Module 10 - Conflict mediation
Conflict mediation
Source: Istock by Getty Images
Introduction: Defining Mediation
The concept of meditation does not have a unique definition. However, it is generally considered as a means to end armed conflicts. Our preferred definition is the one by Bercovitch, Anagnosson & Wille, which states that mediation is "a process of conflict management, related to but distinct from the parties’ own efforts, whereby the disputing parties […] 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.”[1]
Keywords: conflict management, mediation, third party involvement, voluntary process, effectiveness.
Answers of the students to the following questions: What does mediation mean? Can you agree on some characteristics?
Groups | Characteristics of mediation |
Subgroup 1 | Building compromises between parties - done by a third party, neutral, actor - avoiding escalation of the conflict - method to open room for conversation - part of peace building process - equalising the conflict parties - issuing the problem (talk about what’s wrong) |
Subgroup 2 | - concrete effort to compromise with a mediator as a third party (the mediator leads the negotiations) |
Subgroup 3 | process of getting people around a table, voluntarily, non-violent, “neutral” mediator (recognised by all conflict parties), aim: end of violence, Mediator as conflict party |
Subgroup 4 | mediation is very context-dependent, varies characteristics: inclusion of independent actor (but is there ever an actor who is truly independent?); conflict parties must be willing to participate in the mediation; proportionate representation of all actors → letting everyone voice their interests and opinions mediation is not the only part of conflict solving, must be accompanied by peace/economy building. |
Key elements of mediation
- Involvement of a third party: this is the key element that differentiates mediation from negotiations, where the discussion is focused solely on a bilateral leadership dialogue. This third party is an "outside" actor, which means it is not directly involved in the conflict, but it still can have a specific interest in the conflict. However, this third party "does not have authority to impose an outcome".[2] The main task of the "outside" actor is to "help the parties find a solution that they cannot find by themselves". [3]
- Voluntary process: "in which the parties retain control over the outcome, although it may include positive and negative inducements"[4], which is called mediation with muscle. What is important here, is that the participants are free to enter or leave the mediation process as they wish.
- Non-violent: since the goal is to avoid conflict, mediation is in itself a pacific tool. Mediation, therefore, resorts to reason and logic and, ultimately, by appealing to the common wishes to end violence and prevent its recurrence. However, coercion can be part of it.
- The Outcome is not a legal judgment: mediation is consent-based and its aim is to find an agreement and compromise between the parties. In this element lies the difference between arbitration and mediation.
Strategies in mediation
Just as the definitions for mediations are diverse the strategies are as well. Some scholars even contradict each other or on the contrary build on the strategies developed by other scholars. For example, Touval & Zartman [5] and Bercovitch [6] define three types of mediation: formulative, facilitative, and manipulative. These three types were then analysed and organised chronologically by DeRouen & Bercovitch [7] in the case of civil war, where mediation is first formulative then facilitative and is less often manipulative. They found that facilitative and formulative strategies are more useful in territorial wars.[8]
Furthermore, Gurses, Rost & McLeod [9] consider superpower mediation to have an increasing effect on the probability of renewed fighting, which defeats the purpose of a longer-lasting peace through mediation. In the same direction, Bercovitch & Gartner[10] differentiate between high- and low-intensity conflicts where procedural strategies seem more optimal.
To conclude, it seems as if different strategies are more effective than others according to the different phases of a conflict.
Mediation effectiveness
- Conflict settlement: (1) full settlement, a (2) partial settlement, (3) a cease-fire agreement, or (4) no settlement.
- Reduction of violence in conflict: can be measured for example through conflict-related deaths.
- Long-term perspective: which analyses the durability of settlements through the potential of conflict transformation. Here the question is to know if the relationship between the parties has been transformed.
Mediation: an effective instrument?
Again, the findings on the effectiveness of mediation do not encompass a clear answer. Scholars are divided on the question:
- Mediation improves significantly the likelihood of conflict settlement in international crises and civil wars.[12]
- However: Mediation fails more often than it succeeds in terms of conflict settlement. 30 to 40% of mediations fail to come to an agreement and when an agreement is settled only 5 to 15% of these agreements include a full settlement. [13]
- Mediation increases the likelihood of a reduction of conflict intensity, thus having a stabilising effect on a conflict.[14]
- However: mediation reduces the intensity of ongoing fighting only in negotiations where the core conflict issues are being discussed.
- Conflict intensity decreases the chances of mediation effectiveness
- Manipulative strategies:
- Finally, there are debates on whether mediators are more effective when biased or when unbiased.[21]
Conclusion
To conclude we can quote Bercovitch & Houston[22]:
"Mediation is not a linear cause-and-effect interaction; it is a reciprocal process. It influences, and is, in turn, influences and responsive to the context and the environment of the conflict."
For a more complete course on conflict mediation, here is Julian Bergmann's video on International mediation - An overview on effectiveness and its conditions
Dr. Julian Bergmann is a senior researcher at the German Development Institute in the programme on "Inter- and Transnational Cooperation". His fields of expertise include crisis prevention, conflict management and conflict mediation. His PhD thesis, defended in 2017, dealt with "Bargaining for Peace, Striving for Stability. A Study on the European Union's Effectiveness as International Mediator". In 2020 he published a monograph about "the European Union as International Mediator".
Here you can listen to the podcast made by the students on conflict mediation and more precisely on the UN mediation attempt in Yemen.
Summary Podcast
The podcast discusses the UN mediation attempt in Yemen. It starts with an analysis of the initiative of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) launched by Saudia Arabia in March 2011. Saudia Arabia was particularly concerned about the political stability of Yemen because of the protests, which arose against former president Saleh in the context of the Arab Spring. The situation in Yemen is also fragilised by different internal actors, especially the Houthis and The Southern Movement, who felt excluded by the government in the process of the GCC. In November 2011, the GCC proposed a roadmap that foresaw a stabilisation of the internal political situation in Yemen. The roadmap proposed a power transfer from president Saleh to vice president Hadi. Furthermore, it highlights three main pillars: First the establishment of Transitional Justice, second reforming the security sector, and third a National Dialogue Conference (NDC). Finally, the mediation process in the National Dialogue Conference (NDC) failed for four main reasons: the lack of inclusiveness, an unrealistic time frame, the sabotage of the process by the elite and patronage networks prevented reform efforts. The podcast illustrates all four points as well as the engagement of external actors in Yemen over time, which complicated the Yemeni case to a point at which mediation failed until today.
Bercovitch, Jacob; J Theodore Anagnoson & Donnette L Wille (1991): Some conceptual issues and empirical trends in the study of successful mediation in international relations. Journal of Peace Research 28(1): 7–17.
Touval, Saadia & I William Zartman (1985): Introduction: Mediation in theory. In: Saadia Touval & I William Zartman (eds) International Mediation in Theory and Practice. Boulder, CO: Westview, 7–17.
Bercovitch, Jacob (1992): The structure and diversity of mediation in international relations. In: Jacob Bercovitch & Jeffrey Z Rubin (eds) Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management. New York: St Martin’s, 1–29.
DeRouen, Karl R & Jacob Bercovitch (2012): Trends in civil war mediation. In: Joseph J Hewitt, Jonathan Wilkenfeld & Ted Robert Gurr (eds) Peace and Conflict 2012. Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 59–70.
Möller, Frida; Karl R DeRouen, Jacob Bercovitch & Peter Wallensten (2011): The limits of peace: Third parties in civil wars in Southeast Asia, 1993–2004. In: Jacob Bercovitch & Karl R DeRouen (eds) Unraveling Internal Conflicts in East Asia and the Pacific: Incidence, Consequences, and Resolutions. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 47–65.
Gurses, Mehmet; Nicolas Rost & Patrick McLeod (2008): Mediating civil war settlements and the duration of peace. International Interactions 34(2): 129–155. Miall, Hugh; Oliver Ramsbotham & Tom Woodhouse (1999): Contemporary Conflict Resolution. Cambridge: Polity.
Bercovitch, Jacob & Scott Sigmund Gartner (2006): Is there method in the madness of mediation? Some lessons for mediators from quantitative studies of mediation. International Interactions 32(4): 329–354.
Wallensteen, P. and Svensson, I. (2014): Talking peace: International mediation in armed conflicts, Journal of Peace Research 51(2): 315-27.
Bercovitch, J & Houston A. (2000): Why Do They Do It Like This?, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44:2, 170-202.