Private Peace Entrepreneurs in Conflict Resolution Processes

Abstract

Private peace entrepreneurs (ppes) are private citizens with no official authority who initiate diplomatic correspondence with official representatives from the opposing side during a conflict in order to promote conflict resolution. This article outlines a theoretical framework for analyzing this phenomenon, drawing on a wide range of case studies. It defines the phenomenon and analyzes the power resources and factors that help theppeinfluence official processes. The article shows that althoughppes lack official authority and legal status, they have alternative, unofficial resources that help them influence the diplomatic sphere, and some have even played critical roles in conflict resolution efforts. The analysis distinguishes among different means of influence – through official decision makers, public opinion, the rival side, or a third side. The article offers insights about the individual private citizen as an actor in peace diplomacy and describes important historical figures who were excluded from history textbooks.

Toward a Normative Turn in Track Two Diplomacy? A Review of the Literature

“…The normative turn has broadened not only who takes part in Track Two activities, but who facilitates them. The understanding of a Track Two intermediary has widened beyond the scholar‐practitioner acting in a private capacity (Kelman 1992; Lehrs 2016) to include professionalized NGOs. The first generation of Track Two literature focused on the functions of intermediaries, namely, the responsibilities of third parties to facilitate communication so that participants could move from a mindset of bargaining toward one of problem‐solving.…”

The Normative Agency of Regional Organizations and Non‐governmental Organizations in International Peace Mediation*

“…Grouping these actors undermines the distinct particularities of each mediating actor, particularly given RO and NGO mediators’ deliberate attempts to distinguish themselves from others. After Wallensteen and Svensson pointed out the need to study the institutional effects of organizations on mediation processes in 2014, research has only begun to examine specific traits of different mediators, such as the influence of organizational norms on mediation mandates and variation in institutional designs (Pring 2017; Lehrs 2016; Lundgren 2016). Beyond this, however, there has been little research on what specific mediating actors bring to the table and what limitations and strengths one can expect.…”

“…In line with this, we argue that local agency is reflected, first, in the way practices are performed. Local agents perform these practices in a manner that claims alternative power resources described by Lehrs (2016): (1) knowledge, expertise, and ideas, (2) access and contacts, (3) moral and spiritual authority, and (4) instrumental and tactical power. RO and NGO mediators highlight their strong specific expertise, close ties, insider authority, and mediation styles in the context to which the norm is to be adopted.…”

“…Using both concepts, we argue that RO and NGOs’ mediators promote inclusivity by performing standard mediation practices (1) that harness alternative sources of power (Lehrs 2016) such as long‐standing expertise and insider membership in the context, and (2) that results in modifying inclusivity’s initial meaning to build congruence with strong local norms.…”