In the recent literature on conflict resolution tends to underline negotiation model based on the argument or dialogue. Exchange between different styles of argument some trends have emerged in the rhetoric applied to the law, especially in procedural law. During the last decade researchers have recognized the value of the argument to understand various problems of jurisprudence in cases of conflict and strife. This paper proposes a complementary design to the analysis of the negotiation process based on debate and dialogue. It advocates a theory of argumentation in negotiation processes for instances where rational agents use strategies unpredictable with incomplete information.
