Prolonged geo-political conflicts are not new in international relations. International Relations as a subject discipline has been testimony to disputes like Russia -Ukraine & Israel- Palestine. What is worrying is that the extant situation has lent the impression that peace resolution mechanisms & specifically, mediation have turned obsolete. Considering this, the blog attempts to demystify such surmises & provide a bird's-eye-view of present reality which will help to decipher whether mediation is relevant or redundant.
International Relations & International Conflict: Perplexing Nexus
For laymen, international relations refer to the relationships among the world’s governments. However, the active involvement of notions from law, economics, history, etc. accentuates the multidisciplinary nature of IR, rendering the solitary analytical evaluation of IR redundant. Thus, the modern picture of IR can be defined as the study of relationships & interactions between nation-states, notwithstanding the activities & policies of governments International Organizations, Non-governmental Organizations & Multinational corporations. However, unlike natural sciences, no definition with clear-cut contours can be advanced.
For realists, international order is an anarchic international system where states are the only solitary actors. The non-existence of a centrally authoritative body nudges nations to pursue their national interests, thereby simmering international conflicts. In the IR, international conflict can be termed a situation wherein two or more states have serious disagreements or disputes that could lead to war.
Mediation at the International Level: Legal Relevance
Article 2(3) of the UN charter asks member states to resolve the dispute without jeopardizing international peace & security. Not only does the preamble assert that the UN is steadfast in its commitment to preserving international peace & order, but also Chapter VI of the UN charter elucidates the mechanism to resolve such disputes peacefully. Article 33 of the UN Charter cajoles parties to settle any dispute/conflict which may endanger international peace & security through peaceful means like negotiation, mediation, enquiry, judicial settlement, arbitration, etc. Thus, the inculcation of mediation within the folds of peaceful dispute settlement mechanisms has lent credence to mediation's pivotal importance in conflict resolution.
Mediation: Etymological Dissection
Etymologically, mediation springs from the Latin root word ‘Mediare’ which means to halve/ intervene. Many scholars have attempted to define mediation but providing a precise definition with universal applicability is an uphill task. Some scholars focus on the role of mediators, while some zero in the attention on the outcome. The process constitutes the bedrock for some definitions whereas some definitions pay heed to attributes like neutrality & impartiality. The gargantuan volume of such definitions only accentuates the enormous scope of mediation.
United Nations' definition of mediation also shares a thread of resemblance with Berkovitch’s definition. It says that mediation is a process by which 3rd party assists 2 or more parties, with their consent, to prevent, manage, or resolve a conflict by helping them to develop mutually acceptable agreements. In simple words, mediation is the process wherein the help of an outsider to the conflict is availed to avert the conflict from escalating.
Mediation: When, Why & How?
The application of mediation based on stages of conflict is sub-categorized into 3 stages namely getting to the table, getting to an agreement & implementing the agreement. Parties to dispute usually resort to mediation when there is a deadlock or stalemate. In other words, the failure of the parties to clinch the intended results in a time-bound manner usually leads to the re-evaluation of its plan of action. Despite hurting stalemate, parties may be hesitant to pursue mediation due to the construct of a ‘bargainers' dilemma’ which can be perceived as the acknowledgement of weakness. On many occasions, parties despite their reluctance may not only pursue mediation but also accept the outcome due to the involvement of ‘mediators with muscles.’ On many occasions, parties resort to mediation to get the breathing space for further mobilization.
The answer to ‘When’ in mediation however is not that straightforward. It has been contended that the efficacy of mediation is at its acme during the early or late stage of conflict. On the contrary intervention in the middle of a conflict may aggravate the conflict due to the curvilinear relationship between the mediation timing & its impact.
Berkovitch considered the operationality of mediation on an ad hoc basis. This ad hoc mechanism answers the question of ‘How’ which was further elucidated by Fisher. He segregated this ad hoc apparatus into conciliation, consultation, pure mediation & power mediation based on 3rd party intervention & strategies deployed by them. Conciliation primarily focuses on establishing communication channels. The role of 3rd party is minimal once the parties are at the table. This mechanism can be equated to the UN concept of Good Offices, which can also be labelled as light mediation. The role of the San’Edigido community as a forum for the deliberation between the Mozambican Government & RENAMO is an epitome of such light mediation which culminated in the 1992 Rome General Peace Accords. Consultation signifies a deeper involvement of 3rd party in dispute settlement than that of light mediation. Pure mediation accentuates the substantive involvement of 3rd party wherein the mediator's responsibility extensively encompasses the aspect of innovativeness.
Involvement of 3rd party is at its zenith in the power mediation. The policy of carrot & stick aptly summarises power mediation which can also be referred to as heavy mediation or manipulation. Assurance of a large amount of aid to Israel & Egypt whereas the threats of reinvigorated NATO bombing of Serbian forces exemplify both positive & negative connotations of power mediation. This eventually led to the Camp David Accord in the former case & the Dayton Accords in the latter.
Sine Qua Non of Successful International Mediation:
There is a palpable void of consensus regarding what can be considered a successful mediation. For ex. Berkovitch proposed twin pair criteria of subjectivity & objectivity to gauge the performance of mediation whereas for Susskind & Babbit, cessation of violence was sufficient to consider mediation a success. R. Hass identified mutual desire & willingness as a prerequisite for successful mediation while scholars like Hampson & Rubin accentuated/highlighted the role & skills of 3rd party.
Between 1945-89, nearly 56% of international disputes were referred to mediation with only 5% of mediation efforts fructified into the full settlement. However, one needs to keep in mind that the Oslo Accords could fructify only because mediators & parties did not abandon their efforts after the failed Madrid Peace Conference of 1991. Thus, construing mediation in a strict binary notion of success & failure is nothing but chasing a wild goose.
International Mediation & the Variable Analysis:
The major equivocal variable that vacillates the notion of mediation- ‘Duration.’ The Oslo Accord between PLO & Israel can be assumed as a successful mediation until the 2nd intifada. The current context however has laid bare the futility of the Oslo Accords. Suppose we devote our attention to the participant's perspective. In that case, the Oslo Accords can be considered a debacle in the long term. In contrast, on the other hand from the mediator's viewpoint, the Oslo Accords should not be scrapped as an absolute failure because they not only brought parties to the table but also convinced parties to sign the agreement. Now as per the stage-based application of mediation, the mediator here did complete 2 quests except agreement Implementation.
This approach has put the ball again in the court of the disputants as the ultimate responsibility of ensuring the peace lies on the parties themselves. The concept of ‘Spoilers’ grows manifold in this context, due to their proclivity in derailing the implementation of the peace agreement. For ex. in the Lebanese Civil War, drug cartels, smuggling & extortion rackets had little incentive in the peace settlement.
Another important factor that affects mediation is ‘Power Dynamics.’ The greater the power disparity is, the lesser the scope for the mediation. Major powers see little incentive to resort to mediation as any 3rd party intervention is construed as a problem rather than a solution. This hypothesis gets validated when we analyse conflicts like the Spratly Island dispute (Philippines – China), the Vietnam Clashes (Vietnam -China), Panama invasion (Panama- USA) which involved major powers that were not referred to the mediation. On the contrary small power differences between the adversaries mean that there will be greater odds of successful mediation. For example, the resolution of the Beagle Channel dispute led to the signing of the Treaty of Peace & Friendship in 1984 where we cannot eschew the approximate power parity between 2 disputants – namely Argentina & Chile.
The outcome of mediation also hinges on mutually aggregable mediators as in the case of India Pakistan dispute of the 1960s in which the Soviet Union emerged as the least unattractive option when compared with the USA & UK due to concerns like strained diplomatic relations & partiality etc.
Conclusions:
Mediation is no magic pill to any international conflict as significant variables affect the mediation mechanism. Despite the presence of any other favourable variable, the success of mediation is largely contingent on the ‘Party willingness.’
Gauging the performance of mediation is a time-specific endeavour as both short-term & long-term results are extremely fickle & volatile. With regards to the assumption that ongoing geo-political conflicts have turned mediation redundant & obsolete is nothing more than a sweeping generalisation, fixated on the ambiguous notion of the Success-Failure criterion. Extant conflicts nonetheless have raised legitimate questions about the efficacy of mediation. However, the same questions have assailed every other dispute resolution mechanism.
To conclude, what Meyers quoted roughly 50 years ago still succinctly describes the present situation, “The task of mediation & mediator isn’t easy one. The sea he sails is only roughed charted & its changing contours aren’t discernible……... he is the solitary artist recognizing few guiding stars & is dependent upon his personal powers of divination”.
References:
R. H. Jackson & G. Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations-Theories & Approaches (5th ed., Oxford University Press, 2013)
G. Goertz, P. F. Diehl & A. Balas, The Puzzle of the Peace – the Evolution of Peace in the International System (Oxford University Press,2016).
United Nations Charter Art.2(3), June 26,1945,59 Stat.1031, T.S No. 993, 1 U.N.T.S. 3
J.A. Wall, Jr. & Ann Lynn, Mediation- Current Overview, Vol.37 (1), Journal of Conflict Resolution, pp 160-194(1993)
I. Sargsyan, International Mediation in Theory & Practice: Lessons of Nagorno-Karabakh (The Armenian Center for National & Mediation Studies, 2003).
United Nations Peacemaker, United Nations Guidance for Effective Mediation, U.N. Doc. A/66/811(2012)
William Zartman, Peace-making in International Conflict -Methods & Techniques (Revised ed., US Institute of Peace Press, 2007)
B.F. Walter, Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars (Princeton University Press, 2002).
O . Richmond, Devious Objectives & the Disputants’ View of International Mediation - A Theoretical Framework, Vol. 35(6), Journal of Peace Research, pp 707-722(1998).
J.M. Greig, Moments of Opportunity: Recognizing Conditions of Ripeness for International Mediation between Enduring Rivals, Vol. 45(6), Journal of Conflict Resolution, pp 691-718(2001).
R. Fisher, Assessing the Contingency Model of 3rd Party Intervention in Successful Cases of Pre negotiation, Vol.44(3), Journal of Peace Research 2007, pp 311-329(2007).
D. Prutt, The Tactics of Third-Party Intervention, Vol. 44(2), Orbis, pp 245-250(2000).
W. Arif Raharjo, Ethical Issues in Religiously Affiliated: Sant ’Egidio’s Mediation in Mozambique & Algeria, Vol. 1(2), Politics & Humanism, pp 52-65(2022)
I. W. Zhartman, Negotiation & Conflict Management- Essays on Theory & Practice (1st ed., Routledge, 2008).
J. Berkovitch & J.Z. Rubin, Mediation in International Relations - Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management (Palgrave Macmillan, 1992).
J. T. Anangnoson, D.L. Wille & J. Berkowitch, Some Conceptual Issues & Empirical Trends in the Study of Successful Mediation in International Relations, Vol. 28(1), Journal of Peace Research, pp 7-17(1991)
W. Dixon, Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict, Vol. 88(1), American Political Science Review, pp 14-32(1994).
A. Wennnmann, Getting Armed Groups to the Table: Peace Processes, the Political Economy of Conflict & the Mediated State, Vol. 30(6), Third World Quarterly, pp 1123-1138(2009)
James L. Garrett, The Beagle Channel Dispute: Confrontation & Negotiation in the Southern Cone, Vol.27(3), Journal of Interamerican Studies & World Affairs, pp 81-109(1985)
W. Dixon, Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict, Vol. 88(1), American Political Science Review, pp 14-32(1994)
A. S. Meyer, Function of the Mediator in Collective Bargaining, Vol.13(2), ILR Review, pp 159-165(1960).
About the Author
Vedant Nandkumar Wadshingkar is third-year student of law in a 5-year law course at Government Law College, Mumbai.
Very Insightful!
Great post! , clearly explains the challenges and importance of international mediation in resolving conflicts.