This chapter comments on the changes experienced in the field of peace mediation as a result of the increased professionalisation and regulation of the field in the past decade. These processes deeply affect the practice of peace mediation, and yet it is as yet unclear whether and how professionalisation and regulation affect the outcomes of mediated negotiations. The chapter examines the ways in which the major paradigm shift from a traditional reliance on individualised, non-transferable skills to nuanced mediation expertise has changed, or not, the field of peace mediation. It argues that professionalisation has tested the field and its ability to co-operatively improve its own practices, and suggests a model for ‘sorting out’ the status quo and readjusting mediation as a form of conflict resolution.
Despite substantial efforts to translate normative frameworks for peace mediation into practice, so far even well-respected norms do not seem to function properly as practical guidance for mediators. The authors argue that there are three basic reasons for this failure: first, a lack of sufficient normative knowledge, making it difficult to determine ground rules that any mediator would be wise to consider; second, a lack of a minimal explicit normative consensus regarding the reference frame of a given mediation, acknowledging all differences; and third, a lack of hands-on methodology for decision-making when mediators feel deadlocked in contradictory normative pulls. Working towards the authors' key aimto close these three gaps or at least narrow them-, this article compiles exemplary building blocks of generic normative knowledge relevant in peace processes, presents a tool for mapping the normative structure and dynamics in a given conflict, and finally introduces a practical dilemma methodology to deal with colliding normative expectations.
ZusammenfassungDie gestiegenen normativen Ansprüche an Friedensmediation werden von Praktiker*innen bisweilen als verwirrend und einengend wahrgenommen. Bei genauer Betrachtung der Normen und der darin formulierten Verhaltenserwartungen lassen sich diese jedoch präzise definieren und bieten weitaus mehr Spielraum als vermutet. Mehr noch, sie lassen sich in der Vermittlungspraxis als wertvolles Orientierungssystem nutzen, mit dem im Idealfall verhindert werden kann, dass Friedensprozesse und -vereinbarungen scheitern, schaden oder rechtlich nichtig sind. An einigen Stellen steht allerdings noch eine dezidierte Übersetzung dieses Wissens in die praktische Handlungslogik und faktischen Abläufe von Friedensprozessen sowie eine strukturierte Vorgehensweise aus, mit der sich die zentralen normativen Dilemmata handhaben lassen, die der Friedensmediation inhärent sind.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.