Third Party Mediation and International Norms: A Test of Two Models

Raymond, Gregory A.; Kegley, Charles W.

doi:10.1177/073889428500900103

Cited by 31 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many authors argue that conflicts characterized by power parity among the disputants are better suited for successful mediation efforts (Ott, 1972;Young, 1967;Zartman, 1981;Kriesberg, 1982;Touval, 1982;Raymond and Kegley, 1985;Bercovitch, 1986Bercovitch, , 1996Nickles and Hedgespeth, 1991;Bercovitch and Houston, 1996). 6 The general argument is that bargaining will be more fruitful among disputants of equal power (Deutsch, 1973;Rubin and Brown, 1975;Zartman, 1995a;Pfetsch and Landau, 2000).…”

Section: Relative Power Mediation and Crisis Outcomementioning

confidence: 97%

Power Play: Mediation in Symmetric and Asymmetric International Crises

Quinn

Wilkenfeld

Smarick³

et al. 2006

International Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International relations scholars have long focused on power relations among nations as an explanatory factor for a wide variety of state behaviors, including alliance formation, strategic interactions, and negotiation strategies. Power transition theorists have argued that war is most likely when power is equally distributed among nations or, more precisely, when the power of the challenger approaches-or begins to exceed-that of its opponent (Organski, 1968;Organski and Kugler, 1980; Kugler and Lemke, 1996). Balance of power theorists, on the other hand, have argued that equality of power among nations diminishes the chance of war, as uncertainty about outcomes caused by approximate power parity leads actors to be more cautious (Claude, 1962;Wright, 1965). The research presented here considers relative power not as a cause of conflict, as these previous studies have done, but as a factor relevant to conflict resolution efforts.In this study, we focus on crises as a specific instance of conflicts in the international system and on mediation as a specific conflict resolution measure. Building upon previous work (Wilkenfeld et al., 2003(Wilkenfeld et al., , 2005, we examine the way mediation

show abstract

Section: Relative Power Mediation and Crisis Outcomementioning

confidence: 97%

Power Play: Mediation in Symmetric and Asymmetric International Crises

Quinn

Wilkenfeld

Smarick³

et al. 2006

International Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The methodological approach employed in this study is similar to that used in other quantitative studies of international negotiation (Druckman 1997;Druckman et al 1999) and mediation (Bercovitch et al 1991;Dixon 1996;Fisher 1995;Raymond and Kegley 1985;Wall 1981). It has its origins in the pioneering model developed by Sawyer and Guetzkow (1965), and subsequently elaborated by Druckman (1973 and.…”

Section: A New Approach To Negotiation and Mediation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiation or Mediation?: An Exploration of Factors Affecting the Choice of Conflict Management in International Conflict

Bercovitch

Jackson

2001

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conditions under which negotiation or mediation are chosen in international conflict have been little studied. Previous research has tended to focus on the motivations and rational calculations of the states involved. Scant attention has been given to examining the effect of the context on this choice. In this article, we present a framework for studying the contextual conditions under which negotiation or mediation is likely to take place. Employing an original data set, we find that negotiation tends to be used when conflicts are relatively simple, of a low intensity, and when both parties are relatively equal in power. Mediation, on the other hand, tends to be used in disputes characterized by high complexity, high intensity, long duration, unequal and fractionated parties, and where the willingness of the parties to settle peacefully is in doubt.Wherever conflict occurs, the potential exists for violence or other harmful consequences. In the international arena, in the absence of any generally accepted -rules of the game,‖ conflicts can easily escalate into highly destructive and destabilizing wars.The course of a conflict depends on how the parties manage their disagreements. Typically, international actors deal with conflict by taking one or more of three possible actions: unilateral, bilateral, or third-party interventions (Bercovitch and Houston 1996: 11). The unilateral mode may involve an attempt to win over the opponent through violent struggle, or it may involve withdrawal or avoidance. The bilateral mode implies some form of bargaining and compromise (i.e., negotiation). The third-party mode means the intervention of a party not directly involved in the conflict (i.e., adjudication or mediation). In this essay, we shall examine the conditions which influence the choice of negotiation or mediation as the preferred way of dealing with an international conflict.A significant amount of research on conflict has centered on the processes of international negotiation and mediation and the general effectiveness of those processes. The question of how negotiation or mediation begins, why parties choose one method or the other, has been relatively ignored. While institutionalized mechanisms exist for dealing with some types of conflict, giving specifications about the process and how to initiate it (e.g., arbitration for labor-management disputes), conflicts in the international arena generally lack such procedural guidelines. Very often, states apply conflict management procedures on an ad hoc basis only, choosing (implicitly or explicitly) from a broad range of techniques, including among others negotiation, mediation, arbitration, inquiry, conciliation, or referral to international organizations. The study presented here focuses on the conditions for negotiation and mediation. It is part of a broader effort to place international conflict management within an empirical context, and to analyze the conditions under which parties will enter negotiation or mediation. This essay is divided in three sections...

show abstract

“…These vary from the nature of the issues involved, and the parties' dependency on external resources, to whether or not a balance of power exists between the disputing parties (Raymond and Kegley, 1985;Bercovitch, 1992). Besides a mediator's role, other characteristics of the mediator are important for peacemaking.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Role to Play? Intermediaries in International Conflict as Negotiators and Facilitators

Kleiboer

1995

Contingencies & Crisis Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mediating Conflict: Decision‐making and Western Intervention in Namibia, V. Jabri, Manchester University Press, Manchester (1990), 198 pp. Intermediaries in International Conflict, T. Princen, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1992) (paperback edition 1995), 263 pp. Ending Mozambique's War: The Role of Mediation and Good Offices, C. Hume, United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington DC (1994), 162 pp.

show abstract

Third Party Mediation and International Norms: A Test of Two Models

Cited by 31 publications

References 29 publications

Power Play: Mediation in Symmetric and Asymmetric International Crises

Power Play: Mediation in Symmetric and Asymmetric International Crises

Negotiation or Mediation?: An Exploration of Factors Affecting the Choice of Conflict Management in International Conflict

What Role to Play? Intermediaries in International Conflict as Negotiators and Facilitators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About