what kind of approach have many schools embraced to mediate conflicts?

By
Jacob Bercovitch

Jan 2004

Intractable conflicts accept been with usa for quite some time at present. Equally these conflicts pose a serious threat to international peace and security, we may look at them and ask two basic questions; (1) how and why do they start, and (ii) how best to end them? Here, I am concerned with the second issue. Intractable conflicts provide many opportunities for conflict management. Numerous international actors, ranging from individual individuals to international organizations have an interest in settling or helping to de-escalate intractable conflicts. The main argument I wish to advance is that of all these efforts, arbitration offers the most promising arroyo to managing intractable conflicts.

How tin parties in an intractable conflict manage their difficulties? Parties in such conflicts commonly call back of violence or coercion as the most advisable response. Other methods may be bachelor to the parties (e.thousand. negotiation, recourse to the Un, or regional organizations, international adjudication, or asking for an international conference). However, given the nature of their conflict, and entrenched hostility, information technology would appear that the best arroyo would be that of mediation.

What Mediation Is

William Ury explains that the third side is a self-organizing social movement that works at all levels of the society from the grassroots to the elite. Outsiders can assist go the movement started and can requite it support, but basically the work is washed from within.

Arbitration is a procedure of conflict management, related to just distinct from the parties' ain negotiations, where those in disharmonize seek the assistance of, or accept an offer of help from, an outsider (whether an individual, an organisation, a group, or a land) to modify their perceptions or beliefs, and to do so without resorting to concrete force or invoking the authority of law. The essential characteristics of arbitration are highlighted below:

1. Mediation is an extension of the parties' ain efforts to manage their conflict. Where they fail, a third political party (mediator) is chosen in.
2. Thus, mediation involves the intervention of an outsider; an individual, a group or an organization into a conflict betwixt two states or other actors.
3. This intervention is non-coercive, non-violent, and ultimately non-binding.
4. Mediators enter a disharmonize, whether internal or international, in society to affect it, change information technology, resolve it, alter or influence it in some way. Their overriding interest is to reduce violence and accomplish a peaceful outcome.
5. Mediators bring with them, consciously or otherwise, ideas, cognition, resources, and prestige. These are used throughout the process to accelerate the crusade of conflict resolution.
6. Arbitration is a voluntary course of conflict direction. This ways the adversaries in an intractable conflict choose whether to begin or continue arbitration or not, and they retain their control over the result (if not always over the process) of their conflict, too as their freedom to accept or reject any aspects of the process or the ultimate agreement.
7. Mediation operates on an ad hoc basis only. In one case completed, a mediator departs the arena of the disharmonize.

All these features make mediation very attractive to parties in an intractable disharmonize.

Mediation is proficient widely in international relations. It has many advantages that may appeal to parties in a bitter conflict. As described to a higher place, it is ad hoc in nature, non-coercive, and voluntary, which makes it less threatening than other possible disharmonize direction options. Information technology is non-evaluative and non-judgmental and it is peculiarly suited to the reality of international relations, where states and other actors guard their autonomy and independence quite jealously. It offers both parties the prospects of a better outcome without necessarily having any straight meetings with a sworn enemy. It is besides a process that leaves the ultimate decision on whatever effect to the parties themselves. These aspects of mediation go far a very attractive method for dealing with intractable conflicts

Arbitration Behavior

What is it that mediators can really practise in intractable conflicts? Mediators have many resources, strategies and techniques available to them for trying to transform an intractable conflict into a tractable one. Specifically, mediators may apply ane of the post-obit three strategies in the course of helping to deal with an intractable conflict. They may rely on (a) advice-facilitation strategies, (b) procedural strategies, or (c) directive strategies.

(a) Communication-facilitation strategies describe mediator beliefs at the low end of the intervention spectrum. Here a mediator typically adopts a fairly passive part, channeling information to the parties, facilitating cooperation, but exhibiting petty control over the more formal process or substance of mediation. This is a very important role in the context of intractable conflicts, where parties in conflict lack direct channels of communication, have different conceptions of the central issues, and/or exercise not even have the opportunity to explore whatsoever options that might benefit both. In such situations, a mediator who tin facilitate dialogue and advice, and just comport out information from one to the other, is a prerequisite for an effective procedure of peacemaking. Norway'south intervention in bringing almost the Oslo Accords in 1993 is a good case of what we mean past advice-facilitation strategies.

(b) Procedural strategies enable a mediator to bring both parties together, in some neutral environs, where they (i.e., the mediator) exert some control over the disharmonize management process. Here a mediator may practice command over timing, issues on the agenda, meeting place and arrangements, media publicity, the distribution of information, and the formality or flexibility of the meetings. A skillful instance of the constructive use of procedural strategies is President Carter'southward command over all aspects of the physical setting at Military camp David in 1978.

Procedural strategies give a mediator the opportunity to control aspects of interaction. This is very significant for parties in an intractable conflict who may not have had an opportunity to interact together in whatsoever other place save the battlefield. Procedural strategies help to minimize stress and disruption that arise when ii or more than conflictual parties who have little history of peacemaking get together to bargain with their intractable conflict.

(c) Directive strategies are the most powerful class of intervention. Hither a mediator works hard to shape the content and nature of a final upshot. This is done by offer each party in conflict incentives, promises of support, or threats of diplomatic sanctions. When a mediator engages in such behavior, the parties are confronted with new resource or the prospect of losing resource. This may change the value they adhere to their conflict and produce beliefs that is more consonant with the requirements of disharmonize resolution.

Directive strategies are crucial in whatever intractable conflict. They allow a mediator to break through a cycle of violence by changing the factors influencing the parties' determination making. By making financial or diplomatic back up contingent on co-functioning, people who are otherwise opposed to settlement might be persuaded to agree to one. President Carter, for instance, was able to break through both Israeli and Egyptian intransigence at Camp David past promising them both $2 billion each if they would sign a ceasefire agreement. Directive strategies take the course of promises of rewards or threats of withdrawals, if certain agreements are not made or deportment are not taken. In either case they are pregnant in getting parties in an intractable disharmonize to alter their values and behavior.

Who are the Mediators?

Given the complication of intractable conflicts, the level of violence associated with them, and the dangers they pose, information technology is remarkable that so many political actors are prepared to intervene in these conflicts to transform them, settle them, or just to ensure they exercise non go even more than dangerous. It is useful to think of all potential mediators in intractable conflicts equally falling into 1 of the following three categories.

1. Individuals. The traditional image of mediation, 1 nurtured by the media and popular accounts, is that of a single, normally high-ranking, individual, shuttling from one place to some other, trying to search for understanding, restore communication, or help settle their disharmonize. This image is but partly authentic. In many instances, a mediator is an individual who does not have an official function, or who does non represent his/her country in any capacity. People such as Roger Fisher, Adam Curle, Herb Kelman, Leonard Doob, Jimmy Carter, and other members of the International Negotiation Network at the Carter Heart intervene in conflicts in dissimilar parts of the world as respected persons with a strong commitment to disharmonize resolution. They do not do then equally government officials.

Individual mediators may hold different beliefs, values, and attitudes, and their mediation strategies may exhibit greater flexibility than official country mediators. What they all have in common is knowledge, experience, and commitment to peaceful conflict resolution. Such mediation is commonly carried on without the glare of publicity, and permits the parties to engage in some meaningful dialogue should they choose to. Equally individuals, mediators do not possess meaning resources; their behavior is of necessity limited merely to communication and facilitation strategies.

two. States. Today in that location are 198 sovereign and legally equal states, but with different capabilities, regime-structures, and interests, which collaborate on the international arena. They are major actors in mediation, and frequently observe themselves having to mediate an intractable disharmonize that may otherwise threaten their own interests. States, both large and small-scale, frequently have reason or motive to mediate in conflicts, specially when these are in their region or where they may take some interests to promote or protect. Whether it is the U.s., Switzerland, Norway, or People's democratic republic of algeria, states find themselves very often at the forefront of mediation activities.

When a country mediates an intractable disharmonize, information technology does so because it feels the conflict is a genuine threat to international peace and regional stability. When this happens, the state concerned, through its official representatives, may marshal all necessary resources backside a mediation attempt and give it all the necessary clout. Unlike other mediators, states accept considerable tangible resources, means of mobilizing them, and leaders with a mandate to use these resource. States that become engaged as mediators in an intractable conflict may find that they have to use all their resources in club to facilitate an agreement.

3. Institutions and Organizations. The complexity of intractable conflicts is such that states can no longer meet all the mediation requirements, nor facilitate a settlement when conflicts are long, fatigued out, and intense. Other bodies and organizations are coming in to offering and deliver different mediation services. Nosotros take witnessed a astounding growth in the number of international, transnational and other non-state actors as mediators in the final decade or so. These functional actors, many of them falling under the multi-track umbrella, or track Ii diplomacy, have become an indispensable adjunct to traditional mediation by individuals and states.

Two kinds of actors are of import here. They are: (a) specialized non-governmental actors committed to conflict resolution (such every bit Immunity International, International Alert, the Carter Heart), and (b) a wide variety of religious (the Quakers, Islamic Briefing Organisation, the Community of Sante Egidio) and civic and humanitarian organizations (The International Committee of the Red Cross, Heart for Humanitarian Mediation, Oxfam) whose main business is to heal, to deal with some of the basic bug in conflict, and achieve reconciliation, and changed attitudes, non just settlement of a conflict.

All these actors have some decided advantages in intractable conflicts; they operate informally and secretly, thus the parties need fear no loss of face. They offer services that other mediators cannot offer, and they may detect it easier to gain access to the parties where formal diplomats may exist viewed with suspicion if not downright hostility. Such actors tin can be less inhibited in their arroyo to a conflict, and can afford the luxury of appealing to the parties past promising them to work on all levels of their conflict and to achieve a long lasting solution to their problems.

The United nations--and other international organizations-- besides provide mediation. United nations Political Affairs Officer, Nita Yawanarajah, provides a description of United nations mediation below:

In the United Nations, the act of arbitration describes the political skills utilized in efforts carried out by the United nations Secretary-General or his representatives, through the exercise of the Secretary Full general's "Good Offices," without the employ of forcefulness and in keeping with the principles of the United nations Charter. The United nations mediator engages in a process equally a third party, when those in conflict either seek or accept the assistance of the United nations with the aim to prevent, manage or resolve a disharmonize. Mediation skills, therefore, could be employed in all of the following contexts:

• prior to conflict through preventive diplomacy;
• during a conflict through peacemaking activities;
• after a disharmonize to promote implementation modalities and agreements
• during peacebuilding efforts to consolidate peace and lay the foundation for sustainable development.

A United nations mediation mandate, however, is more specifically defined. When the United Nations is called upon to mediate a resolution to a disharmonize, the parties take what is called a mediation mandate. This means that they accept that the UN mediator is there to help and provide them them find solutions to resolve their conflict. A Un mediation mandate provides the authority for the Secretary-Full general or his envoys to:

• meet and listen to all parties to the conflict;
• consult all relevant parties for the resolution of the conflict;
• advise ideas and solutions to facilitate the resolution to the conflict

While the final consequence has to exist agreed to past the parties, existence a mediator entails a much greater responsibleness and involvement in the outcome of the conflict.

As in other mediations, a United Nations mediated outcome is not binding, unless the Security Quango takes actions to enforce the agreement. Final implementation of the mediated agreement rests upon the commitment of the parties.

A United Nations arbitration mandate is peculiarly useful to the parties as information technology gives them the opportunity to avail themselves of the experience and best practices that the United Nations ,as an organisation, has gained in the field of disharmonize resolution.

--Nita Yawanarajah, Project Director, UN Peacemaker Databank, Policy Planning Unit, Section of Political Affairs, Un

Conditions for Successful Mediations in Intractable Conflicts

Mediation is an effective and useful way of dealing with intractable conflicts. This is not to advise that every intractable conflict can be mediated. Many conflicts are merely also intense, the parties also entrenched and the behaviour just likewise violent for whatsoever mediator to achieve very much. Some intractable conflicts go on and on with fiddling signs of abatement. They terminate to become intractable only when there is a major systemic change (east.grand. change of leaders, collapse of country, etc.). How then can we distinguish between conflicts that can be mediated and those that cannot? When should mediators enter an intractable conflict, and how can they increase their chances of success?

1. Mediators can engage in an intractable conflict only after a thorough and consummate assay of the conflict, issues at stake, context and dynamics, parties' grievances, etc. Intractable conflicts are complex and multi-layered. A mediation initiative is more probable to be successful if it is predicated on knowledge and understanding rather than on skilful intentions only. A good assay and a thorough understanding of all aspects of the conflict are important prerequisites for successful mediation in intractable conflicts.

ii. Mediation must take identify at an optimal or ripe moment. Early on arbitration may be premature and tardily mediation may face besides many obstacles. A ripe moment describes a phase in the life cycle of the disharmonize where the parties feel wearied and hurt, or where they may not wish to countenance any farther losses and are prepared to commit to a settlement, or at least believe one to be possible. In subversive and escalating conflicts, mediation can take whatsoever chance of success only if it tin can capture a particular moment when the adversaries, for a variety of reasons, appear well-nigh acquiescent to modify. Timing of intervention in an intractable conflict is an issue of crucial importance, and ane that must be properly assessed by whatever would be mediator.

3. Given the nature and complication of intractable conflicts, successful mediation requires a co-ordinated approach between different aspects of intervention. Mediation here requires leverage and resources to nudge the parties toward a settlement, simply as well acute psychological understanding of the parties' feelings and grievances. The kind of mediation we are talking most here is arbitration that is embedded in various disciplinary frameworks, ranging from trouble-solving workshops to more traditional diplomatic methods. No one aspect or form of behavior volition suffice to plough an intractable conflict around. Diverse and complementary methods, an interdisciplinary focus, and a full range of intervention methods responding to the many concerns and fears of the adversaries, are required to attain some accommodation between parties in an intractable conflict.

iv. Mediating intractable conflicts require commitment, resources, persistence, and experience. Mediators of loftier rank or prestige are more likely to possess these attributes and thus are more likely to be successful in intractable conflicts. Such mediators have the capacity to appeal straight to the domestic constituency and build up support for some peace understanding. Influential, loftier ranking or prestigious mediators accept more at pale, can marshal more resources, have better information, and can devote more time to an intractable conflict. Such mediators can work toward achieving some visible signs of progress in the brusk term, and identify steps that need to exist taken to deal with the issues of a longer term peace objectives. Influential mediators can piece of work ameliorate within the constraints of intractable conflicts, and more than likely to arm-twist accommodative responses from the adversaries.

5. Mediation in intractable conflicts is more likely to be successful when at that place are recognizable leaders within each party, where the leaders are accustomed as legitimate by all concerned, and where they have considerable command over their territory. An intractable conflict between parties with competing leaders and constituents (e.thou. Northern Ireland) tin can prove very difficult to deal with. Where there are recognizable leaders, each from the mainstream of their respective customs, and where each embodies the aspirations and expectations of their corresponding community, provides mediators with individuals who may have a serious impact on official affairs. Where in that location are competing leadership factions, state institutions, and governance capacity are all too uncertain, and the chances of successful mediation decline sharply.

vi. Arbitration in intractable conflicts is more likely to be effective if there are no sections in each community committed to the continuation of violence. Such parties are usually described equally spoilers. Spoilers in such a context have much to lose from a peaceful outcome and much to gain from the continuation of violence. Their presence and activities institute a major obstacle to any arbitration try.

7. Where an intractable conflict involves a major power, or major powers have interests (vital or otherwise) at stake, information technology is very unlikely that arbitration volition exist attempted, and if attempted, very unlikely that it will succeed. The involvement of major powers in any capacity in an intractable conflict poses likewise serious a constraint on any mediation effort. A major power interest in an intractable disharmonize provides a clear indication of the difficulty of initiating whatever form of mediation.

All these factors provide some guidance on when mediation might make a contribution to intractable conflicts, and when this will be extremely difficult. Surely other factors are nowadays likewise, factors such as delivery to mediation and willingness to achieve a suitable effect, desire to cease a bicycle of violence, etc. These may be hard to place and appraise, but their presence or absence will surely affect the process and outcome of whatsoever mediation effort.

Determination

Intractable conflicts are driven by antagonists with a potent sense of identity, grievance of some sort (economical or political), and a desire to use violence to change the condition quo. In places as diverse equally Israel, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Congo, Cyprus, Korea, Kashmir, and many others, intractable conflicts are responsible for continued violence and loss of lives. These conflicts threaten regional guild and international stability. Information technology is hard to exit of an intractable situation. Hard, but not impossible. At that place is nothing pre-ordained about the path of whatever conflict, intractable or otherwise. What I have tried to advise above is that mediation may offering the prospect of escaping the dilemmas of intractability.

Arbitration offers the possibility of a jointly acceptable consequence without giving in on one's core values and behavior. Under some weather condition arbitration tin can really suspension through an intractable cycle of violence. The availability of suitable mediators may help to transform an intractable disharmonize and produce a sustained understanding. For this to happen certain weather take to be nowadays. When the circumstances are indeed propitious, few processes can practise more to reduce intractability of a conflict than a well planned arbitration. We should exist aware of these conditions and do our best to bring intractable conflicts to an end.

---

Employ the following to cite this article:
Bercovitch, Jacob. "International Mediation and Intractable Conflict." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: January 2004 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/med-intractable-conflict>.

---

Additional Resources

pearsonouster.blogspot.com

Source: https://beyondintractability.org/essay/med_intractable_conflict

Share this post