Search results

Purpose
This paper aims to critique the rationalist theoretical framework of international mediation, which ignores emotions in analyzing the decision by conflict parties to pursue a negotiated settlement or continue fighting, and to present an alternative framework that integrates emotions.


Design/methodology/approach
The paper draws on psychology research on emotions and conflict to develop an emotionally informed framework for analyzing conflict parties' decision-making regarding a settlement. It demonstrates the framework's validity and value through a case study of the 2000 Camp David mediation to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.


Findings
A rationalist approach to mediation does not have adequate explanatory and predictive power theoretically. In practice, it can reduce the prospect of success.


Research limitations/implications
The paper highlights the necessity for mediation researchers to study the effects of emotion, draw on psychology studies on conflict and explore the emotional implications of different mediation strategies and tactics.


Practical implications
The framework highlights the challenge of designing and conducting mediation in a way that cultivates emotions favorable to a settlement and lessens emotions unfavorable to a settlement.


Originality/value
This is the first study, to the best of the authors' knowledge, to critique the rationalist framework of international mediation studies and develop an alternative framework that integrates emotions.

AbstractDoes a mediator's stated approach (Facilitative, Inclusive, Transformative) predict their behavior at the mediation table? This question is explored through analysis of 149 cases from District Court day of trial mediation in four Maryland jurisdictions and 156 Circuit Court Family Division court‐referred custody and visitation mediation cases in three Maryland jurisdictions. Through factor analysis and multiple regression analysis, this research found a mediator's stated approach does not fully predict their behavior at the mediation table, and that some self‐reported approaches are more predictive of certain actual mediator behaviors (e.g., reflecting, eliciting, offering opinions) than others.

AbstractFifty‐nine European American and thirty‐one Asian American neighborhood justice center mediators completed the Conflict Communication Scale. Although previous research had demonstrated ethnic group differences in the conflict‐handling styles of nonmediator samples, no such differences were found in this sample of mediators. Asian American and European American mediators also scored similarly on several items assessing mediator identity salience. These results are discussed in terms of a mediation microculture.

Analyzes possible links in theory and practice.

Recent large-N studies of civil war conclude that inequality does not increase the risk of violent conflict. This article argues that such conclusions may be premature because these studies, which usually test the conflict potential of 'vertical inequality' (i.e. income inequality between individuals), tend to neglect the group aspect of inequality. Case studies suggest that what matters for conflict is a concept closely linked to both economic and ethnic polarization: 'horizontal inequalities', or inequalities that coincide with identity-based cleavages. Horizontal inequalities may enhance both grievances and group cohesion among the relatively deprived and thus facilitate mobilization for conflict. This article provides a quantitative test of this argument, exploring whether various forms of polarization and horizontal inequalities affect the probability of civil conflict onset across 36 developing countries in the period 1986-2004. National household data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) are used to construct measures of ethnic, social and economic polarization, as well as vertical and horizontal inequalities along two dimensions: social and economic. The article also introduces a combined measure of ethnic/socio-economic polarization as an alternative to the horizontal inequality measure. Robust results from panel and cross-section analyses show that social polarization and horizontal social inequality are positively related to conflict outbreak. Variables for purely ethnic polarization, inter-individual inequalities and combined ethnic/socio-economic polarization are not significant. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright 2008.]

AbstractVictim‐offender mediation is no longer simply an experiment but is now established as an important and growing subfield of alternative dispute resolution. Research suggests high levels of client satisfaction and perceptions of fairness with both the process and outcome of mediated victim‐offender conflict. This article examines the extensive development and impact of the field in the United States, describing its historical roots as well as its rationales and program models. Similarities and differences with more common applications of mediation are identified, along with key research findings.

Provided is a conceptual rationale for the potential complementarity of international mediation & third-party consultation within the context of a contingency model. Social conflict is viewed as a dynamic process involving a mix of objective & subjective factors that changes over time, thus creating opportunities for different third-party interventions (TPIs). In the model, the various methods of intervention (eg, conciliation, pure mediation, consultation) are matched to one of four stages of conflict escalation where they are deemed to have the most influence on deescalation. TPIs are sequenced within the model to show how combining different methods might work toward the eventual resolution of the conflict. Within this context, mediation & consultation are seen as having two main points of complementarity: consultation that improves the relationship between the parties can serve a useful prenegotiation function; &, at a higher stage of escalation wherein power mediation, which is deemed useful to control hostility & gain settlement on some substantive issues, is followed by consultation to analyze & deescalate the conflict. The potential of the contingency model is illustrated through reference to the Cyprus conflict. Reasons for the success & failure of different TPIs attempted over a thirty-five year period are identified. It is concluded that the matching & sequencing of different TPIs may be necessary for positive influence, especially in highly escalated & protracted conflict. 2 Tables. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
For decades, the UN has failed to mediate a settlement in Cyprus because of a general and profound weakness: it is unable, outside of unity and resolve in the Security Council, to offer direct incentives to parties in conflict that would shape their calculus towards conflict resolution, or to control the actions of third parties in a way that would incentivize conflict resolution or prevent disincentives. In the resulting vacuum, the prospects for peace settlements come to rest largely on domestic politics within the contesting camps and, sometimes relatedly, on the balance of power between them. In the case of Cyprus, the article claims that these weaknesses on the part of the UN were clearly on display during the negotiation process surrounding the Annan Plan (2001–04) and the resumed process that began in 2008 and ended at Crans-Montana in 2017.

This new textbook provides students with an accessible overview of the logic, evolution, application and outcomes of the five major approaches of the growing field of international conflict management: traditional peacekeepingpeace enforcement and support operationsnegotiation and bargainingmediationadjudication. The book aims to provide the student with a fuller understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of these five techniques within the dynamic context of the contemporary security environment, especially in relation to recent and ongoing case studies of inter-state and intra-state conflict. To demonstrate the changing nature of security in the post-Cold War world, the text contrasts this with competing visions of security during the Cold War and earlier periods, and provides numerous points of comparison with the dominant causes, types, strategy, and prosecution of warfare in other eras. International Conflict Management will be essential reading for all students of conflict management, mediation, peacekeeping, peace and conflict studies, and international security in general. Michael J. Butler is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Government and International Relations at Clark University (USA).