Some Views on International Mediation (original) (raw)
A current literature review of international mediation
Purpose -A rapidly expanding body of literature on international mediation, as well as the central role international mediation plays in modern-day conflict resolution, make it necessary to review and analyze this vastly evolving field of study. This study seeks to review the most significant trends and debates in the literature on international mediation, with an emphasis on the literature of the past six years. Design/methodology/approach -Reflecting Wall et al.'s staged conceptualization of the mediation process; this review essay is divided in three sections that cover the antecedents of mediation, possible mediation approaches, and the outcomes these approaches yield -making it possible to review and analyze the diverse sets of theories within the field of mediation, as well the various methodological approaches employed to test these theories. Findings -Much research to date has focused on how international mediation in armed conflicts affects the likelihood of reaching a negotiated agreement, while other possible outcomes of mediation have been understudied. Accordingly, research needs to be done on the effects of mediation attempts that did not lead to a peace agreement, as well as the accumulative effect of peace agreements. Furthermore, the relation between negative peace and mediation has been studied extensively, but how mediation affects the degree of positive peace has received scant scholarly attention. Finally, the interlinkages between the different phases of the mediation process need to be examined more extensively. Originality/value -This review identifies the state of the art knowledge concerning the international mediation process, which allows peacemakers to make informed decisions in order to prevent and resolve armed conflict in the twenty-first century.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014
Mediation is one of the political-diplomatic ways which are the most frequently regulated but also used for resolving the international conflicts between states. It is regulated by the international conventions either in a distinct manner, or by referring to the category of peaceful methods to which it belongs. In the circumstances in which is distinctly regulated, mediation can be found along with reconciliation, good offices and inquiry, according to the model provided by article 33 of the U.N. Charter. Apart from the enumeration method, there are also (less frequent) situations in which mediation is separately indicated either as self-standing or together with good offices. In what the international organizations are concerned, it can be noticed that, apart from providing for mediation within their statute, efforts are made to organize a permanent professional basis for some structures specialized in using mediation throughout the process of resolving conflicts. The importance of mediation as a method to prevent and resolve disputes has been underlined when the U.N. General Assembly adopted a special resolution regarding this method, but also at the creation of a specialized body for mediation.
INTERNATIONAL LAW THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION -The current deba
This article introduces some relevant aspects of the current debate about the effectiveness of mediation at an international level. It examines some of the variables that may affect the process of mediation and its effectiveness. As a brief outline, the paper shows the reciprocal relationship between the context of mediation and the cultural context, and their influence on the mediation outcomes. Particular importance is given to the fact of culture as a determinant factor in the mediation process and results, according to major Conflict Resolution bibliography. There is no purpose to point out to specific cases, but to illustrate the theoretical framework of this issue.
Concept Paper: IV. ISTANBUL CONFERENCE ON MEDIATION " Surge in Diplomacy, Action in Mediation "
There is increased awareness of the need for a holistic and integrated approach towards peaceful settlement of disputes, conflict prevention and resolution. The Fourth Istanbul Conference on Mediation aims to make a timely contribution by exploring the potential of mediation for the achievement of sustainable peace, which requires the elimination of existing and potential sources of violence. Since the establishment by Turkey and Finland of the UN Group of Friends of Mediation, substantial progress has been achieved in raising awareness on mediation and promoting its effective and wider use. More and more states are convinced of the benefits of mediation. Multiplicity of actors carry out mediation efforts. Steps are being taken to make mediation an increasingly institutionalised and professionalised field of action. The work of the UN Organization and the UN Group of Friends of Mediation have been highly instrumental and the publication of the UN Guidance for Effective Mediation was a milestone development in this regard. A similar Friends Group has also been set up at the OSCE, co-chaired by Turkey, Finland and Switzerland. Several other regional and sub-regional organizations also play significant roles in the promotion of methods, culture and capacity of mediation as an alternate instrument of peaceful prevention and resolution of conflicts.
Ready for Prime Time: The When, Who, and Why of International Mediation
Negotiation Journal, 2003
Most of the literature on international dispute resolution emphasizes timing and "ripeness" when considering whether or not a dispute is suitable for mediation. In addition to this focus, the authors believe analysts should consider whether a particular mediator is "ready for prime time. " Their framework posits that one may gauge the appropriateness of a mediator for a particular dispute along three different types of considerations: operational and political; strategic and diplomatic; and relationship and cultural "fit. " They provide numerous case examples illustrating how the choice of a mediator might apply in each dimension.
This essay is about impartiality in international mediation. The core research question is: To what extent is impartiality a component of international mediation: when it is important, when not? Mediation is defined in this essay following the definition offered by the United Nations (2012: 4) ''a process whereby a third party assists two or more parties, with their consent, to prevent, manage or resolve a conflict by helping them to develop mutually acceptable agreements. The premise of mediation is that in the right environment, conflict parties can improve their relationships and move towards cooperation. Mediation outcomes can be limited in scope, dealing with a specific issue in order to contain or manage a conflict, or can tackle a broad range of issues in a comprehensive peace agreement.'' The Charter of the United Nations identifies mediation as an important means for the peaceful settlement of disputes and conflicts, and it has proven to be an effective instrument to address both inter-State and intra-State conflicts. According to the United Nations (2012: 10), ''Impartiality is a cornerstone of mediation – if a mediation process is perceived to be biased, this can undermine meaningful progress to resolve the conflict. A mediator should be able to run a balanced process that treats all actors fairly and should not have a material interest in the outcome. This also requires that the mediator is able to talk with all actors relevant to resolving the conflict. Impartiality is not synonymous with neutrality, as a mediator, especially a United Nations mediator, is typically mandated to uphold certain universal principles and values and may need to make them explicitly known to the parties.'' Evidently, there are cases in international mediation when impartiality matters more although effective mediation has got its unique logic of which impartiality is a cornerstone value. For example, according to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon (2012), ''To be effective, however, a mediation process requires more than the appointment of a high-profile individual to act as a third party. Antagonists often need to be persuaded of the merits of mediation, and peace processes must be well-supported politically, technically and financially. Ad-hoc and poorly coordinated mediation efforts – even when launched with the best of intentions – do not advance the goal of achieving durable peace.'' Mediation often exists alongside facilitation, good offices and dialogue efforts. Mediation, however, has its own logic and approach, aspects of which may be relevant to other approaches to the peaceful settlement of disputes. Mediation differs from “good offices” in that the mediator usually takes more initiative in proposing terms of settlement. It differs from arbitration in that the opposing parties are not bound by prior agreement to accept the suggestions made. However, in this essay, mediation will be considered in the context of studies on International Relations. There are not many works that aim to trace the idea of impartiality to the original debate between opposing camps of idealists and realists within the field of International Relations. The big idea is that the essence of mediation is to bring the conflicting sides to the negotiating table, establish some legitimated norms whilst attempting to understand parties’ motivations, and the source of force that pushes them to remain in conflict. The concept of 'cosmopolitan ethics' and 'dialogic community' will be discussed, as well as the notion of ripe time for resolution will be highlighted. A conflict becomes ripe for resolution when the parties realize that the status quo, namely - no negotiation - is a lose-lose situation (because they cannot win), not a zero-sum (win-lose) situation. Thus to avoid the mutual loss, they must consider negotiation. For example, Zartman (2001: 8) observed, ''While most studies on peaceful settlement of disputes see the substance of the proposals for a solution as the key to a successful resolution of conflict, a growing focus of attention shows that a second and equally necessary key lies in the timing of efforts for resolution (Zartman 2000). Parties resolve their conflict only when they are ready to do so—when alternative, usually unilateral means of achieving a satisfactory result are blocked and the parties feel that they are in an uncomfortable and costly predicament. At that ripe moment, they grab on to proposals that usually have been in the air for a long time and that only now appear attractive.'' As Zartman (2008: 9) noted, ''Ripeness is only a condition, necessary but not sufficient, for the initiation of negotiations. It is not self-fulfilling or self-implementing. It must be seized, either directly by the parties or, if not, through the persuasion of a mediator.'' If a mediator is impartial, it could only enhance peace process. ''MHS can be a very fleeting opportunity, a moment to be seized lest it pass, or it can be of a long duration, waiting to be noticed and acted upon by mediators.'' (Ibid.: 13). In mediation, there are different approaches that prescribe different levels of impartiality depending on the nature of conflict. It will be argued that there are two opposite styles of mediation that can be applied under different circumstances. The first is the power-political approach, which operates within the neorealist framework whereby stress is placed on strategic rationality and cost-benefit calculations of mediators. The second is the facilitative approach whereby mediators serve as communicators whose main task is to sustain dialogue between the parties. The chosen method of this paper is critical analysis and balanced discussion. This leads to a conclusion that there are some situations, in which impartiality is more important; and others, in which impartiality does not serve as a decisive factor. There are analysts who agree with the traditional thesis that mediator impartiality is a critical quality for successful mediation (Jackson, 1952: 125-9; Young, 1967: 81; Northedge and Donelan, 1971: 299; Assefa, 1987: 22; Miall, 1992: 62; Hume, 1994; quoted in Kleiboer, 1996: 369). These authors ''seem to assume a chain of effects following from impartiality: mediator impartiality is crucial for disputants' confidence in the mediator, which, in turn, is a necessary condition for his gaining acceptability, which, in turn, is essential for mediation success to come about.'' (Ibid.). There are also analysts who claim that ''a mediator need not to be impartial to be successful (Touval, 1975: 67; Kochan, 1981: 133; Smith, 1985: 371; Orme, 1989: 60; Jabri, 1990: 8). Some analysts go a step further by arguing that mediator acceptability is neither contingent upon impartiality not on trust in the mediator, but instead on a mediator's bias towards one of the parties (Touval and Zartman, 1985: 15; Bercovitch, Anagnoson and Wille, 1991: 15; quoted in Kleiboer, 1996: 370). Thus, if any summarizing statement can be made is that impartiality is not a definitive component of all successful mediation cases in all geographical settings and all contexts though it remains a substantial factor, at least, according to the first group of analysts mentioned above. Impartiality is among the key fundamentals that should be considered in a mediation effort next to: preparedness; consent; inclusivity; national ownership; international law and normative frameworks; coherence, coordination and complementarity of the mediation effort; and quality peace agreements. Although no golden formulas for achieving mediation success has been found yet, this essay argues that impartiality has to be at all times exercised by a skilful mediator since alongside other key fundamentals it may determine the overall success of international mediation process. According to the United Nations (2012: 23), the importance of a supportive external environment for the mediation process is vital. For the success of international mediation to be complete, emphasis is also placed on the need for cooperation among entities involved in mediation, ''While all these factors are important, the success or failure of a mediation process ultimately depends on whether the conflict parties accept mediation and are committed to reaching an agreement. If the parties are genuinely willing to explore a negotiated solution, mediators can play an invaluable role.'' The impact of the essay is to bring attention of statesmen, decision-makers and wider world to the peaceful resolution of conflicts through international mediation since the benefits of mediation outweigh costs plus the potential risk of legitimising past violations of international law. Consistency with international law and norms contributes to reinforcing the legitimacy of a process and the durability of a peace agreement. When applied skilfully international mediation could bring peace to many ongoing conflicts around the world.