The mediation dilemma

Mediation has become a common technique for terminating violent conflicts both within and between states; while mediation has a strong record in reducing hostilities, it is not without its own problems. In The Mediation Dilemma, Kyle Beardsley highlights its long-term limitations. The result of this oft-superficial approach to peacemaking, immediate and reassuring as it may be, is often a fragile peace. With the intervention of a third-party mediator, warring parties may formally agree to concessions that are insupportable in the long term and soon enough find themselves at odds again. Beardsley examines his argument empirically using two data sets and traces it through several historical cases: Henry Kissinger's and Jimmy Carter's initiatives in the Middle East, 1973-1979; Theodore Rooseveltʹs 1905 mediation in the Russo-Japanese War; and Carterʹs attempt to mediate in the 1994 North Korean nuclear crisis. He also draws upon the lessons of the 1993 Arusha Accords, the 1993 Oslo Accords, Haiti in 1994, the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement in Sri Lanka, and the 2005 Memorandum of Understanding in Aceh. Beardsley concludes that a reliance on mediation risks a greater chance of conflict relapse in the future, whereas the rejection of mediation risks ongoing bloodshed as war continues. -- Book jacket

Intro -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- 1. The Dilemma -- 2. Negotiating Mediation -- 3. Why Accept Mediation? -- 4. Raison d'être: Short-Term Benefits of Mediation -- 5. The Struggle for Self-Enforcing Peace -- 6. Mediation in Intrastate Conflicts -- 7. Implications, Applications, and Conclusions -- Appendix: Quantitative Analyses -- References -- Index.