HERE - UNSW Law Society

Document Sample
HERE - UNSW Law Society Powered By Docstoc
					   AAR

Advanced
   and
Beginners
Negotiation
   Competition
 Handbook 2011
                         Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION                                                             2

COORDINATOR CONTACT DETAILS                                              4

PART I: RULES AND PROCEDURES                                             5
1.   ELIGIBILITY                                                        5
2.   ROUND STRUCTURES                                                   6
3.   SCHEDULE OF DATES                                                  8
4.   COMPETITION RULES                                                  9
5.   COMPETITION RULES                                                 11
PART II: COMPETITIONS (SKILLS) POLICY                                  12

APPENDIX A: FURTHER READING                                            15
TEXTS                                                                  15
PAPERS AND ARTICLES                                                    15
UNSW RESOURCES                                                         15
APPENDIX B: A BRIEF GUIDE TO NEGOTIATION                               16

APPENDIX C: HISTORY OF THE COMPETITION                                 18

APPENDIX D: HISTORY OF ALSA SIR LAURENCE STREET NEGOTIATION            20




                                                              Page 1 of 24
INTRODUCTION

Welcome and thank you for your interest in Allens Arthur Robinson Negotiation, organised
by the Competitions (Skills) team of the UNSW Law Society. The Negotiation competition
aims to develop the practical dispute resolution abilities of students in a simulated, real-
world negotiation environment.

Negotiation skills are essential for practice across all areas of the law. Whether parties are
trying to strike a deal or settle a dispute, at some point it will be necessary as a lawyer to
navigate your client through the competing demands of another party in order to reach an
outcome to their legal problem that best meets the client’s needs and expectations. The
skills developed by the Negotiation competition complement those gained from other law
competitions such as Client Interviewing, Trial Advocacy, and Mooting, all of which are
fundamental skills valuable to the practising lawyer.

Our primary objective is to co-ordinate Negotiation ethically and efficiently with an aim to
promote and encourage the development of dispute resolution skills amongst UNSW law
students of all ages and levels.

Our secondary objective is to prepare and train students of the UNSW Law Society for
external competitions (such as the Australian Law Students’ Association (ALSA) Sir
Laurence Street Negotiation Competition and the International Chamber of Commerce
(ICC) International Mediation Competition) as representatives of UNSW. This includes
fostering and cultivating an interest and culture in Negotiation.

The Negotiation competition is divided into Advanced and Beginners to cater to the
growing interest in the competition by UNSW students.

The Advanced Negotiation Competition is held in Semester 1. This contest targets older and
more experienced students who have had the benefit of competing previously or have
completed a significant number of courses, to prepare them for the rigors of legal practice
and to recommend two exceptional candidates to represent the University of New South
Wales in the annual ALSA Sir Laurence Street Competition held in July. Exceptional
competitors will also be recommended as promising candidates for the highly esteemed ICC
International Mediation Competition, held in Paris in February next year.

The Beginners Negotiation Competition is held in Semester 2. It will be open to first to third
year students who have not competed in the Advanced Negotiation Competition. Students in
their first year are encouraged to participate in this competition. Exceptional competitors from
the Advanced Competition may have the opportunity to judge the Beginners Competition.
                                                                                    Page 2 of 24
The division of the Negotiation Competition was a calculated decision effective in 2008 to
respond to the concerns of (a) high volumes of registrations; (b) a limited number of
qualified judges; (c) a limited number of available rooms; and (d) the onerous burden borne
by coordinators. Not only does the Advanced Competition assist selection for the ALSA
Competition, but it also raises the standard of the Competition, and allows teams to be
matched at their appropriate skill level.

This handbook has been designed to give students an overview of the structure and rules of
the Competition, and a brief guide to the art of negotiation. It is vital that competitors read
and understand its contents.

Coordinators and Directors, past and present, have invested their time and effort to provide
competitors with further reading, in a concerted bid to raise the standard of the competition.
It is our firm belief that the implementation of these measures will serve as an investment
for the future, allowing future years to add to the repository of information collected.
Competitors should understand that the competition is not limited to the scope of this
Handbook and are encouraged to seek out the list of materials found in Appendix B.

We would like to thank: our sponsor, Allens Arthur Robinson, for their continued support;
ALSA for their assistance in the preparation of materials; our fellow Law Student Societies
around Australia from whom we drew ideas and best practice; practitioners whose time and
selfless assistance as judges and mentors are invaluable to the competition; and in particular, Dr
Rosemary Howell, for her tireless and boundless contributions to UNSW students.

We look forward to a challenging and exciting year of competition in 2011!


                                                           Jessica Lin and Winchin Yung
                                                 AAR Advanced Negotiation Coordinators 2011

                                                              Stephanie Liu and Andrew Gao
                                                         Beginners Negotiation Coordinators 2011

                                                                Stephanie Lee and June Guo
                                                            Competitions (Skills) Directors 2011




                                                                                      Page 3 of 24
COORDINATOR CONTACT DETAILS
For Negotiation enquiries, please contact the Coordinators by:

Email:

Advanced Negotiation
anegotiation@unswlawsoc.org

Beginners Negotiation
bnegotiation@unswlawsoc.org


For all other Competitions (Skills) enquiries, please contact the Directors by:

Email:
skills@unswlawsoc.org


All mail and deliveries should be addressed to:–

Negotiation
Competitions (Skills)
UNSW Law Society,
C/O Faculty of Law,
The University of New South Wales
SYDNEY NSW 2052
AUSTRALIA




                                                                                  Page 4 of 24
PART I: RULES AND PROCEDURES

1. Eligibility

  1.1   Students must meet the following requirements to compete in the respective
        competitions.

  1.2   Advanced Negotiation

        All students who are currently enrolled in the Bachelor of Laws program in the
        Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales are eligible to compete in
        Advanced Negotiation, provided they fall into one of the following categories in
        the year of the competition:
        1.2.1 fourth and fifth year undergraduate students;
        1.2.2 final year graduate students;
        1.2.3 students who have competed in Negotiation competitions in previous
               years; or
        1.2.4 students enrolled in the subject ‘Dispute Resolution’ (Course
               Code LAWS2314).

  1.3   Beginners Negotiation

        All students who are currently enrolled in the Bachelor of Laws program in the
        Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales are eligible to compete in
        Beginners Negotiation provided they fulfil all of the following criteria:
        1.3.1 first, second or third year undergraduate students/ graduate students not
               in their final year;
        1.3.2 students who have not competed in Beginners or Advanced Negotiation.


  1.4   Each team is to consist of two students, both of whom must satisfy the criteria
        above to compete in either of the respective competitions.

  1.5   No currently-enrolled undergraduate or graduate Bachelor of Laws student shall
        be eligible to judge a round of Advanced Negotiation.

  1.6   The only students eligible to judge a round of Beginners Negotiation are finalists
        from Advanced Negotiation in the current or previous years, approved by the
        coordinators in consultation with qualified judge(s).

  1.7   No previous competitor of the ICC International Mediation Competition may
        compete in any round of Advanced Negotiation or Beginners Negotiation.




                                                                               Page 5 of 24
2. Round Structures
  2.1   The basic structure of the Negotiation Competition shall consist of two
        preliminary rounds, a semi-final round and a grand final.

  2.2   At the discretion of the coordinator(s), in consultation with the directors and
        judges, a third preliminary round and/or a quarter-final round may be held.

  2.3   Information Sessions Procedure:

        2.3.1 Information sessions will be held to assist competitors in their
              preparation and understanding of the competition.

        2.3.2 Competitors must attend at least one information session to progress to
              the preliminary rounds.


  2.4   Preliminary Rounds Procedure:

        2.4.1 In the event that there is an even number of teams, teams will compete
              in two preliminary rounds as per the round schedule.

        2.4.2 In the event that there are an odd number of competitors, all competitors
              shall be invited on a first-come first-serve basis to compete against the
              remaining competitor.
                2.4.2.1    A different scenario will be used to the one used in that round.

                2.4.2.2    As incentive for extra participation, the coordinator(s) will
                           select the more favourable score and result to represent the
                           invited competitor’s performance in the round.

        2.4.3 At the end of preliminary rounds, each team’s win/loss ratio, total score,
              and average winning margin will be calculated.

        2.4.4 In the event that there are quarter-finals, the eight teams with the highest
              win/loss ratio will proceed to the quarter-final rounds. In the event that
              there are no quarter-finals, the four teams with the highest win/loss ratio
              will proceed to the semi-final rounds.

        2.4.5 In the event that teams have the same win/loss ratio, progression to the
              quarter-finals or semi-finals shall be the team with higher average
              winning margin as a proportion of the average score.

        2.4.6 A team’s ‘average winning margin as a proportion of the average score’
              is to be calculated, for each round, by dividing the margin (positive for
              winning margin, negative for losing margin) by the average score in that
              round, then, finding the average of all margins in all rounds.

        2.4.7   In the unlikely event that two teams have same average winning margin as a
                proportion of highest score, the coordinator(s) in consultation with the
                                                                                Page 6 of 24
              Directors and judges may host a third semi-final within the semi-
              final round.

      2.4.8 The word ‘higher’ in 2.4.5 refers to the best of two in a strictly
             competitive, and not numerical, sense.


2.5   Semi-Final Rounds Procedure:

      2.5.1   The draw for the semi-final round shall be based on total score rankings: the
              highest-ranked competitor shall compete against the lowest-ranked
              competitor in Semi-Final #1; and the second-highest-ranked competitor shall
              compete against the third-highest ranked competitor in Semi-Final #2.

      2.5.2 The winning competitor of each semi-final round shall progress to the
            Grand-Final.

      2.5.3 In the event that a third semi-final is held, the two top ranked teams will
            progress to the grand final. Ranking will be determined according to the
            highest winning margin.


2.6   Grand-Final Procedure:

      2.6.1 The winning team of the Grand-Final of Advanced Negotiation is named
            Champion of AAR Advanced Negotiation 2011.

      2.6.2 The losing finalist of the Grand Final of Advanced Negotiation is named
            Runner-Up of AAR Advanced Negotiation 2011.

      2.6.3 The winning team of the Grand-Final of Beginners Negotiation is named
            Champion of AAR Beginners Negotiation 2011.

      2.6.4 The losing finalist of the Grand Final of Beginners Negotiation is named
            Runner-Up of AAR Beginners Negotiation 2011.




                                                                               Page 7 of 24
3. Schedule of Dates

Semester 1

Week 1: Registration for the Advanced Negotiation opens online.*

Week 2: Registration for the Advanced Negotiation closes.

Week 3: Workshop featuring a demonstration of a negotiation round.*

Week 4-5: Advanced Negotiation Preliminary Round 1.*

Week 7-8: Advanced Negotiation Preliminary Round 2. *

Week 9: Advanced Negotiation Quarter-Finals.

Week 10: Advanced Negotiation Semi-Finals.

Week 11: Advanced Negotiation Grand-Final. Location: TBA

         Registration for Beginners Negotiation opens online.*

Winter Break

ALSA Sir Laurence Street Negotiation Competition 2011

Registration for the Beginners Negotiation closes: TBA

Semester 2
Week 2: Workshop featuring an introduction to the competition format and a
demonstration of a negotiation round.*

Week 3-4: Beginners Negotiation Round 1*

Week 6-7: Beginners Negotiation Round 2*

Week 9: Beginners Negotiation Quarter-Finals

Week 10: Beginners Negotiation Semi-Finals

Week 11: Beginners Negotiation Grand Final


* Denotes compulsory attendance.
Page 8 of 24
4. Competition Rules

  4.1   Release of Questions

        4.1.1 Teams will receive consultation situations by email three days before
              their allocated competition date.

        4.1.2 The consultation situation will contain information similar to that which a
              secretary might give to solicitors when a client has called to make a first-
              time appointment.


  4.2   Preparation/Research

        4.2.1 Teams must not discuss the contents of their negotiation situation with
              any person prior to the competition.

        4.2.2 Teams may bring any research materials into the negotiation, but each
              team may tender only one piece of paper to the opposing team in the
              negotiation. (e.g. an Agenda)

        4.2.3 Any infringement of the above rule will result in disqualification as per
              the Competitions Disqualification Policy.

        4.2.4 The applicable law for the rounds is the law of the State of New South
              Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia, if it is not clear from the
              problem scenario.

        4.2.5   The objective of the competition is not to argue over issues of law, but to
                demonstrate the skill of negotiation. Competitors will not be awarded extra
                points for asserting their knowledge of the law or for reaching an outcome.


  4.3   The Negotiation

        4.3.1 Sessions will be 50 minutes in length.

        4.3.2 Each team may take a break of no more than 5 minutes to discuss
              strategy in private. During such a break:

                4.3.2.1    The team calling the break may request that both members of
                           the opposing team leave the room;
                4.3.2.2    Teams may not confer with any other person;

                4.3.2.3    Timing for the 50 minutes continues to run.

        4.3.3 At the end of the 50-minute session, each team has a 10-minute period
              to analyse their performance.
                                                                                Page 9 of 24
4.3.4 After private reflection, each team, in the absence of the opposing team,
      conducts a 10-minute self-analysis in the presence of the judge(s).
4.3.5 During self-analysis, teams should:

        4.3.5.1    Explain their approach or tactics employed in the negotiation;

        4.3.5.2    Explain what they would have done the same and what
                   differently if faced with a similar scenario in the future.

        4.3.5.3    Consider how well their strategy worked in relation to the
                   outcome; and
        4.3.5.4    Answer any questions from the judge(s).

4.3.6   In self-analysis, teams should pay regard to the judging standards:

        4.3.6.1    Planning;
        4.3.6.2    Flexibility and Adaptability;
        4.3.6.3    Teamwork;
        4.3.6.4    Relationship with the other side; and
        4.3.6.5    Negotiating ethics.

4.3.9 Teams may agree on which team is to first conduct their self-analysis;
      otherwise, a judge may determine the order of presentation by a coin toss.




                                                                       Page 10 of 24
5. Competition Rules
  5.1   Multiple Judges

        5.1.1 Where a round is evaluated by a panel of judges, the winning team is the
              team which is superior in the opinion of the majority of judges,
              irrespective of the result derived from the aggregate of the team’s scores.


  5.2   Judging Standards

        5.2.1 The judging standards recognise that there is no one ‘correct’ approach to
              negotiation. However, the effectiveness of a negotiation can be judged, at
              least in part, by its outcome.
        5.2.2 Other factors in scoring:–

               5.2.2.1 Planning;
               5.2.2.2 Flexibility and Adaptability;
               5.2.2.3 Teamwork;
               5.2.2.4 Relationship with the other side;
               5.2.2.5 Negotiating ethics; and
               5.2.2.6 Self-analysis.




                                                                             Page 11 of 24
PART II: COMPETITIONS (SKILLS) POLICY

1. Strict Condition of Participation:

   1.1    Competitors of the UNSW Law Society Client Interviewing, Advanced and
          Beginners Negotiation, Trial Advocacy or Paper Presentation competitions agree
          to the rules of each competition and the following policy as a strict condition of
          participation.


2. Communication:

   2.1    Competitors will be deemed to have regular access to their nominated email
          account during the duration of the competition.

   2.2    UNSW Law Society takes no responsibility for lost, spam-filtered, or
          misdirected email. It is the competitors’ responsibility to ensure their nominated
          email accounts are capable of receiving email.


3. Scheduling and Postponements:

   3.1    The schedule of each competition round will be made based on the preferences
          of the judges forfeiting their time. Competitors must choose from a range of
          time preferences that have been allocated by the Coordinator(s).

   3.2    Draft schedules for each competition round will be released at least 5 days
          before the commencement of that round.

   3.3    Competitors must notify the competition Coordinator(s) of their unavailability
          for the original allocation by email at least 96 hours (4 days) before problem
          questions are sent out.

   3.4    Confirmation of postponement will be given at least 24 hours before the start of
          the original allocation.
   3.5    Sudden forfeiture on the day requires a notification of at least 2 hours before the
          commencement of the negotiation session. The breach of this may attach a
          future ban from entering the competition again.


4. Coordinator(s) and Director(s):

   4.1    Coordinator(s) of the particular competition and Competitions Director(s) may
          compete in any rounds of the particular competition except the final rounds. This
          only applies while they are Coordinator(s) or Competition Director(s).
Page 12 of 24
5. Grievance Procedure:

   5.1    All complaints and appeals related to the scoring, assessment, organisation and
          administration of the Competitions must be submitted to the Coordinator(s) for
          determination, before results and/or scores are released.
   5.2    Once scores and/or results are released to a competitor, an appeal will not be
          considered, except under special circumstances.
   5.3    In respect of an alleged breach of a Competition’s Rules and Procedures, the
          Coordinator(s) will:

         5.3.1   Determine whether there is a breach;

         5.3.2   Determine the penalty or remedy, if any, to be imposed for the breach; and

         5.3.3   Notify the parties concerned within a week.

   5.4    The interpretation of a Competition’s Rules and Procedures and the Competition
          Policy shall be determined by the Coordinator(s).

   5.5    An appeal regarding the decision of the Coordinator(s) may be made in writing to
          the Competitions (Skills) Director(s) within three days. In the event of such an
          appeal, the Competitions (Skills) Director(s) will make a determination under the
          Grievance Procedure in 5.1 – 5.4 within a week and notify the parties concerned.

   5.6    An appeal regarding the decision of the Competitions (Skills) Director(s) may be
          made in writing to the Vice-President (Competitions) within three days. In the
          event of such an appeal, the Vice-President (Competitions) will make a
          determination under the Grievance Procedure in 5.1 – 5.4 within a week and
          notify the parties concerned.

   5.7    An appeal regarding the decision of the Vice-President (Competition) may be
          made in writing to the Presidents and Grievance Officer within three days. In the
          event of such an appeal, the Presidents and Grievance Officer will make a
          determination under the Grievance Procedure in 5.1 – 5.4. The decision of the
          Presidents and Grievance Officer will be final and binding.

6. Forfeiture:

   6.1    A competitor who breaches paragraph 3.3 is deemed to have forfeited the
          competition.
   6.2    In all other cases, failure to attend without notification will be deemed as
          forfeiture.
   6.3    A competitor is deemed to have forfeited, unless:

         6.3.1   A replacement member competes in lieu of each forfeiting member; and

         6.3.2   The competitor notifies the competition coordinator(s) of the
                 replacement 72 hours before the start of competition; and

                                                                                 Page 13 of 24
          6.3.3   The replacement member is not another existing competitor in that
                  competition.

   6.4    For the purposes of section 6, the co-ordinator(s) may select another available
          person/team to replace the absent or forfeited position to allow for smooth
          running of the competition.

7. Disqualification:

   7.1    The Competitions (Skills) Director(s) may disqualify a student or team where
          the Competitions (Skills) Director(s) is satisfied that the student or team has:
          7.1.1   Committed a breach of the Rules of a Competition; or

          7.1.2   Engaged in serious misconduct, including but not limited to:

                  7.1.2.1 Breach of the University’s policies, procedures and guidelines;

                  7.1.2.2 Breach of the Faculty of Law policies;

                  7.1.2.3 Breach of the Library rules and policies;

                  7.1.2.4 Failure to respect the authority of an adjudicating judge;

                  7.1.2.5 Interference with another competitor or team’s preparation for a
                          competition;

                  7.1.2.6 Unethical or unprofessional conduct;

                  7.1.2.7 Excessive lateness for a scheduled competition, without
                          reasonable excuse;

                  7.1.2.8 Harassment or abuse of the Director(s) or Coordinator(s) of the
                          competition, or any member of the Law Society in relation to the
                          competition.

   7.2    The Competitions (Skills) Director(s) may disqualify a competitor or team from
          any Skills competitions, for up to the entire duration of the competition in that
          year.

   7.3    The Competitions (Skills) Director(s) may review a disqualification upon
          written application by the competitor or team. Aggrieved parties may use the
          Grievance Procedures at 5.


8. Alteration of the Rules, Procedures and Policy:

   8.1    The Competitions Director(s) and Coordinator(s) may, with notice to
          competitors, determine such amendments and alterations to the Competition
          Rules, Procedures and Policy as may be necessary or expedient for the efficient
          organisation, administration, or conduct of the competitions.
                                                                                 Page 14 of 24
APPENDIX A: FURTHER READING

Competitors must understand that the scope of the competition is not limited to this
Handbook. Competitors may find the following texts, papers, and articles instructive in
improving the quality of their negotiation skills. Items marked with an asterisk can be found
on the UNSW Law Society website ( www.unswlawsoc.org).


Texts

        Fisher R and Ury W, Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement Without Giving In,
         nd
        2     ed, 1997, ISBN: 0099248425
        Ury W, Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People, 1992, ISBN: 0712655239

        Fisher R, Ury W, and Patton B, Getting to Yes: Video Workshop on Negotiation, 1991


Papers and Articles

            Negotiating With the Russians and With Your Spouse by Roger Fisher (61Kb)*


UNSW Resources

            AAR Advanced Negotiation and Beginners Negotiation Handbook (1.5Mb)*




                                                                                 Page 15 of 24
APPENDIX B: A BRIEF GUIDE TO NEGOTIATION

While there is no ‘one’ correct approach to successful negotiation, the
following considerations should offer some insight and ideas.
                                                                                 1
Adapted from the ALSA Competitions Handbook 2004 :
Great negotiators:–
       are patient and tireless;
          neither seek conflict nor shy away from it;
          ask questions, listen, research and learn;
          are steadfast in achieving their goals and fulfilling their client’s interests, but are
          flexible about means;
          search for solutions that will meet the needs of both sides;
          stay open to new solutions throughout the negotiation; and
          are confident in their demeanours without being arrogant.


A good negotiation outcome is one that:–
      is better than the best alternative to a negotiated
          agreement; satisfies the interests of:–

               o        the client – very well;
               o        the other side – acceptably well; and
             o third parties – tolerably.
          adopts a solution that is the best of all available
          options; is legitimate so that no one feels exploited;
          involves commitments that are clear, realistic, and operational;
          involves communication that is efficient and well-understood; and
          results in an enhanced working relationship, so the parties and/or their lawyers can
          deal with future differences more easily.




1
  Knapp M (ed), Australian Law Students’ Competitions Handbook 2004, Australian Law Students’ Association, 2004, ISSN:
1449-311X, http://www.alsa.asn.au/files/lsd/2004/CompsHandbook2004.pdf
                                                                                                                   Page 16 of 24
                                                                                                    2
‘Principled Negotiation’, adapted from Fisher & Ury, Getting to Yes :
The authors advocate for a method of ‘principled negotiation’, developed from the Harvard
Negotiation Project. They argue that whereas positional bargaining leads to inefficiency
and unwise agreements, principled negotiation is explicitly designed to produce wise
outcomes efficiently and amicably.

The four basic principles of this theory of negotiation are:–

               Separate the people from the problem:–

                 o    Ensure both sides participate in the negotiating process;
                 o    Understand and discuss each side’s perceptions;
                 o            Recognise and acknowledge each side’s emotions;
                 o    Listen actively and acknowledge the other side’s opinions;
                 o    Speak about your side’s perceptions; and
                 o       Build a working relationship.

            Focus on interests, not positions:–

                 o Identify both sides’ interests by asking questions;
                 o Acknowledge the other side’s interests;
                 o Give your interests and reasoning first, leaving your conclusions and
                    proposals for later; and
                 o    Be hard on the problem, not on the person.

            Generate possibilities for mutual gain:–

                 o Brainstorm a variety of options before judging
                 them; o Brainstorm options with the other side;
                 o     Invent options of different strength and scope;
                 o Identify differences in interests, and look for mutual
                 gain; o Ask for the other side’s preferences; and
                 o     Make their decision easy by appealing to their interests.

            Ensure options are evaluated by fair, reasonable and objective criteria.




2                                                                                   nd
    Fisher R and Ury W, Getting to Yes: negotiating an agreement without giving in, 2    ed, 1991
                                                                                                        Page 17 of 24
APPENDIX C: HISTORY OF THE COMPETITION
2010

Champions of AAR Advanced Negotiation 2010: Amelia Avery-Williams and Daniel Jacobs
Runners-Up of AAR Advanced Negotiation 2010: Marie Ge and Amy Li
Advanced Negotiation Grand Final Judges: Rosemary Howell and Alan Limbury
Advanced Negotiation Coordinators: Winnie Liang and Savina Yang

Champions of Beginners Negotiation 2010: Maggie Hung and Martina Pasqualino
Runners-Up of Beginners Negotiation 2010: Susan Cheong and Katherine McCallum
Beginners Negotiation Grand Final Judges: Rosemary Howell and Alan Limbury
Beginners Negotiation Coordinators: Yvonne Lam and Alice Xiao
Competitions (Skills) Directors: Mary Jang and Han Yong

UNSW Representatives at ALSA: Amelia Avery-Williams and Daniel Jacobs (9th)

2009

Champions of AAR Advanced Negotiation 2009: David Larish & Michael Roth
Runners-Up of AAR Advanced Negotiation 2009: Roy Yu and James Hu
Advanced Negotiation Grand Final Judges: Rosemary Howell and Alan Limbury
Advanced Negotiation Coordinators: Vanessa Yung and Lydia Chen

Champions of AAR Beginners Negotiation 2009: Emily Burke and Guy Baldwin
Runners-Up of AAR Beginners Negotiation 2009: Alexandra Bruce and Jessy Wang
Beginners Negotiation Grand Final Judges: Paul Gibson, Anna Lewis, Joel Barrett
Beginners Negotiation Coordinators: Amy Li and Marie Ge
Competitions (Skills) Directors: Weller Zheng and Jing Zhang
                                                         th
UNSW Representatives at ALSA: Roy Yu and James Hu (9 )

N.B. The UNSW team attending the International Chamber of Commerce Mediation
Competition placed 2nd in the world out of 44 participating teams. The team was
composed of Roy Yu, James Hu, Joey Nicholls, and Mark Sheldon, and the coach was
Rosemary Howell."

2008

Champions of AAR Advanced Negotiation 2008: Adrian Teh and Alexandra McCosker
Runners-Up of AAR Advanced Negotiation 2008: Ben Teeger and David Larish
Advanced Negotiation Grand Final Judges: Rosemary Howell and Alan Limbury
Advanced Negotiation Coordinators: David Glanz, Monica Aguinaldo, and James Weirick

Champions of AAR Beginners Negotiation 2008: Amy Li and Marie Ge
Runners-Up of AAR Beginners Negotiation 2008: Matthew Cobb-Clark and Emily Rubble
Beginners Negotiation Grand Final Judges: Rosemary Howell and Alan Limbury
Beginners Negotiation Coordinators: Felix Chan, Karen Li, Vanessa Yung
Competitions (Skills) Directors: Josephine Pang and Jennifer Jing Wu
                                                                        th
UNSW Representatives at ALSA: Adrian Teh and Alexandra McCosker (26 )
                                                                             Page 18 of 24
2007

Champions of AAR Negotiation 2007: Anna Lewis and Michael Kalceff
Runners-Up of AAR Negotiation 2007: Dana Levi and Joel Barrett
Grand Final Judges: Rosemary Howell and Alan Limbury
Negotiation Coordinators: Shu-Jun Lim and Stephen Ngai
Competitions (Skills) Directors: Aileen Tse and Bo Lai
                                                                                        th
UNSW Representative at ALSA: Anna Lewis and Michael Kalceff (6 , Quarter-Finalists)
2006

Champions of AAR Negotiation 2006: Anna Lewis and Michael Kalceff
Runners-Up of AAR Negotiation 2006: Wilson Chan and Charlie Hung
Grand Final Judges: Rosemary Howell and Frank Astill
Negotiation Coordinator: Herman Wong
Competitions (Skills) Director: Wen Hui Wu
                                                                                             rd
UNSW Representative at ALSA: Yi Yvette Guo and Mirela Leko (23 )

2005

Champions of Negotiation 2005: Yi Yvette Guo and Mirela Leko
Runners-Up of Negotiation 2005: Katie Campbell and Zsofi Korosy
Grand Final Judge: Seema Srivastava and James King
                                                      3
Negotiation Coordinators: Herman Wong and James King
Competitions Director: Jeremy Yang
UNSW Representative at ALSA: none


These historical records were compiled by Jermir J Punthakey.




3
 In 2005, James King, with the assistance of Dr Rosemary Howell, introduced the Negotiation Competition to the
UNSW Law Society.
                                                                                                        Page 19 of 24
APPENDIX D: HISTORY OF ALSA SIR LAURENCE STREET
NEGOTIATION

           Champions – Chris Jenkins and Alison Dunn (University of
2010       Auckland)
           Runners Up – University of Waikato

2009       Champions – David Robertson and Reuben Ray
           (University of Sydney)
           Runners Up – University of Otago

2008       Champions – Flinders University
           Runners Up - Emily Keys and Jason Myers

2007       Champions - Macquarie University
           Runners Up – Monash University

2006       Champions – Laura Grant and Rebecca James
           (University of Queensland)
           Runners Up – University of Tasmania

2005       Champions - Dullard and Marshall (Macquarie University)
           Runners Up – Husar and Searing (Griffith University)
2004
2003
2002
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
                                       Handbook Last Updated:
                                         nd
                                       22 March 2011
                                       Contributions to the Handbook:

                                       Wen Hui Wu
                                       James Weirick
                                       Felix Chan
                                       Jermir J Punthakey
                                       Winnie Liang
Yvonne Lam
Stephanie Lee
                Page 20 of 24
           UNSW LAW SOCIETY
        NEGOTIATION COMPETITION
                                Scoresheet                                       Last updated March 2010


    Scenario:                                                                        Date:

    Judge:

    Team A:                                                                    Total Score:

    Team B:                                                                     Total Score:

                                    Please note that the LOWER the score is better, and a draw is not possible.




       1. Negotiation planning – Was it apparent that the team was well prepared with a well
          developed negotiation strategy?


       Highly                      Somewhat                       Somewhat                               Very
                    Prepared                        Neutral                        Unprepared
      prepared                      prepared                      unprepared                          unprepared

A        1              2              3               4               5               6                      7

         1              2              3               4               5               6                      7

    Comments:




       2. Flexibility in deviating from plans – How flexible did each team appear to be in adapting its
          strategy to the developing negotiation? For example, adaptation to new information or to
          unforeseen moves made by the opposing team.


      Highly                       Somewhat                       Somewhat                               Very
                     Flexible                       Neutral                        Inflexible
      flexible                      flexible                      inflexible                           inflexible

A        1              2              3               4               5               6                      7

         1              2              3               4               5               6                      7

    Comments:




                                                                                              Page 21 of 24
       3. Teamwork – How effective were the negotiators in working together as a team, in
          sharing responsibility, and providing mutual backup?


      Highly                           Somewhat                           Somewhat                                Very
                      Effective                           Neutral                          Ineffective
     effective                          effective                         ineffective                          ineffective

A       1                  2                3                4                 5                6                      7

        1                  2                3                4                 5                6                      7

    Comments:




       4. Relationship between the negotiating teams – Did the way each team managed its relationship
            with the other team contribute to or detract from achieving its client's best interests?


    Contributed                       Contributed                         Detracted                            Detracted
                     Contributed                          Neutral                           Detracted
     strongly                          somewhat                           somewhat                             strongly
A
        1                  2                3                4                 5                6                      7

        1                  2                3                4                 5                6                      7

    Comments:




       5. Interests – How well did each team clarify their own client’s interests and draw out the interests
          of the other party?


      Very                            Somewhat                           Somewhat                                 Very
                     Adequately                          Neutral                          Inadequately
    adequately                        adequately                        inadequately                          inadequately
A       1                 2                3                4                 5                 6                      7

        1                 2                3                4                 5                 6                      7

    Comments:




                                                                                                       Page 22 of 24
       6. Creative Options – How well did they engage in brainstorming creative options (without
          criticism of each other’s suggestions)?

       Very                           Somewhat                        Somewhat                                Very
                     Adequately                         Neutral                       Inadequately
     adequately                       adequately                     inadequately                         inadequately
A        1                 2               3               4               5                6                   7

         1                 2               3               4               5                6                   7

    Comments:




       7. Outcome of session – From your observations and the team’s self-analysis, to what extent did the
             outcome of the session, regardless of whether agreement was reached, serve the client's goals?


                                       Somewhat                        Somewhat                            Completely
    Fully served        Served                           Neutral                        Disserved
                                         served                        disserved                            disserved

A        1                 2               3                4               5                   6                   7

         1                 2               3                4               5                   6                   7

    Comments: If an agreement was reached, please describe it.




       8. Self-analysis – Consider the level of awareness that the team had of its own deficiencies and
          virtues; how effective the team’s suggestions would be in overcoming the problems they
          encountered; how much their suggestions would further their client’s goals; the extent to which the
          team’s self-analysis conformed to your assessments of the team on other criteria. How adequately
          has the team learned from the negotiation session?


       Very                           Somewhat                        Somewhat                                Very
                     Adequately                         Neutral                       Inadequately
     adequately                       adequately                     inadequately                         inadequately
A        1                 2               3               4               5                6                   7

         1                 2               3               4               5                6                   7

    Comments:



                                                                                                    Page 23 of 24
     9. Negotiating Ethics - No marks are allocated for ethics however judges may penalise a team by up
        to 3 points for an observed breach of ethics which is perceived to be a mild, serious or strong
        ethical violation.


    Observed                    Observed                       Violated                       Violated
                 Observed                       Neutral                      Violated
    strongly                    somewhat                      somewhat                        strongly
A      0             0              0              0              1              2                   3

       0             0              0              0              1              2                   3




                                                                                     Page 24 of 24

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:32
posted:3/12/2012
language:English
pages:28