In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

23333333333333 3333333333333333334 chapter three Mediation and International Conflict Resolution 32 When negotiations fail, or for some reason one or both parties in conflict refuse to communicate, states will often seek or accept mediation by an outside person, party, or organization to assist with their conflict resolution efforts. As a method of conflict resolution, the practice of settling disputes through intermediaries has had a rich history in all cultures, both Western and non-Western (Gulliver 1979). In the international arena, with its perennial challenges of escalating conflicts, an anarchical system, the absence of generally accepted “rules of the game,” and an alarming growth in internal and ethnic conflicts, thirdparty mediation is as common as conflict itself. As a form of international conflict resolution, third-party mediation is particularly likely to take place when: (1) conflicts are long, drawn-out, and complex; (2) the parties’ own conflict resolution efforts have reached an impasse; (3) neither side is prepared to countenance further costs or escalation ; and (4) the parties are prepared to cooperate in an attempt to break their stalemate (Bercovitch 1984). Mediation is fast becoming one of the most important methods of resolving international conflicts. Even a cursory survey of recent conflicts reveals the extent, and heterogeneity , of international mediation. In the last decade we have seen the involvement of the United Nations (in the Vietnam-Kampuchea dispute, the Falklands-Malvinas conflict, and the Afghanistan conflict), the pope (in the Beagle Channel dispute), African Union (in the TanzaniaUganda dispute, the South West Africa dispute, and more recently in Zimbabwe), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in the Ivory Coast dispute, the Swiss-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (in Aceh), the Organization of American States (in the Nicaragua dispute), the Arab League and the Islamic Conference (in the Iran-Iraq dispute), small states (Algeria’s role in the U.S.-Iran hostage crisis, Norway in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), and powerful states (numerous efforts by Condoleezza Rice in the Middle East). Systematic empirical studies suggest that mediation is used in about 70 percent of all conflicts and achieves some success in 34 percent of the cases (see Bercovitch and Gartner 2008). Less formal (e.g., Quakers’ mediation) or institutionalized (e.g., mediation by individuals) mediation of international conflicts occurs on a daily basis. Whichever way we look at it, mediation has been, and remains, a central feature of interstate relations. The challenges of the post–Cold War era, with its increased instability, sudden change in many of the accepted rules of the game, growing economic disparity and resource scarcity, the proliferation of intense ethnic and other identity-based conflicts, and the threats posed by different forms of terrorism, will no doubt require us to use mediation even more frequently than in the past. Mediation may be the closest thing we have to an effective technique for dealing with the complex, difficult, and asymmetric conflicts in the twenty-first century. It is suited to a heterogeneous environment, multiple actors, wide disparities, and insistence on some mythical equality and formalized rules of interaction. For this reason alone, it is essential that we study mediation seriously and systematically. In an increasingly interdependent world, conflicts affect us all; their proper resolution belongs to us all. Mediation and International Conflict Resolution 33 33333333 A Conceptual Framework for Mediation For many years, the study of mediation has suffered from conceptual imprecision and a startling lack of information . Practitioners of mediation, formal or informal, in the domestic or international arena were keen to sustain its image as a mysterious practice, akin to some art form, taking place behind closed doors. On the other hand, scholars of mediation did not think their field of study was susceptible to a systematic analysis. In short, neither group believed that it could discern any pattern of behavior in the various forms of mediation, or that any generalizations could be made about the practice in general. Descriptive and ideographic approaches only characterized the approach to mediation. The study of mediation in international relations and the development of a theory of mediation have been beset by two major problems: first, the difficulty of defining the subject matter; and second, the absence of empirically oriented studies. Both these matters need to be addressed if a conceptual framework is to be developed and the gaps in our knowledge closed. Mediation is the most common form of third-party intervention. However, it is not a discrete activity but rather a continuous process. It falls somewhere on...

Share