Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation

Abstract

This article presents and assesses the state of the art in research on the course and outcomes of international mediation. The review consists of three parts. First, the elusive notion of mediation success is addressed. Second, the key contextual and process factors thought to explain international mediation outcomes are discussed. The final part raises a number of problems with current theorizing, and a plea is made for a more fundamental reflection on the assumptions underlying present research. Using a heuristic adaptation of the metatheoretical framework developed by Burrell and Morgan, it is argued that four fundamentally different currents of thought about international conflict and its management may be discerned. These four proto-theories may help us to put into perspective current debates and contradictory findings, as well as generate a more coherent foundation for future research on the success and failure of mediation in international conflict.

The Dark Side of Altruistic Third-Party Punishment

“…11. There is some debate in this respect in the literature on mediation-see Kleiboer (1996) for a survey that considers this issue.…”

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

“…Similarly, many analysts argue that successful conflict management requires a (rough) power parity between the parties, because disparity will dispose the stronger party to reject negotiation in the first place, or at least resist a compromise (Young 1967;Zartman 1981;Kriesberg 1982;Touval 1982;Kleiboer 1996). On the other hand, others argue that power parity endangers successful conflict management because it stimulates competition and attempts to upset the power balance (Organski 1960;Wright 1965;Kleiboer 1996).…”

“…On the other hand, others argue that power parity endangers successful conflict management because it stimulates competition and attempts to upset the power balance (Organski 1960;Wright 1965;Kleiboer 1996).…”

“…Related to the cultural norms and values of a party is the degree of cultural fragmentation, or homogeneity. It has been claimed that the greater the degree of fractionation within a state, the greater the chances of conflict management failure (Bercovitch and Houston 1996;Kleiboer 1996). This is because representatives (e.g., negotiators) find it difficult to make concessions without losing face vis-à-vis different constituencies, and greater levels of intraparty bargaining are required first.…”

From Resolution to Transformation: The Role of Dialogue Projects

“…Because of the social complexities, it is extraordinarily difficult to establish a causal link between micromeasures and macro-effects. It is therefore all the more necessary that we find a way to explicitly address the gap and to isolate and examine the unspoken assumptions underlying a large part of conflict management practice and research (Kleiboer 1996;Ross and Rothman 1999). If we fail to do this, there is a very real danger that peacemaking will be equated either with the stabilization of relationships of dominance (Francis 2003) or with the mere smoothing over of social relations.…”