The Importance of the ‘Ripe Moment’ in Securing Negotiations



Global Diplomacy: The Art of Negotiation










  1. Introduction
  2. Ripeness Theory
  3. Strengths
  4. Weaknesses
  • Contemporary Case Studies of the Ripeness theory in Securing Negotiations
  1. Importance of the Ripe Moment in Securing Negotiations
  2. Counter-Arguments
  3. Objections
  4. Resolutions
  5. Conclusion














Most countries and parties enter into a conflict, which is the threat of causing war or loss of business partnerships. The primary problem is that most stakeholders involved in a dispute do not know the right time to enter to solve arising problems. One of the mistakes in failed mediations results from not embracing opposite cultural gestures, such as a handshake which could have a pragmatic impact on the negotiation outcome. Most people lack effective communication skills while conveying their interests and intentions, particularly while approaching discussions with individuals holding different perspectives (Vuković, 2022). In addition, being not conversant with pre-mediation rules, such as early issuance of injunctions and use of accusatory language, may substantially result in the dispute negotiation failure. Therefore, embracing the right moment can make individuals secure mediation and avoid unnecessary conflicts, reducing time and further costs in the intercession process. Significantly, in conciliation, the right-moment concept refers to an instance within a diplomatic prenegotiation process when disputants consider a change in an approach, mainly from a conflictual to a cooperative strategy. The paper will discuss the ripeness theory and the importance of the right moment in securing negotiations.

Ripeness Theory

One of the most influential models in international relations is the ripeness theory. While finding a mediation solution to a global dispute, factors such as the timing of efforts and substance of proposals are critical. When most parties are highly inclined to make a mutual settlement, the right-moment approach allows them to commence a negotiation or force an existing one (Schiff, 2021). Considerably, the lack of a ripe moment for the involved stakeholders renders all the substantive proposals fruitless. Therefore, ripeness is essential in mediating or bilateral intercessions in securing negotiations. Successful negotiations depend on determining the ripe moment to implement mediation strategies influenced by cross-cultural differences, the mediator, and the stakeholders involved.

Strengths of Ripeness Theory

One of the strengths of the ripeness theory is that it creates a readiness room for conflict resolution. The parties’ preparedness is a source of motivation to end a disagreement and be optimistic about the negotiation’s success. At the same time, the formation of the central coalition makes all the groups involved in a conflict understand each other cultural differences and highlight the rationales for altercations divide (Kadioğlu, 2020). Before entering into any mediation, the theory enables stakeholders involved in a dispute to find valid spokespersons and build support and alliances with intraparty features (Vuković, 2022). Therefore, the ripeness approach enables one of the parties to start prenegotiation as an alternative bargaining phase for solving a discrepancy and communicating this intention to the other affiliation. The ripeness model allows transparency as all the secrets one group embraces are conveyed.

Another crucial prowess of the ripeness model is that it results in the emergence of substantive proposals. One of the components of the ripe moment is the stakeholders’ viewpoint of a method of solving a dispute. Since parties consider themselves in a hurting stalemate, the theory helps them embrace a mediated solution. The ripeness model enables the incorporation of acceptable, resourceful, and willing conciliators who create concrete plans to evade the situation quo. The unconventional propositions enable the parties to develop and safeguard their preferences while regulating the outcome (Schiff, 2021). At this proposal creation stage, the mediator offers substantial alternatives to dispute resolution and prepares all parties to secure negotiations. The model ensures a greater reach of affiliates, thus casting light on compliance, agreement, concession-making, and third-party activation.

In addition, the ripeness approach engenders leadership qualities, whereby the contenting associations’ followers or managers can perceive themselves in a hurting stalemate and begin scrutinizing various cooperative strategies. For the change to occur, new management may arise, or the present superiors, including politicians, may be consulted to solve internal issues facing the parties (Schiff, 2021). The ripe moments create room for intraparty discussions, allowing the figureheads to persuade their citizens and colleagues that there is the protection of their party’s welfare and interests. The reduction in the competition of motives and agreeing on respecting other groups’ beliefs and values results in mediation or success in talks.

Another critical strength of the ripeness theory is that it embeds a pull factor of mutually enticing opportunity. In some situations, as the disputed issue becomes older, the chances of solution development grow more attractive, thus no longer justifying hostile relationships with the other group. Per the ripeness model, one of the essential predictability measures in the intercession process is the collectively persuasive occasions. Even though a mutually hurting stalemate (MHS) is an essential and inadequate condition for conciliation to commence, the theory enables the negotiators to offer prospects for a more attractive and acceptable future by solving the dispute and saving unnecessary expenditures and time wastage (Kadioğlu, 2020). The pull factor abolishes the push element in creating an agreement formula and the expectations that parties could have reconciliation during mediation. Therefore, the ripeness theory generates unitedly attractive opportunities that offer modernly acceptable resolutions to change propitiation mentalities. As a result, the parties embrace various core transformative possibilities, which enables securing negotiations.

Weaknesses of Ripeness Theory

To a great extent, the application of ripeness theory may not secure negotiations as it is prone to some limitations. At first, the model lacks the political dimension and entirely depends on personal leader decision-making. Even the approach enables people to examine governmental processes by observing the mediation readiness of the factions that constitute toa policy instead of checking at the figurehead preparedness. A broader coalition can lead to the lack of neutralization or incorporation of extremists, who may spoil or prevent the securing of an agreement (Vuković, 2022). Nevertheless, the model concentrates mainly on two-party disputes despite the escalating prevalence of altercations involving several parties. In addition, rather than predicting future events’ attributes or timing, the ripeness theory is better at explaining historical peace processes. Significantly, the theory might not be effective at war termination and practice as it may result in pragmatic negotiation outcomes. The approach lacks a systematic integration of its subjective and objective components and a collaboration between unofficial actors, including non-governmental organizations and administrative representatives, such as governments, to spearhead sufficient conditions in a conflict.

Notably, the theory’s prediction that when altercations are ripe for resolution is unsustainable as the parties only perceive MHS, which could lead to escalated resistance rather than establishing alternatives. The ripeness theory can cause the hurting stalemate as the pain from the conflict can escalate resistance instead of reducing it. Even though one of the essential preconditions for securing negotiation is the ripe moment, it should be noted that not all ripeness results in mediation. The inherent nature of the model is to embrace reinforcement as a typical strategy for opposition by ensuring that the involved parties fight for their interests without surrendering (Schiff, 2021). In a dispute, the infliction of more pain can deter the search for alternative measures, such as mediation. All the stakeholders cannot exit their stalemate perception without showcasing substantial efforts in a conflict situation.

Since the theory offers a predictive capacity, it only acts as a rear-view mirror. Even though the ripe moment can be necessary for retrospect, it may be significantly weak in its projective capability from a practitioner’s standpoint. In instances of short-term emergencies, individuals rarely perceive their circumstances as ready for peace. Therefore, the ripeness theory depends on the metaphor of change and time, which could not favor the other team entering the negotiation. Waiting for the ripe moment makes a conflict mature, which can be impossible to solve (Vuković, 2022). Due to the issues of typically held beliefs or comprehensions, the ripeness theory considers conciliator undertakings as unfair selection processes. The first problem is the culture that negotiation depends on the person of the mediator-as-the-actor instead of intercession-as-system with several responsibilities and duties executed by various actors. The second issue is that the conciliation’s success is highly judged by the agreement production that the generation of a constructive change.

Contemporary Case Studies of the Ripe Moment in Securing Negotiations

Several strategies, such as the ripe moment, have been deployed globally to solve historical conflict cases. In the negotiation process, it is critical to embed preparations and research to facilitate the mediator in managing the expectations of each participating party. The purpose of the ripe moment is to ensure the opposing parties have a suitable environment for discussing and determining the correct method for resolution. The group’s end goal is to propose a viable alternative for both parties that can withstand the test of time within the peacemaking process. Making a mutually enticing goal stipulates that it needs to be interdependent, showcase cooperation, shared driving interests, and exclusivity. Assessing the right time can secure negotiations and a ceasefire between two disputing groups (Sticher, 2021). In-depth preparation often involves a detailed strategy the mediator can utilize to reach a favorable outcome. For rebel groups in ethnic wars, the prenegotiation phase often involves incentivizing a ceasefire between the groups. There are several recent case studies worldwide whereby most international diplomatic conciliators have applied the ripe moment strategy to solve perennial historical altercations.

One of the modern case studies that utilize the ripeness theory is the crisis in the Korean Peninsula. The tension between the United States and North Korea is a primary framework of intractable dispute in the Korean Peninsula between 2017 and 2018 (Schiff, 2021). Since its division in the 1950s, North Korea and South Korea have been involved in a historical altercation (Schiff, 2021). As a result, the US (an ally of South Korea) and North Korea developed zero-sum game perceptions and a cold-war mentality toward each other. North Korea viewed America and its army coalition with South Korea as an existential threat, making Kim Jong-un continue developing nuclear weapons to guarantee their citizens’ survival and as a source of pride and prestige.

Due to North Korea’s extensive nuclear proliferation endeavors, the international community mediators undertook massive debate regarding how to mitigate the nuclear battle warnings in the Korean Peninsula. Previous diplomacy treaties between the global peace ambassadors and the US, including the 1994 agreement framer and the 2003-2009 six-party talks, did not contain North Korea’s proliferation (Schiff, 2021). Kim’s speech on testing an international nuclear missile in 2017 created massive tensions between his country and Donald Trump’s administration (Schiff, 2021). America and its allies, such as the European Union, South Korea, and Japan, imposed financial and economic sanctions on North Korea. It acted as a coercive strategy to make its leaders recalculate its costs-benefits analysis of concurrently pursuing economic development and nuclear proliferation. The communication between the US government administrators with Kim Jung-un to denuclearize did not succeed despite having open diplomatic channels. North Korea’s president proposed a collaboration with the US government to alleviate the tensions and escalate stability and peace in Korean Peninsula.

The escalation to call spiral between North Korea and the United States relationship created perspectives of mutual stalemate between the two sides. To match the degree of authority actions of the opponent, both parties deployed destructive dialogue and coercive strategies between the leaders, thus neglecting the unilateral approaches. However, by the end of 2017, the two groups culminated that they had adopted and executed futile bargaining techniques, which escalated the dispute. The US president acknowledged that he failed to convince China to impose international pressure and sanctions on North Korea to deter its nuclear pursuit. At the same time, Kim Jung-un agreed that the financial restrictions created difficulties for global trade in the country. During the early months of 2018, both parties searched for alternative ways to solve the stalemate for fear of devastating war (Schiff, 2021). The significant milestones in creating way-out viewpoints happened in March 2018, whereby Kim invited Trump to discuss the Korean Peninsula’s permanent denuclearization (Schiff, 2021). Kim expressed transparency in negotiating about nuclear weapons and guaranteed South Korea of security, resulting in enacting a five-point agreement between him and South Korean administrators. After Trump lifted the economic sanctions, president Xi of China and Kim met and had extensive communications on how to enhance bilateral talks.

The explicit discussions in readiness for the North Korea-US summit engendered Washington’s perspective of a way-out, thus solving the stalemate that caused the increased dispute. Some days before Singapore Summit, the officials of North Korea expressed confidence regarding the end of hostile relations with the US (Schiff, 2021). One of the primary components in North Korea’s establishing an unusual strategy to avoid stalemate was China’s reinforcement and approval of Kim’s direct conveyance with the US directorates on procedural denuclearization in compensation for the gradual lifting of sanctions and economic rewards. In culmination, the Korean Peninsula case reveals how ripe moments originating in MHS and integrated with the specter of looming calamity made both groups search for an alternative approach to secure negotiations by transforming unilateral techniques and mediating an end of their dispute. Significantly, the anxiety of brinkmanship and elevating costs led to shifting thoughts toward the catastrophe, making the two parties secure negotiations.

The other phenomenal contemporary case study that applied the ripeness theory to secure negotiation is international peace efforts to end the Syrian civil war. The 2011to 2019 protests by Arabs were against the oppression, economic stagnation, and corruption of the Syrian government. People accused the Assad administration of tribal killings in Damascus, Daraya, and Telkalakh. The United Nations announced the escalation of ethnic battles in the country, whereby the people’s protection units (YPG) and Kurdistan workers’ party (PKK) started fighting the rebels, which aimed at controlling particular regions, such as the Taffanoz airbase. The European countries and the US supported the YPG in fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) extremist group. At the same time, Turkey reinforced the Free Syrian Army (FSA) against YPG, and Russia backed the Baathist regime. The Obama administration resupplied the YPG with military arsenals in 2015 after Russia organized massive airstrikes against FSA and ISIS (Kadioğlu, 2020). In December 2017, Russian president Vladimir Putin announced the defeat of ISIS, an objective he shared with US government officials (Kadioğlu, 2020). Many initiatives, including the Geneva, Vienna, and Atana peace talks, the United Nations peace programs, and the Arab League peace plan, had been adopted but did not secure the negotiations to a ceasefire. However, the bilateral meetings commenced due to the escalation of the stalemate between the involved parties regarding the possible war between the USA/Russia and Turkey. The US government promised the Turkish government to withdraw the YPG from four hundred and forty kilometers of their border. Simultaneously, the Turkish officials abolished the peace spring operation, which was key to escalating the Syrian war. However, the civil war in Syria continues to create havoc in the country, causing significant deaths

From the above case study, the idea of a ripe moment was not extensively executed to solve the issue successfully. At particular moments, the ripeness theory embraces multiple efforts, such as confidential mediations, pre-intercessions, settlement conciliations, institutionalization, and acquiring endorsements. Even though all the disputing parties worked cohesively, there was no conducive environment to discuss prerequisites and demands. The ripe moment aims at creating a good surrounding to create feasible proposals for solving a problem, including civil wars (Kadioğlu, 2020). From the case study, it is clear some countries were not politically or geographically bounded by the altercations, forcing the warring groups to enter into an administrative resolution whose conditions were not determined or discussed with the disputing parties. Since most global powers nations, including the US, are difficult to be neutral mediators as they are implicitly or explicitly involved in ethnic disputes, it becomes crucial to wait for the ripe moment to solve problems.

In the Syrian case, the eastern and western countries initiated the political resolution without putting intense pressure or involving the incumbent government officials. The lack of attainment of the peace agreement was spearheaded by separate interests of eastern nations, which wanted Assad to secure the control of his country, and the western states who wanted him to vacate the office (Musau, 2021). The case study suggests that waiting for the right moment can secure negotiations. Failure to do so makes the involved parties lack the intended cooperation to stop violence or ceasefire in a country (Sticher, 2021). A ripe moment indicates the effective period to minimize tension between the core armed protagonists, such as intractable extremist groups, and the state. To a great extent, the opposition groups, including YPG and FSA, and the Syrian government were not ready for a political resolution, and the international parties aimed at certain regions (Kadioğlu, 2020). Therefore, with the ripe moment, interventions reduce devastation, such as elevating the dispute and undermining trust, and create a suitable surrounding for securing negotiations.

Importance of Ripe Moment in Securing Negotiations

The ripe moment is essential in securing negotiations because it helps make strategic, fair, and mutual concessions. Although the right time is insufficient, it is considered necessary for initiating and engendering conciliations. The ripe moment assists in making just and beneficial modifications, which is crucial in making impartial consent for the opposing parties (Beckerman, 2022). Reaching an agreement may require both groups to make sacrifices based on their desire and opinions. It is best when the groups make mutual and equitable concessions. The ripeness necessitates both associations to culminate in an unbiased agreement because they can take ample time to plot the treaty flow before the mediation.

To a great extent, strategic concessions are tactics that are effective in securing intercessions, and some approaches can be applied to make changes effective. The techniques employed include labeling adjustments where actions will not speak for themselves, and the counterparts may downplay, overlook or ignore the franchises (Kadioğlu, 2020). As a result, it is advisable to make labels on concessions to be salient to the counterpart. Secondly, in the demand reciprocity, an opposite obligation is triggered by labeling one’s concessions, especially where the other group may be slow at responding to grievances. Therefore, diplomatically,  requesting retaliation increases the likelihood that the opposing team member would reward a favor.

Secondly, a ripe moment engenders massive exploitation of opportunities by allowing the conflicting parties to demonstrate and embrace a strong correlation among themselves. Waiting for the right time gives the parties enough period to gather information, which is essential to secure negotiations. As a result, the disputing teams can reach an agreement easily due to exploiting available chances for seeking intercession alternatives (Musau, 2021). The stakeholders can collect adequate evidence of their arguments from various people and sources, which aids in the success of the mediation. Some elements are associated with the ripe moment theory which must be integrated with intelligence studies to produce pragmatic conflict resolution outcomes. A spokesperson for both parties or the negotiator is always present, willing to assist the parties facing a dispute by ensuring a conducive environment for mitigating historical issues (Schiff, 2021). Ripe moments allow for new ideas on the opposing counterpart’s needs and desires. With a modern perspective of the other party’s desires, it is easy to develop friendly objectives that match those of the other group.

Thirdly, waiting for the ripe time assists in confronting hard choices among the conflicting antagonists. Some of the ideas are hard to bring to the table during a negotiation, and ripe time is considered important in collecting the relevant database that aids in the success of the negotiation. It becomes easy to achieve a concession at the right time because parties are fully prepared to challenge the most complicated choices and create room for discussing the best alternatives, leading to securing negotiation. Since each counterpart is equipped with the necessary information regarding the topic of negotiation, they take the shortest time to finalize the mediation, and more amicable solutions are attained (Beckerman, 2022). It is possible to assemble how to tackle the most difficult parts of the conciliation and develop sensible perceptions. Due to such, a peaceful and favorable surrounding is necessary to secure intercessions. Therefore, ripe time allows involved actors to design and implement crucial strategies for a win-win collaboration and to attain a fair resolution. At the ripe moment, challenging hard choices enables conflict prevention enabling people to enter into practical negotiation because the projected ideologies encompass all the party’s interests.

In addition, a ripe moment aids in identifying the necessary elements for productive negotiation. Even though the right time might not be sufficient, it spearheads the attainment of fruitful conciliation because it identifies some crucial elements that drive the securing of the intercession process (Kadioğlu, 2020). Regarding the relationship component, conflicts and differences are addressed a good mediation relationship is required. Secondly, communication entails the readiness to listen to the other opposing group’s viewpoints and the ability to talk effectively. Some key conveyance skills include purposeful speaking, attentive listening, and effectively comprehending the transmitted information (Musau, 2021). On the other hand, Interests encompass articulation and identification of the counterpart’s concerns and needs. The options element constitutes developing alternatives for the concession, and they must be transparent in meeting the parties’ preferences.

On the contrary, legitimacy is a component used to explain the criteria of persuading the other actor involved in a conflict to consider the aspect of fairness, which helps secure conciliation. The ripe moment embeds commitment, whereby the parties review the implementation issues to be incorporated in the negotiation should be identified. Therefore, to attain pragmatic negotiation outcomes, a ripe moment helps identify the necessary elements, which assists the mediators in creating a suitable environment for attaining the mediation process. Therefore, counterparts should identify the appropriate component to employ when the ripe time for the negotiation occurs.

Furthermore, the ripe moment is crucial as it helps gather background information about the other party, and this aids in securing negotiation. In preparation for intercessions, many individuals think through all their needs, their power, the best arguments, how they will start the pre-mediations, and how to tackle the present stalemates. Therefore, entering into conciliations blindly make the parties not establish the common ground for solving their conflict. A negotiator must gather enough information about what people in similar positions and with the same experience have. Utilizing such a database at the right time helps monitor and better understand the other party’s approach and style(Beckerman, 2022). As a result, this ensures common knowledge from both groups by revealing potential secrets and creating room for discussions. Due to such, it becomes easy to attain a productive negotiation, and the desired results are easy to achieve. At the right time, the disputants escalate trust towards one another and do not seek control over various aspects, which may enhance conflict. To a greater extent, the mediator can communicate easily after the involved parties realize their mistakes and stalemates.

Significantly, waiting for the ripe moments is vital as it helps plan and prepare for a negotiation. The lack of persistence and poor planning can lead the opposing groups not to secure negotiations. The right time helps the mediator to plan the best conflict alternatives, a possible group that might not conform to the party agreements, the obstacles that may deter mediation, and the best approach to solve the stalemate without causing further disputes (Schiff, 2021). The spearheaded planning and preparation entails considering multiple communication dynamics, objectives, emotions, new information, and concerns that are susceptible to arise before securing the intercession (Musau, 2021). Consequently, negotiators must be ready to tackle such contingencies and other factors that may trigger or hinder the pursuit of set goals. After the preparation, the involved parties must have implemented their blueprint, which should consider the ideas and interests, including political resolutions, to secure conciliation effectively. The right moment integrates all the non-governmental representatives and state officials to ensure that they adequately support the conflicting parties in solving their conflicts and realizing their mistakes, resulting in positive intercessions.

Counter Arguments


Despite the ripe moment’s considerable importance, it has several objections that hinder its success in securing negotiations. At first, the ripe moment does not necessarily offer a solution to a mediation. Despite the ripe moment perception, there are instances where conflict resolution among disputing parties is usually unattainable because the ripe moment does not necessarily guarantee the attainment of positive intercession outcomes. Ripeness is just a necessary condition for conciliation initiation but is not entirely effective (Musau, 2021). Planning and preparing for the ripe moment does not guarantee pragmatic results as it is not necessarily that the parties shall end up in a consent. Since the ripe time does not guarantee success, it indicates it is neither self-implementing nor self-fulfilling. When the moment is right, the other opposing counterparts may come with different perceptions, which can divide them, making resolving the dispute impossible. The ripe moment for mediation may be perceived at some point, but unfortunately, it may fail to offer a solution to a problem (Schiff, 2021). Factors including lack of proper communication, inaccurate language, disrespect to one’s culture, and being aggressive may make one of the parties uncomfortable.

Secondly, waiting for the ripe moment may result in procrastination. The postponement of events of waiting for the ripe time is common among groups. Since the ripe moment does not necessarily yield solutions to negotiations, when the parties postpone events to wait for the ripe moment, and later the resolution turns out to be unattainable, this constitutes procrastination. The counterparts waste time waiting for the ripe moment to engage in the negotiation. As a result of the difference in views and perceptions among the parties, the negotiations do not give a positive solution (Schiff, 2021). The whole time and process of preparation for the ripe time may be disposed of, resulting in shifting the time of the creation of party agreements. Parties involved in a negotiation must factor in procrastination to avoid time wastage and minimize the costs of frequent altercations. The groups should gauge the effect of waiting and negotiating at a particular moment. If waiting for the ripe time does not yield desirable solutions, there is no need to wait but find alternative ways to solve the present stalemates.

Lastly, waiting for the ripe moment can spearhead disagreements due to the self-interests of the mediators, who do not engage the conflicting groups in establishing the common grounds for resolution. In the period of preparation for the negotiation right time, the active groups may involve information and ideas that lean on one side, abolishing the other party’s demands to fulfill their interests. Due to its predictive nature, the opposing parties may enter into a perennial dispute in the future, resulting in a massive cost and time loss. Therefore, when the ideologies of the counterpart association are rendered recessive, an agreement can not be reached to secure negotiations (Musau, 2021). In addition, even though mediation can be attained, the lack of offering discussion of what was the initial stalemate and how each of the associations can merit without causing harm to the other group can be an objection to the implementation of the ripeness theory. When one party is not ready and lacks the much-needed preparedness, a cooperative strategy cannot be reached to solve a historical altercation.


Possibly, it is the desire of each group to avoid conflicts in negotiations. Some strategies can be employed to ensure these parties attain the projected objective whereby the final agreement benefits them. At first, if the ripe moment does not offer a solution, the disputing stakeholders can find the best alternative for the negotiated agreement (BATNA) (Kadioğlu, 2020). The technique is always in the mind of a skilled negotiator, and it is significant to determine the opposing team’s views. Such insight provides an opportunity to promote compromise and decrease the chances of a conflict. The interests of all the groups should be considered and then incorporated to obtain common objectives among the negotiating groups (Beckerman, 2022). BATNA creates a unique environment that is friendly for the attainability of preferred results. The best alternative for the negotiating agreement is important because it favors the interests of all the parties, and as a result, the desired solutions are obtained at ease. When a suitable alternative for conciliation agreement is utilized, the groups become more comfortable. Therefore, they can effectively play their part in the negotiation, generating a desirable solution to the mediated conflict.

Secondly, self-interests among the negotiators and actors yield to conflicts, which deter securing negotiations. The parties involved must establish shared or common interests to avoid self-driven altercations. It is crucial to grasp the desired outcomes of mediation together with the needs of each group in a dispute resolution. Both counterparts should identify the other association’s needs to find some typical grounds for argument. As a result, this reduces the occurrence of disagreements in the negotiation process at the ripe moment. Otherwise, the groups can redefine the situation to identify the desired needs, achieving a win-win situation for all the actors. Alternatively, active listening can be employed to minimize conflicts during the conciliation (Musau, 2021). Conflict may stall if one party feels unheard by the other, and both opposing teams must be attentive to whatever the other counterpart conveys. Active listening entails statement reaffirmation, eye contact maintenance,  and requesting critical information pardoning. The antagonist party can clearly understand the issue of the group, thus enhancing mutual trust and being offered assistance by the negotiator.

Lastly, to ensure that ripe time does not result in procrastination, the parties should set objectives for the negotiation. The goals guide the groups on what exactly to focus on rather than generalizing their ideas; it helps the parties be specific in their conflict resolution. Therefore, the parties can embrace a cooperative strategy that minimizes the adverse conflict outcome. The objectives must be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-bound (Beckerman, 2022). When the parties drafts their substantive proposal purposes, the desired outcomes of the mediation are attained at ease, and procrastination is erased, allowing for a smooth dispute resolution process (Kadioğlu, 2020). Therefore, conflict can hinder negotiations, but if the above strategies are implemented, an effective resolution of the conflict is attained. Instead of approaching an altercation as a one-time event, it should be addressed as part of the process, enabling the involved parties to work integratively at the right moment to solve impending disputes. Via active listening, communicating continuously, and understanding each other’s mutual needs, all the counterparts work towards attaining an integrated solution, including having peace agreements.


To a great extent, the ripe moment is essential as it offers various ways to secure negotiations between opposing groups. At first, it assists in enabling the disputants to make strategic, fair, and mutual concessions, thus fulfilling their interests and respecting cultural differences. In addition, before the negotiation process, waiting for the ripe time ensures all the conflicting parties are given equal chances to explore exploitations, thus minimizing distrust and the escalation of disputes. Through the right moment concept, a given party can effectively confront another group’s ideas, rendering them to surrender, creating ample room for discussion and determining the correct method for conflict resolution. Nevertheless, it spearheads several elements, including communication, necessary for a productive mediation. The other essentiality of the right moment is that it aids in the planning and preparation for conciliation and assists in gathering the counterpart’s background information to ensure effective intercession. However, some notable drawbacks of the ripe moment are that it might not be a tangible solution to aid in securing negotiation,  it might not fully engage the opposing parties, and it may lead to procrastination of the mediation process.











Beckerman, C. (2022). Political fragility and the timing of conflict mediation. Social Sciences, 11(2), 1-19.

Gavin, M. (2018, November 20). Bad negotiation: 9 mistakes to avoid at the bargaining table. Harvard Law School.

Kadioğlu, I. A. (2020). International peace efforts in the Syrian civil war: The ‘inevitable failure?. Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies7(1), 13-44.

Musau, B. M. (2021). Seizing the ripe moment: A critical analysis of the resolution of the twenty years Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict in 2018. Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development 6(5), 1-25.

Schiff, A. (2021). Stepping back from the brink: A comparative analysis of ripeness theory and readiness theory in the US-North Korea crisis of 2017–2018. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 14 (4), 285-309.

Sticher, V. (2021). Healing stalemates: The role of ceasefires in ripening conflict. Ethnopolitics, 21(2), 149-162.

Vuković, S. (2022). Expanding ripeness beyond push and pull: The relevance of mutually enticing opportunities (MEOs). Ethnopolitics21(2), 190-201.




Subscribe For Latest Updates
Let us notify you each time there is a new assignment, book recommendation, assignment resource, or free essay and updates