable power of influence: whoever holds the pen shapes the agreement through the choice of words and of what does or does not appear in the text. Its legitimacy rests entirely on the perceived neutrality of the third party; the slightest suspicion of bias ruins it. Ethically, a mediator can subtly skew the text towards an outcome they favour. Finally, it requires time and several iterations, incompatible with urgency.

A procedural tool of principled negotiation and of mediation; it combines with shuttle diplomacy. A relative of the Anglo-Saxon one-text procedure. It stands opposed to the exchange of competing proposals and to direct positional bargaining. Complementary to interest mapping, which feeds the content of the text.

• Roger Fisher & William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 1981.
• Roger Fisher, William Ury & Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes (2nd ed.), 1991.
• Howard Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation, 1982.

• Unblock a negotiation mired in positional bargaining by refocusing exchanges on the critique of a shared document rather than on the defence of each side's positions.
• Reduce the complexity of a multi-party negotiation by substituting a single draft agreement, iteratively amended, for a proliferation of competing texts.
• Allow the parties to express their interests and objections without committing: criticising a draft costs nothing, whereas a stated concession binds.
• Preserve the negotiators' face: the adjustments are carried by the drafter-mediator, so that no party appears publicly as the one backing down.
• Converge towards a simple binary decision at the end of the process: accept or refuse the final version of the text, once the criticisms are exhausted.

Diplomatic · Camp David 1978: twenty-three versions in thirteen days: At the Camp David summit (September 1978), the direct negotiation between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin quickly reached deadlock. President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance then applied the single-text procedure devised by Roger Fisher: the American team drafted a draft agreement on its own, submitted it separately to each delegation - asking only for criticism, never for approval -, then revised it. Twenty-three versions followed one another in thirteen days before producing the text that both parties accepted: the Camp David Accords, a prelude to the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.

Diplomatic · UNCLOS III: the single text that produced the Law of the Sea Convention: At the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, more than 150 delegations negotiated hundreds of interlocking issues; competing proposals made any vote impracticable. In 1975, at the Conference's request, the chairs of the three main committees each drafted an "Informal Single Negotiating Text" covering their subjects. These texts served as a common basis, were criticised and then revised into successive versions (Revised Single Negotiating Text in 1976, Composite Text in 1977) up to the Convention adopted in 1982, one of the most complex multilateral treaties ever concluded.

Business · Representative scenario: a remote-working agreement drafted with a single pen: Representative scenario. In a mid-sized company, the negotiation of a remote-working agreement bogs down: two unions and management each dig in on their own draft text, and every meeting turns into a confrontation of competing articles. The HR director changes method: she takes all the drafts off the table and entrusts a drafter accepted by all with a single draft, explicitly presented as imperfect. At each round, each party freely annotates the document, without ever being asked to approve it. After several versions incorporating the criticisms (floating days, allowances, reversibility), the final version is submitted for signature as a whole: the parties compare the text with the absence of any agreement, and sign.

• Circulating a first draft that is too polished or visibly favourable to one side: the text must be presented as a deliberately criticisable outline, otherwise it is perceived as a disguised position and puts the parties on their guard.
• Asking the parties to approve intermediate versions: the strength of the method lies precisely in soliciting only criticism, never commitment, before the final version.
• Leaving doubt hanging over the drafter's impartiality: whoever holds the pen wields considerable power, and at the slightest suspicion of favouritism the single text loses all legitimacy.
• Tolerating the reappearance of competing texts along the way (each party bringing back "its" draft), which recreates exactly the war of positions the method seeks to eliminate.
• Submitting the final version too early, before having incorporated the major objections: a premature "take it or leave it" turns the convergence tool into an ultimatum and destroys the trust built up.

• Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton (1991) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2nd ed.) Penguin Books, in which the "one-text procedure" is presented with the Camp David example
• Howard Raiffa (1982) The Art and Science of Negotiation Belknap Press / Harvard University Press, an analysis of the "single negotiating text" in multilateral negotiations
• James K. Sebenius (1984) Negotiating the Law of the Sea Harvard University Press, the reference study on the use of the single text at UNCLOS III