A critical review of what has been written about hostage negotiation reveals that there are two distinct types of hostage taking: kidnapping and sieges (Giebels, Noelanders & Vervaeke, 2005). Regardless of the context under which an individual is taken hostage however, Giebels and coworkers go on to report that the hostage incident is typically the same for all individuals involved. Specifically these authors report that, A hostage incidence is any incident in which people are being held by another person or persons against their will, usually by force or coercion, and demands are being made by the hostage-taker (p. 242).
[...] What is perhaps most interesting about the history of hostage negotiations is that the work hostage stems from the Latin work hospes meaning “hospitality.” When hostages were used in ancient societies, it was often to guarantee the fulfillment of a treaty (Faure, 2003). first hostages were most often prominent people handed over to adversaries in order to guarantee fulfillment of commitments such as the exchange of prisoners or evacuation of territories” (p. 469). When hostages were taken in this manner, they were often treated quite well. [...]
[...] In most cases, this happens when a criminal is caught, panics and grabs a hostage to help himself escape” (How hostage Cardinal Sins of Negotiations Arguably, the process of hostage negotiation is one that requires considerable flexibility and patience. As such, it is clear that there are specific dos and don'ts when it comes to hostage negotiation. With this in mind, it is helpful to consider what specific cardinal sins can be committed in the practice of hostage negotiations. Noesner (1999) in his examination of the hostage negotiation process argues that for the most part hostage-takers realize the value of the hostages to meeting their demands. [...]
[...] Arguably, the history of hostage negotiations stems back a long way through history. However, what is currently known about hostage negotiations is clearly the end result of constant evolution in the field. What this suggests is that even though hostage-taking and hostage negotiation have been around for a number of centuries, modern response and understanding of hostage events has been shaped by modern understanding of psychology and the role that the media plays in shaping outcomes for these events. Overall, one cannot help but wonder if the ever-evolving nature of this field is what serves as the impetus for scholars to principally ignore the past history of hostage negotiations. [...]
[...] While domestic disturbances are the most common context in which hostage situations occur, Grabianowski goes on to report that the most widely publicized incidents of hostage-taking occur in the context of terrorism or political/religious extremism. hostage-takers intend from the beginning to trade the lives of the hostages for whatever specific goals they want to achieve. These can range from changes in one or more countries' political policies, the release of political prisoners or the repeal of specific laws” (How hostage In addition, hostage-takers in this case may have more long-term objectives such as destabilizing the government or drawing attention to their cause. [...]
[...] Critically examining what has been written about the victims of hostage-taking, it seems reasonable to argue that the specific type of hostage taking situation often determines who is taken hostage. For instance Nordland (2004) reports that when hostage-takers seize hostages for ransom, in most cases the victims are specific targets. Only by identifying specific targets beforehand is it possible for hostage-takers to ensure that they will be able to collect their proposed ransom. While some hostage victims are selected based on individual characteristics, Giebels, Noelanders and Vervaeke (2005) report that some hostage victims are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. [...]
using our reader.