S10 - International Mediation Flashcards
mediation
process in which one or more third parties assist the parties in conflict in reaching a solution that they are either unable or unwilling to find or their own.
intractable conflicts and mediation
Intractable conflict use mediation. This is because there is a lot of hostility and resistance in intractable conflict, which gives the need for mediation.
negotiation as an extension
Extension of the existing negotiation process. When parties do not feel comfortable with talking to each other directly, a mediator can offer to facilitate the communication, therefore it is an extension of the negotiation process.
mediator can offer to facilitate the communication in negotiation
when do parties turn to a mediator
Hinting towards ripeness: better outcome than the one they can achieve by fighting.
Hinting toward bias: better outcome than one reachable through direct negotiations.
contingency model
context
performance
outcomes
contingency model - context
nature of the mediator
nature of the parties
nature of the dispute
contingency model - performance
mediation behaviour
contingency model - outcomes
success or failure mediation
states as a mediator (nature mediator)
advantages superpower: more leverages / more resources to help implementation / required time and skills to negotiate
disadvantages superpower: likely to work in own interest / can seem imposed / bias
advantages small-sized: cannot gain anything / less biased / win more trust
disadvantages small-sized: less resources / less leverage
four types of mediators / nature of the mediator
states
international / regional organizations
religious organizations / humanitarian ngo’s / advocacy groups
illustrous individuals
international / regional organizations as mediator (nature mediator)
Realists tend to be sceptical of international organizations. They are seen as smoke screen for the interests of powerful states and therefore criticized when they try to mediate
mandated by their charters - can only mediate in certain types of conflict
promotion of peace as a value
only interested in particular outcome
organizational limitations. For some international organizations, they can only mediate conflicts that are between members.
religious organizations, humanitarian NGO’s, advocacy groups as mediator (nature mediator)
autonomy, not linked to state
long-term presence in conflict: they can alert parties to early warning signs. Can establish close relationships with local officials, and gain attention for the conflict through documentation. Can also help with long-term economic development projects.
low-level of intrusiveness: not going to ask for very big concessions for governments, because they do not have leverage. That makes them trusted as a mediator.
narrow area of expertise. Conflicts overlapping several issues makes it unlikely for NGO’s to have the expertise to resolve those conflicts
issue focus: humanitarian concerns, resources
illustrious individuals (nature mediator)
Known worldwide for integrity and moral stance
nature of the mediator - partiality
Mediation requires significant investment (material and non-material).
Outside actors would not mediate unless they have an interest in the outcome. Therefore actors have an explicit and an implicit bias. This makes mediation a foreign policy tool.
bias, otherwise mediator would not invest
offensive reasons mediator
limiting rivals’ zone of influence / obtaining the gratitude of conflicting sides
defensive reasons mediator
preserving influence over conflicting sides / preventing rival actors to capitalize by getting involved in the conflict / preventing spillover effect
bias of an actor
delivering a party to the negotiations = closeness to one party implies the possibility of delivering that party to an agreement. A biased mediator can also persuade their ‘friend’ to join the negotiation.
liability of closeness = mediators are not successful if perceived as preferring a solution favouring the party to which they are close. Sometimes there could have been reached a better agreement when there was no biased mediator. Relationship with mediator can also be damaged when the country with the bias is not happy with the outcome it got.
nature of the mediator - leverage
strategic power (resources) = resources / attributes of the mediator
tactical power (at the table)
leverage
= the ability to influence others and bring them closer to your preferred outcome
strategic power (resources)
legitimate power: influence due to position. This is due to authority, that gives an actor the right to instruct other countries.
expert power: knowledge and expertise in a lot of areas. Having expertise that one or both parties in conflict don’t have can lead to leverage.
information: ability to control and manipulate information.
referent power: charisma, status, prestige.
reward power: award compliance, carrots.
coercive power: punish non-compliance, sticks.
nature of the parties
party arithmic
internal cohesiveness
regime type
party arithmic
who are the disputing sides / spoilers. Mediators need to investigate if everyone who needs to be here at the negotiations actually participating.
internal cohesiveness
Gives the problem of two-level games. Low cohesiveness leads to confusion in identifying the appropriate party. Proliferation of constituencies makes it difficult to negotiate.
regime type
Liberal peace theory = democracies do not go to war to other democracies.
Democracies are more amenable to settling conflicts peacefully.
democratic peace theory
nature of the dispute - ripeness
Perception of three crucial statements
Mutually Hurting Stalemate. Both sides realize that they have more to gain by agreeing to negotiation than to continue fighting with each other. Encourages parties to look for a way out.
Way Out. Parties must have a perception that a solution is possible and the orhter party has the same perception and is looking for a negotiation as well. Don’t have to identify a solution to the conflict, just have to believe that a negotiation is possible and that the other party shares the sense that negotiation is possible.
Mutually Enticing Oppotunity. Both parties feel like they have something to gain from negotiation.
mutually hurting stalemate / way out / mutually enticing opportunity
nature of the dispute - tractability
Intensity
- Quantitative studies: the more fatalities, the more changes that the parties will accept and commit to mediation
- Qualitative studies: the more fatalities the less chances for success (intractable conflicts might be less amenable to mediation)
Issues
- Different types: sovereignty, ideology, security, self-determination, etc…
- Generally, conflicts encompass several issues at the same time
- Reframe zero-sum perception
How do mediators get involved?
Ad hoc. This means that if a mediator is present for this negotiation, that will not automatically mean that they are present in another round of negotiation.
Voluntary
Non-coercive
Legally non-binding. Mediator and parties can always step away from the negotiation process when they no longer want to be involved
Role / action of mediator - performance
Expanding ZOPA (zone of possible agreement)
Information exchange
Implementation
Political cover
is the mediator credible - performance
Do the disputants think that the mediator’s offer is believable (mediator is not bluffing / not being deceived by opponent).
Do the disputants think that the mediator can deliver the offer (mediator can make the offer stick)
Third parties that are concerned with their reputations will be more inclined to deliver on their guarantees because of their past and future
- track record
- potential deceit decreases the chances that they could assume a similar role again
believable / deliver the offer / concerned with own reputation?
outcomes: implementation
Peacemaking –> implementation –> peacebuilding
Peacebuilding is a longer peace process, where you establish trust again. Implementation is something you use to kickstart peacebuilding.
implementation is the start for peacebuilding
peace agreements are like laws
- They contain principles, not rules and specifics
- Implementation is the tricky part
More specific clauses is important because it provides with some cover if you want to hold something to the bargain.
With more specific clauses you can state better that the other party did not hold their end of the bargain.
Without specifics, it makes it easy to escape implementation and you can always blame the other side.
lack specific clauses: makes it easy to escape implementation
post-agreement dynamics - implementation
Agreement has been signed, but not much has changed.
Parties are confident that it will be fine, but the people under them are not confident that it will work out.
Some threats and power dynamics from during the war are also going to stay after signing. Implementations is where the changes actually happen.
- Inequalities of power
- Uncertainties and lack of trust
- Potential spoilers and violence
- Constituent needs and dissatisfaction
- Institutionalized hatred and polarized identities
These continuations lead to a pressure to default.
signs of commitment - implementation
- Entering negotiations is a signal
- Each concession is a signal
- Signing an agreement is a signal
But action is what is now needed:
* Costs and benefits become real. Benefits need to be offered as soon as possible (demilitarization)
* Local needs for assurance must be met: local people must experience the peace dividend. They need to feel that something has shifted after the conflict
actions of implementation
Power sharing
Demilitarization
Reforms
Keeping to the schedule is key. Missing deadlines can be a trigger for a conflict to start. You don’t want to lose momentum. You also want to identify and neutralize spoilers as soon at possible, so put fires out in time.
reasons for failure of implementation
By choice, no intention of keeping to the agreement.
Lack of resources, ability, expertise
Focusing on long-term issues: immediate concerns are often forgotten.
Failure to manage small catastrophe
third party roles - implementation
Hold parties to their word – decrease costs and increase benefits
Marshalling resources
Nurturing the moderate middle
Putting out fires everywhere = spoilers / constituents / splinter groups / disagreements
Outcomes: measuring success
Definitional shortcomings
- Arbitrary definitions, so disagreement on what is a successful disagreement.
- Dichotomous understanding (either – or)
- Oversimplified (only agreement)
- Time frame
Successful mediation involves
- Bringing parties to the table
- Signing an agreement
- Making it stick
bias of actor - delivering a party to negotiatoins
closeness to one party implies the possibility of “delivering” that party to an agreement
bias of actor - liability of closeness
mediators are not successful if perceived as preferring a solution favoring the party to which they are close
