Negotiation with terrorists entails conferring with them over the issue under conflict in order to arrive at a mutual agreement (Faure, 2003). This implies that the conflicting parties meet and talk about the bone of contention. In some cases, the process is foreseen by an external party while in other instances, the warring parties handle the situation single handedly. The second party is not compelled to agree to the prepositions of the terrorists, rather they are expected to consult and come up with a position that can be accommodated by both parties.
In most instances, the main actors in such a negotiation are terrorist groups, the public and the respective government. Various controversies have surrounded this process as it is believed that this accredits the activities of the terrorists. Over time, it has been argued that this empowers the terrorists by encouraging them to pursue relative activities in future. Although most governments ascertain that the process indeed compromises democracy, MacWilson (1992) indicate that they secretly negotiate with the terrorists to prevent massive deaths and injuries. In this respect, it is certain that the public and government would suffer devastating effects.
However, it should be appreciated that negotiation with terrorists is better than facing the huge implications of refusal. Although not viable, it can be considered an effective way of addressing the concerns of the minority groups. In this regard, Thomson (2001) argues that it is a form of enforcing justice as the concerns of the minority can be addressed. Generally, it can be ascertained that compared to facing the implications of terrorist activities, negotiation requires fewer resources and may address the conflict in a sustainable manner.