{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015056022408963586, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014005602240896359, 'mean_word_length': 5.320796460176991, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Power-Conflict Story: A Dynamic Model of Interstate Rivalry

plausible framework for evaluating international negotiations according to welldefined criteria for justice and fairness. They would be a good starting point for students new to the topic. The case studies are rather more problematic. Clearly, it would be unfair to judge these relatively short overviews, given the breadth and complexity of the subject matter, and the extensive scholarly literature already devoted to them, by whether they shed new light on the negotiations. A more pertinent criterion is whether the studies provide answers to the questions that the author poses in the first two chapters of the book (and summarized at the head of this review). Here my assessment is somewhat equivocal. Albin does makes a persuasive argument that considerations of equity had an important influence on the course and outcome of the various negotiations studied. Issues of “relative fairness” became important in defining solutions acceptable to all parties. Moreover, procedural notions of justice and fairness played a role in all four sets of negotiations. Far less clear, however, are the motivations of the negotiators for taking such considerations into account. As she notes, none of the participants she interviewed saw considerations of justice and fairness as significant factors in their conduct of the negotiations (218). A skeptical observer might conclude that the introduction of such considerations was merely a tactical move, a realization that unless other parties perceived that the negotiations met at least their minimum criteria for fairness, a successful outcome would be impossible. Albin acknowledges that tactical considerations do come into play when negotiators seek legitimacy for their positions by couching them in terms of equity. The possibility that concessions were made primarily for tactical reasons receives far less attention. Realists would not be convinced that the evidence presented in the case studies takes us beyond the argument taken from Gauthier that Albin quotes in her first chapter: “Morality enters the equation only because bargainers lack the power to impose outcomes unilaterally and because selfsufficiency is not a viable alternative” (7). And in some instances, especially in her discussion of the concessions won by the South in the Uruguay Round, Albin appears to overstate the extent to which considerations of justice produced outcomes favorable to weaker parties. By providing an elegant framework and by making a strong case that principles of justice and fairness play a more significant role in international negotiations than is often acknowledged, the book lays the foundations for a more comprehensive discussion of these issues than they have previously received in much of the literature of international relations.