Define the interests of the parties (needs, fears, hopes, aims/objectives)

How do they deal with their interests?

Do they only concentrate on demands and standpoints?

Do they perceive the interests as contrary or conflicting?

Do they behave as if they have an opponent, as if it were a zero number game?

Do they perceive any common interests?

Which options are discussed, if any?

Is it probable that the parties will develop options themselves?

Are there any options that might satisfy the interests of the parties?

What would the parties do to achieve their aims if no negotiated or mediated regulation of the conflict took place (if no agreement could be made)?

Which persons or organizations would be in the position to influence the development of alternatives?

Do any standards exist locally or elsewhere which might be applied to this case?

What do the parties measure 'fair play' against here?

Do they consider one another to be legitimate negotiating partners?

Do you think they are being treated fairly?

Is there a battle of wills going on? Threats? How do they apply criteria, how are these discussed?

Are the parties in a position to communicate with each other?

Have there been any significant examples of wrong communication?

What have they communicated to one another? Via which channels?

How do they perceive each other? Are there any significant wrong perceptions?

Are there any cultural differences which may be responsible for the communication problems?

How do the parties treat one another? Coercion? Understanding? Mutual recognition as individuals?

How do the individual party’s backgrounds influence the way in which they deal with each other presently?

How are power relations perceived?

Who are the relevant decision makers and opinion leaders?

Do they or does anyone else have the authority to make concessions at the cost of others?

Under what conditions could they make concessions?

What capacity could these have?

Who could benefit from the result?

Who could be interested in the proceedings?

Who could be affected in each case?

Who may wish to be perceived as a participant?

Who could the affected party be responsible for?

Whose authority could be required?

Whose support is decisive?

Who could be in the position to sabotage the process?

Who could hinder an agreement being made?

Are the parties thinking about long or short-term developments?

Do reservations exist concerning violence, security, reputation, precedents, sense of duty, 'intangibles'?

Listen to the suggestions for solutions and ask them: "Why are you in favour of them?”

If you mine for the interests that lie at the heart of the negotiating position, make sure that the parties are aware that your are not attempting to coerce them into making concessions.

Ask the protagonists to describe their vision of the ideal result and their deepest fears. Develop you own interests from these scenarios.

Speculate about things which they might be interested in, might be worried about, or might be scared of. Ask them to correct and add to your assessment.