This thesis examines the Annan Plan process through the lens of negotiation theory, analyzing how key theoretical concepts can explain the strategic choices and final outcome of the talks. The analysis is structured around three frameworks: Two-Level Game Theory, the Harvard Principled Negotiation Method, and the concept of BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). Focusing on the final phase of the negotiations (February–May 2004), it interprets the parties’ actions and the factors that led to the stalemate. The aim is to shed light on the strategic decisions made by both sides and to offer a new, theory-based perspective for understanding and potentially improving the future management of the Cyprus problem.
