Search results

This chapter reports on attempts to develop a more integrated and strategic approach to managing conflict within a large state-owned provider of healthcare in the United Kingdom that goes beyond more conventional offerings such as workplace mediation.

It adopted a detailed four-stage mixed-methods organizational case study approach, with the findings reported here drawing primarily on semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders, including line managers.

The data suggest that a systematic and integrated approach to identifying conflict and a range of coordinated interventions involving key organizational stakeholders can begin to embed a culture of resolution. There is resistance to such innovation, however, rooted in perceptions that it potentially weakens the authority of front-line managers.

The research reported here provides the first UK evidence for the adoption of an Integrated Conflict Management System and for the potential of such strategic choices and approaches to effect culture change in the manner sought by policy-makers.

Conventional wisdom tells us that mediation without ripeness is a fool’s errand (Zartman and Touval, 1985). What, then, is Türkiye’s motivation for mediating the war in Ukraine in lieu of ripeness – and what can its behavior as a mediator tell us about that motivation? In pursuit of this question, this paper inductively analyzes Turkish mediation in the Ukraine war to unpack the relationship between a contextual (ripeness) and actor-level (motivation) variable. Of particular interest is the decision-making and behavior of third parties (like Türkiye in Ukraine) who elect to mediate highly complex conflicts in which ripeness is indiscernible. The purpose of this research is not to propose or test a causal relationship between obscured ripeness and mediation, but rather to examine mediation behavior in situations where ripeness is obscured.

The impact of weaponized information on ripeness and third-party mediation is evaluated through an original, systematic and inductive case study analysis of Turkish mediation in the Russia–Ukraine war. As an intense theater of operations for information warfare for well over a decade, the war in Ukraine serves as an especially apt choice for an analysis of “obscured ripeness.” Likewise, Türkiye’s anomalous position as the only substantive source of mediation in the conflict lends significance to an empirical examination of its motivation and behavior as a mediator.

This research reveals that the pervasive use of weaponized information in the Russia–Ukraine war has distorted and disordered the information environment, thereby obscuring the ability of third parties to determine if the conflict is or could be ripe for mediation. However, the condition of obscured ripeness that prevails in the conflict has not proven a deterrent for mediation by Türkiye, which, as the only mediator in the conflict, has used a transactional approach to mediation motivated by self-regarding interests and animated by a manipulative mediation strategy. In sum, this inductive analysis of Turkish mediation in Ukraine reveals that the use of weaponized information in a conflict indirectly selects on transactional mediation (and mediators). The significance of this finding is magnified by the widespread use of weaponized information in contemporary conflicts as well as the declining frequency of third-party mediation.

There have been few, if any, systematic assessments in Turkish mediation of the Russia–Ukraine war, and none specifically concerned with the effects of weaponized information. Additionally, the paper proposes a typology of mediator motivation that is used to structure that assessment, while also introducing a new concept (“obscured ripeness”) and linking that concept both to the existing literature on ripeness and to the use of weaponized information in contemporary armed conflicts. As such, this manuscript represents an important contribution both to the empirical and theoretical landscape with respect to the study of mediation and international conflict management.

Research on conflict mediation presents a scattered, piecemeal understanding of what determines mediators’ strategies and tactics and ultimately what constitutes successful mediation. This paper presents research on developing a unifying framework – the situated model of mediation – that identifies and integrates the most basic dimensions of mediation situations. These dimensions combine to determine differences in mediator’s strategies that in turn influence mediation processes and outcomes.

The approach used by this paper was twofold. First, the existing empirical literature was reviewed on factors that influence mediator’s behaviors. Based on the findings of this review, a survey study was conducted with experienced mediators to determine the most fundamental dimensions of mediation situations affecting mediators’ behaviors and mediation processes and outcomes. The data were analyzed through exploratory factor analysis and regression analysis.

The results of the study show that four of the most fundamental dimensions of mediation situations include: low vs high intensity of the conflict, cooperative vs competitive relationship between the parties, tight vs flexible context and overt vs covert processes and issues. Each of these factors was found to independently predict differences in mediators’ behaviors and perceptions of processes and outcomes. These dimensions are then combined to constitute the basic dimensions of the situated model of mediation.

The situated model of mediation is both heuristic and generative, and it shows how a minimal number of factors are sufficient to capture the complexity of conflict mediation in a wide range of contexts.

The purpose of this article is to propose a conceptual framework for elucidating cross‐cultural paradoxes in dispute resolution and present a case study of a hybrid process that combines aspects of interest‐based mediation and indigenous dispute resolution in order to inform the design of conflict management systems in multinational enterprises (MNEs). Design/methodology/approach – A case study approach utilizing participant observation and informant feedback is used to present an organizational intervention in the Sri Lankan subsidiary of a European MNE. Discussion of the case is framed by theories of culture and conflict and a literature review of indigenous dispute resolution in Sri Lanka. Findings – The case illustrates how one MNE developed a culturally appropriate conflict management system in its subsidiary by crafting an innovative, informal channel for managing conflict and systematically embedding it into the organization alongside its formal conflict management process. Research limitations/implications – The case study approach limits the generalizability of the results. Future research should include a larger sample of countries, organizations, and dispute resolution practices, and incorporate feedback from employees to better assess the efficacy of the intervention. Practical implications – MNEs have an untapped opportunity to develop innovative approaches for managing conflict in their subsidiaries by melding interest‐based and indigenous mediation processes to develop culturally appropriate conflict management systems. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the literatures on cross‐cultural conflict management and conflict management systems design by presenting an innovative approach to the application of hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms in MNEs. This study provides valuable insights for international managers, conflict systems design practitioners, and cross‐cultural conflict scholars.

The present paper attempts to map the discursive relations between conflict and settlement as reflected in the realms of law and mediation during the second half of the 20th century, offering a 21st century model to combine the mediation drive to settle through reaching inter-subjective transformation with the legal drive to escalate and promote social conflict. Contemporary mediation, according to this model, should involve on the one hand “negotiating for justice,” according to the familiar models of problem solving and transformation, and on the other hand “fighting for law”: acknowledging the self-referential and ideological quality of conflicts, while emphasizing the pragmatic need to end them through an interpretive public act that involves value judgments.

This paper aims to study recent approaches to peacemaking, particularly by Turkey and Russia, in a changing world and their implications for UN-led peace processes. The authors analyze the factors that allow parallel processes to UN mediation to emerge and discuss their influence.

The paper presents two in-depth case studies of mediation in Syria and Libya, where the UN, as well as Russia and Turkey, were actively involved in peacemaking.

The authors find that parallel processes to UN mediation emerge if the UN process does not show progress toward a negotiated settlement and other third parties have leverage over the conflict parties. However, whether these parallel processes pose a fundamental challenge to the UN-led process depends on how sustained the third parties’ leverage over the conflict parties is. If it lasts, it puts the UN in a difficult position to either participate in the parallel process and contain it but thereby also legitimizing it, or to abstain from participating but thereby risking to lose control over the mediation process.

Analyzing different approaches to mediation helps to better understand current dynamics of multiparty mediation, including an increased questioning of the effectiveness of UN mediation, and provides insights on how the UN may adapt to keep its relevance in a changing world.

The paper is based on original first-hand data gathered between 2018 and 2022 through more than 50 interviews with UN officials, negotiation team members, political and civil society actors from Syria and Libya, (former) state officials and experts from Russia and Turkey, as well as external observers.

Success and failure in mediation are widely understood to determine whether a state will receive positive or negative reputation outcomes from undertaking a mediation role in an international conflict. Research from mediation in domestic settings contradicts this view, finding that peer mediators in school and community settings received positive mediator outcomes from undertaking their role, even when they failed to facilitate an agreement between disputants. This paper aims to test this assumption and argues that mediation success and failure are only weakly correlated with observable reputation outcomes for mediating states and proposes an alternative explanatory framework.

The hypothesis was inductively generated through a comparative analysis of single-state mediation attempts selected from the Uppsala Conflict Database Project MILC data set. The cases selected were South Africa’s mediation attempts in Côte d’Ivoire from 2004 to 2005 and Comoros from 2003 to 2004, and Mexico’s mediation attempts in Colombia (National Liberation Army) in 2004 and Guatemala (Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity) between 1994 and 1996. To contextualise the findings and develop the explanatory framework, South African mediation attempts in Burundi and the DRC are discussed in the closing sections of the paper.

This paper finds that mediation success and failure are only weakly correlated with mediator outcomes. Mediator outcomes are explained by the activity level of the mediating state in providing mediation services; the positive intention of the mediator to assist in resolving the conflict; the scale of the conflict mediated; the severity of spill over effects from the conflict in question; the regional importance of the conflict; the proximity of the government which a mediating state looks to develop relations with to the conflict; the importance of the mediation attempt within the peace process; the level of contestation of the mediation attempt, meaning the extent to which mediation attempts are themselves sites of regional or global international power politics; and the success or failure of the mediation attempt.

An explanatory framework for state mediator outcomes in which the outcome of a mediation attempt for the third-party state is not determined solely, or even primarily, by mediation success or failure bridges mediation research applying to international and domestic issue areas and provides additional information for policy makers regarding the costs and benefits of committing their state to processes of mediation in conflicts with low probabilities of resolution. This is particularly important for state policy makers, given that mediation is successful on average in only one out of every three attempts.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the causes, impact, and resolution of ideological conflicts in the workplace. By integrating research on organizational justice, the paper aims to argue that ideological discord is engendered though the interaction of distributive, procedural, and interactional (un)fairness.

Using a longitudinal field study, the ideas were tested with a sample of 77 claimants, undergoing mediation through the USA. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The results were generally supportive of all predictions, suggesting that, though injustice may cause troublesome ideological conflicts, fair dispute resolution interventions can provide a remedy.

The research documented in this paper is particularly important because it suggests that justice can be restored through the intervention of a neutral mediator.

A rapidly expanding body of literature on international mediation, as well as the central role international mediation plays in modern-day conflict resolution, make it necessary to review and analyze this vastly evolving field of study. This study seeks to review the most significant trends and debates in the literature on international mediation, with an emphasis on the literature of the past six years.

Reflecting Wall et al.'s staged conceptualization of the mediation process; this review essay is divided in three sections that cover the antecedents of mediation, possible mediation approaches, and the outcomes these approaches yield – making it possible to review and analyze the diverse sets of theories within the field of mediation, as well the various methodological approaches employed to test these theories.

Much research to date has focused on how international mediation in armed conflicts affects the likelihood of reaching a negotiated agreement, while other possible outcomes of mediation have been understudied. Accordingly, research needs to be done on the effects of mediation attempts that did not lead to a peace agreement, as well as the accumulative effect of peace agreements. Furthermore, the relation between negative peace and mediation has been studied extensively, but how mediation affects the degree of positive peace has received scant scholarly attention. Finally, the interlinkages between the different phases of the mediation process need to be examined more extensively.

This review identifies the state of the art knowledge concerning the international mediation process, which allows peacemakers to make informed decisions in order to prevent and resolve armed conflict in the twenty-first century.