Simulationskurs (Entscheidungsprozesse) / ID: 407450

Особые предложения 2 Открыть

2,49 € В корзину

Добавить в список желаний

В списке желаний

Хочешь дешевле?

Идентификатор:407450

Автор: anonims (106)

Оценка:

Опубликованно: 02.12.2010.

Язык: Английский

Уровень: Университет

Литературный список: Нет

Ссылки: Использованы

Увеличить просмотр

Содержание

Nr.	Название главы	Стр.
	INTRODUCTION	III
1.	Definition of the Position (Simons/Tripp (2003) „The Negotiation Checklist“)	III
1.1.	What is negotiation purpose of FINLAND?	III
	The aim of negotiations is to allow the use of vegetable substitutes (production of chocolate consisting of vegetable fat other than cocoa butter) not just among seven Member States, but also in the European Union	III
1.2.	What are the negotiations subjects?	III
1.3.	How important are these subjects for FINLAND?	IV
1.4.	What is „BATNA“ (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (Fisher/Ury)) for FINLAND?	IV
1.5.	Partners of negotiation: what are their purposes? How important for them are their purposes? What are their BATNAs?	VI
1.6.	Negotiations situation: Are there temporal restrictions? Who is in to the most impatient one? Which justice-norms are there?	VI
1.7.	Relations between the negotiations participants. Which strategies and tactics turn other negotiations participants in?	VII
2.	Which negotiation outcome would be a) in ideal, b) realistical evaluation of situation?	VII
3.	How I evaluate proposal of Commission in the light of preferences of FINLAND?	VII
4.	If FINLAND would be member of Presidency of Council: how I would evaluate proposal of Commission in the light of preferences of Council Presidency?	VII
5.	Which negotiation strategies will help to achieve aims of FINLAND (Presidency)?	VIII
6.	Does FINLAND see any differences between their position of strategy in the first and second reading in the Council of Ministers and does FINLAND think that strategies of negotiation will be different between readings?	VIII
7.	What would failure of directive mean for FINLAND (Presidency)?	VIII
8.	What kind of consequences do I except for FINLAND’S negotiation manner? (If I am not BELGIUM or UK)	VIII
9.	What will mean failure of directive for both antipodes – BELGIUM and UK?	IX
11.	Which countries can I probably win over, which countries should I outvote?	IX
	REFERENCES	X

Фрагмент работы

11. Which countries can I probably win over, which countries should I outvote?
Win over: Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, UK.
Outvote: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Spain
(these 8 Member States represent 71% of EU chocolate production29).

12. If you only would choose one actor and only at a time in co-decisive procedure your
lobby activities unfold could – which time and which actor you would choose?
Of all the institutions involved in decision-making, the Council is still the least accessible to
NGOs. Council sessions are on the whole secret, and documents are not readily released.
However, there are more and more informal consultations in order to make allowance for
current affairs in society at large.30
Chosen actor: President of FAZER because FAZER is the Nordic region’s largest chocolate
and sugar confectionery company that has impact on market of North Europe.31
Time: orientation generale rather than during drafting of common position would be the best
option for president of FAZER company to lobby the EU institutions. Regarding readings of
the Council of Ministers, lobby would increase its achievements already reached in
orientation generale between 1st reading and 2nd reading when there discussions are further
going on.…

Коментарий автора

Комплект работ:

ВЫГОДНО купить комплект ➞ экономия −3,98 €

Комплект работ Nr. 1235096

Купить 3 работы в комплекте

Просмотреть комплект

Реферат

Гуманитарные науки

Политика