International Conflict Mediation

New Approaches and Findings

Jacob Bercovitch, Scott Sigmund Gartner

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• eBook ISBN: 9781134054145
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

This book examines how new empirical approaches to mediation can shed fresh light on the effectiveness of different patterns of conflict management, and offers guidelines on the process of international mediation.

International conflict mediation has become one of, if not the most prominent and important conflict resolution methods of the early 21st century. This book argues that traditional approaches to mediation have been inadequate, and that in order to really understand how the process of international mediation works, studies need to operate within an explicit theoretical framework, adopt systematic empirical approaches and use a diversity of methods to identify critical interactions, contexts and relationships. This volume captures recent important changes in the field of international conflict mediation, and includes essays by leading scholars on a variety of critical aspects of conflict management, using state of the art analytical tools and up to date data.

This book will of great interest to scholars of peace and conflict studies, methods in social science, and of International Relations in general.

1 New approaches, methods and findings in the study of mediation

Jacob Bercovitch and Scott Sigmund Gartner

One of the central issues in the study of the mediation of international conflicts and crises, and indeed in many other aspects of the social sciences, is how best to explain variance? Why do seemingly similar efforts produce such markedly different outcomes? The usual temptation is to fall back on idiosyncratic factors and explain observed variance with reference to personalities, unique circumstances, personal and perceptual factors and other exceptional conditions. The central argument of this book is that such efforts paint an incomplete picture of the conflict management process, and we do, in truth, have to explore variance in a much more systematic manner. If we are to understand why some patterns of conflict management work, or are effective, and others are not, we have to operate within an explicit theoretical framework, adopt systematic empirical approaches (and there is a vast array of such approaches) and use a diversity of methods to identify critical interactions, contexts and relationships. Ideally, we would pursue these multiple objectives by also employing state-of-the-art methods and techniques. This is what we propose to do in the chapters of this book.

Let us first start by looking at two major instances of international mediation that have produced different results despite many similar features. In September 1978, American President Carter invited President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Begin of Israel to his retreat at Camp David. Closeted there for 13 days, Carter tirelessly mediated the issues in dispute that had led to a number of costly conflicts and was largely instrumental in achieving a formal peace agreement between Israel and Egypt that has lasted almost 20 years. In July 2000, US President Clinton invited the President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasir Arafat, and the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, to Camp David to hammer out an agreement between these two bitter enemies. Despite Clinton’s equally tireless work, his mediation efforts failed. Clearly the issues, personalities and international climate between the cases were quite different. However, can we go beyond a description of each case and understand how Carter’s and Clinton’s experiences differed systematically? Can we identify which factors and variables produced each outcome and how a change in some variables might have led to different results? How do we, in short, understand the bigger picture of mediation, generate insights into the factors that account for its variance and learn how to change some of these factors so as to maximize the chances of success?

To answer these questions we want to suggest that it is possible to draw on three very different types of conflict management literatures: prescriptive, normative and descriptive (Bell et al., 1989).

Prescriptive theories of conflict management, negotiation and mediation explain any variance by emphasizing a set of behavioral norms that parties in conflict either follow (and hence achieve success), or fail to follow (and hence experience failure). Fisher and Ury (1981) provide us with a typical example of the prescriptive approach to conflict management. They offer some strategies of behavior, which if adopted by parties in conflict, irrespective of size, context or issues, lead to success. Failure to adopt these will lead to a bad outcome. The problems of explaining variance in outcomes are thus taken care of, but in a most unconvincing fashion.

Normative theories suggest how ideal, rational actors with all the information at their disposal and coherent personality structures should make decisions in complex situations (Kydd, 2003, 2005; Rauchhaus, 2006). Normative theories, best exemplified by formal models and game theoretic approaches, purport to explain the motivation and behavior of actors in conflict on the basis of some assumptions regarding rationality, information and direct causal links to any choice of strategy. Normative theories have coherence, logic and consistency, but the assumptions on which they are based clearly restrict their applicability. Actors in conflict do not behave like intelligent and sensitive parties, they do not have much information (indeed the conflict may be over lack of information), and it is hard to see how this approach, extensive though its contributions are, can be as congruent with reality as we would wish it to be.

Descriptive (though a better term for these would be empirical) theories purport to explain how and why actors behave the way they do without, in any way, trying to modify, idealize or moralize such behavior. Here, conflict behavior such as mediation or negotiation is treated as a factor that is dependent on a number of antecedent dimensions that are both observable and theoretically significant, and whose specific interaction in a given context produces success or failure. Our main focus is with conflict management behavior in the form of mediation. We wish to suggest that observed variance in the success or effectiveness of mediation has to do with many independent, contextual and specific dimensions, all of which we can observe, many of which we can evaluate, and each of which may help to explain success or failure.

Each of these three broad theories can help us gain a better understanding of the processes involved in conflict resolution, and each is evaluated along different dimensions. Prescriptive theories are evaluated by their pragmatic ability to help real actors in conflict make better choices and better decisions. Normative theories are evaluated by their internal consistency, logic and ability to explain multiple phenomena with one theoretical process. Descriptive or empirical theories are evaluated by degree of correspondence with observed reality and ability to produce generalizable conclusions (see Druckman, 2005). It is with this set of broad theories that we wish to proceed here.

For many years there was a strong tendency to study conflict management in general and mediation in particular with a prescriptive framework. Recently, there has been more work employing the normative approach. The main focus of the chapters in this book, however, is on presenting empirical studies on mediation and assessing their usefulness and relevance. In particular, we think that empirical studies can provide useful information on the place, role, performance, effectiveness and selection of mediation in international relations. We present empirical studies of the sort below, contribute to our understanding of effective mediation and to our ability to generate practical guidelines for policy-makers.

To start with, there are a number of ways to pursue empirical research on conflict management and mediation—and each has strengths and weaknesses. Some of the more prominent avenues of research are: single case studies; experimental approaches; and systematic, large-N studies. Case studies (e.g. Ott, 1972; Mitchell and Webb, 1988) offer detailed and often considerable insights into a particular conflict, but the emphasis on the uniqueness of each case clearly undermines any attempt to offer generalizations or look for broad patterns. Experimental approaches (e.g. Rubin, 1980; Carnevale and De Preu, 2005; Pruitt, 2005) provide for complete control of the environment and the ability to test hypotheses on motivation, preferences and behavior (strong internal validity). However, the extent to which it is possible to extrapolate from the simulated and fully scripted world of naïve subjects to the real world of diplomacy and policy-makers is very doubtful indeed (weak external validity). Systematic, large-scale studies purport to describe and explain real international events by using explicit criteria and definitions, a large and replicable dataset and sophisticated social science methods that help us to identify key relationships, connections and patterns that may affect mediation outcomes. Such studies have their own problems (e.g. the reliance on survey research and archival material that may not always be congruent with “reality”). However, given the need to examine social processes systematically and offer evidence and findings that can be looked at by others, we believe that the empirical approaches we present here are at the cutting-edge in the evolution of research on conflict management. Empirical approaches to mediation, whether case studies, large-N studies or formal models, generate new knowledge and confirm patterns, and by supporting conditional theoretical arguments, provide policy guidelines for more effective conflict management (Bercovitch, 2005).

Equally important, empirical approaches have been generally underutilized in the study of conflict management. Other areas of international relations embraced such approaches with greater alacrity then did scholars of conflict management. When one thinks of just how far the democratic theory ideas have evolved, and how closely we have come to formulating a basic law on democracy and external behavior in comparative government, we can only bemoan the paucity of similar efforts in the study of mediation. Hence, the chapters below attempt to redress this imbalance and show the emerging strength, vibrancy and relevance of the empirical approach for understanding conflict management in general and mediation in particular.

On conflict management and mediation

Conflict is, without doubt, one of the most pervasive and costly of all social processes. It represents the systematic and organized employment of force and violence. Conflict’s human losses represent the most salient type of political cost (Gartner, 2008; Gartner et al., 2004). Conflict’s adverse consequences can be particularly dangerous in the international environment where the very existence of political actors may be threatened. Hence the importance attached to conflict management. Conflict management is an attempt to do something about reducing, limiting or eliminating the level, scope and intensity of violence in conflict, and to build a structure where the need to resort to violence in future conflicts is controlled (Deutsch, 1973; Maoz, 2004). Conflict management takes on various forms. It can be unilateral, where one party simply avoids conflicts or withdraws from any emerging conflict or it can be bilateral and involve the disputants in direct or tacit negotiations. Conflict management can also be multilateral, where an outside party, organization or state intervene peacefully to help the adversaries with their conflict management efforts. While conflict can be largely a coercive interaction, conflict management is largely non-violent and incorporates a considerable degree of voluntary coordination and joint decision-making between the parties in conflict. Hence the importance scholars attach to understanding conflict management.

How then does mediation fit into the overall framework of conflict management? Many policy tools are available for parties in conflict. These include conflict prevention, conflict management (e.g. reaching a political settlement) and conflict resolution (e.g. resolving all outstanding issues in conflict). Some of these methods are enumerated in the Article 33 (1) of the United Nations Charter, and they range from avoidance of conflict to the use of force. Broadly speaking, we can group these into four different categories. These are: (1) the use of force and coercive measures; (2) judicial and legal processes; (3) formal and informal bilateral methods; and (4) various forms of non-coercive, third-party interven-tions (these may be undertaken by a host of actors). These four ways of managing conflicts correspond roughly to power-based approaches to conflict (deterrence, sanctions), rights-based approaches (appeals to legal norms), and interests-based approaches (searching for common interests through bilateral negotiation and third-party mediation). Each approach has different features, characteristics, objectives and consequences, each entails different costs and resources, and each may be appropriate for different conflicts.

The approach we wish to focus on is third-party mediation. Mediation is by far the most common form of peaceful third-party intervention in international conflicts. It is predicated on the need to supplement conflict management, not to supplant the parties’ own efforts. Although mediation has become an integral part of many systems (e.g. labor-management, family disputes), it is a form of conflict management that is particularly well-suited to the international environment with its numerous and diverse political actors all interacting to achieve scarce resources or influence, and where each guards its interests and autonomy jealously and accepts any outside interference in their affairs only if it is strictly necessary and explicitly circumscribed. Mediation is both voluntary and peaceful, and this makes it an attractive option for many states.

First, then, how do we frame mediation and distinguish it from other forms of peaceful interventions? There is little consensus in the literature on how mediation, or other key variables, should be defined. Scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds offer different definitions, compounding confusion and fragmentation. We want to synthesize many aspects of the mediation literature and develop a definition that will allow us to create a contextual framework of the process. Hence, we view mediation as a form of joint decision-making in conflict in which an outsider controls some aspects of the process, or indeed the outcome, but ultimate decision-making power remains with the disputants (Moore, 1986). Mediation is best seen as an extension of bilateral conflict management. It is a rational, political, though at times risky, process with anticipated costs (e.g. time spent mediating) and benefits (e.g. achieving a reputation as a successful mediator). It operates within a system of exchange and social influence whose parameters are the actors, their communication, expectations, experience, resources, interests and the situation within which they all find themselves. Mediation is a reciprocal process; it influences, and is in turn influenced by and responsive to, the context, parties, issues, history and environment of a conflict (Beardsley, forthcoming). All these aspects shape and influence the selection, process and outcome of mediation (Gartner and Bercovitch, 2006).

A satisfactory definition of mediation has to capture the broad and comprehensive features of the process and be relevant to studies of disputes, wars, and crises, such as those included in this book. Here we define mediation as a

process of conflict management, related to but distinct from the parties’ own efforts, whereby the disputing parties or their representatives seek the assistance, or accept an offer of help from an individual, group, state or organization to change, affect or influence their perceptions or behavior, without resorting to physical force, or invoking the authority of the law.

(Bercovitch, 1992:8)

This may be a broad definition indeed and it may encompass a wide range of activities, but we believe such a definition captures the dynamics of mediation as it changes forms and features, and encapsulates the various approaches and methodologies presented in this book. Given such a broad definition, some of the questions to which we seek answers include: how mediators initiate mediation and what considerations influence this process; how mediators behave in mediation; what types of mediators are best suited to certain disputes; which mediation strategies are more useful; how mediators relate to and interact with disputants; and how the context of a conflict affects their behavior?

In many respects mediation is as old as conflict itself. The practice of settling conflicts through a third party has a rich history in all cultures (Gulliver, 1979). In international relations, mediation is likely to be used in some, though by no means all, conflicts. It is particularly useful when a conflict has gone on for some time, when the efforts of the parties involved have reached an impasse, when neither party is prepared to countenance further costs or escalation of the dispute and when both parties are ready to engage in direct or indirect dialogue, and are prepared to accept some form of external help and surrender some control over the process of conflict management. In the current international environment mediation plays an increasingly important role, and it behooves us to have a better appreciation of it.

The book is organized so as to reflect our broad approach to mediation, highlight the dimensions that influence it, and showcase how different empirical approaches can provide us with insightful and often policy-relevant findings. The framework of the book is meant to suggest that mediation is more than just a matter of choice (rational or otherwise) between two or more parties and a mediator. It is also a framework that we believe can fruitfully join theories and measurements, methods and new findings. We see mediation as a problem-solving approach that is shaped and affected by the interaction of different dimensions. It is affected by the range of possible or available mediation strategies, by who the mediators are (e.g. personal and organizational attributes), by context, setting and nature of ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Acknowledgments
• 1 New approaches, methods and findings in the study of mediation
• PART I Mediation strategy
• PART II Mediator type
• UN and neutrality
• PART III Dispute and crisis types
• PART IV The conflict management environment
• PART V Data