Search results

The purpose of this paper is to advance our understanding of international crisis mediation by introducing and examining the nested insider-partial mediator (NIPM) concept, a nuanced perspective on IPM behavior. This study challenges the traditional view of effective mediators as external, unbiased entities by delving into the behavior and contribution of mediators who are deeply embedded in the conflict environment, such as South Korea’s unique position in navigating the US–DPRK crisis in 2017–2018. By analyzing South Korea’s dual role as mediator and negotiator and its employment of both nondirective and directive mediation strategies, the paper demonstrates the potential effectiveness of NIPMs in managing complex biases and contributing to de-escalation in intense crisis scenarios.

This paper uses a focused single-case study approach to analyze South Korea’s role as an NIPM. Using a process-tracing methodology, it examines how contextual factors such as relationships, interests and inherent biases influenced South Korea’s mediation strategies in this complex geopolitical scenario. Empirical evidence was retrieved from public sources, including official statements and press interviews, providing an empirical foundation for understanding NIPM behavior. This approach facilitates a detailed study of South Korea’s unique mediation role within the intricate dynamics of the Korean Peninsula conflict.

The study’s findings illustrate the pivotal role NIPMs can play in complex international conflicts, underlining the significant potential of NIPMs in crisis prevention. The findings highlight South Korea’s adept navigation through intricate geopolitical dynamics, leveraging its unique insider position and established relationships with both the USA and North Korea. This behavior was instrumental in mitigating a potentially explosive situation, steering the crisis toward negotiation and de-escalation. The research underscores the effectiveness of the NIPM framework in understanding the nuanced behavior of mediators who are deeply integrated into multi-level conflicts, influenced by their connections, interests and inherent biases.

This research not only broadens the theoretical framework of insider-partial mediation by introducing the concept of NIPM, but also has practical implications for policymakers and practitioners in leveraging regional mediation strategies for international crisis mitigation. The study underscores the importance of mediators’ deep-rooted connections, biases and vested interests in influencing their mediation tactics, thus offering a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of international mediation in complex geopolitical conflicts.

Symbolical-interaction sociology is useful to mediators and relevant to mediation practice. It explores the elements of everyday social interaction including behavior of disputants during instances of conflict. In particular, Erving Goffman’s frame analysis offers mediators a practical tool useful in assessing and managing both the intellectual and emotional responses of disputants during mediation. Moreover, frame analysis can effectively guide mediators in assisting disputants to reorient their respective responses to each other and to the dispute, thereby enhancing opportunities for meaningful dialogue. In addition, Goffman’s game, drama, and ritual metaphors offer simple but powerful analytic tools guiding mediation clients through terrain which would otherwise be chaotic and overwhelming. Mediators committed to enhancing their practices and researchers in search of a sound theoretical base for effective dispute resolution can benefit substantially by applying these insights to the practice of mediation.

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.

The paper seeks to examine the debate on mediator style and provide empirical evidence on mediator orientation, which has implications for party choice and the development of professional standards for construction mediators in the UK.

This paper analyses the theoretical arguments and distinctions in mediator style and assesses the available evidence relating to the utilisation of evaluative or facilitative mediator approaches in the UK and US construction industry. The paper reports on data from qualitative interviews with construction lawyers experienced in using mediation in the UK to assess the level of evaluative conduct experienced.

The findings suggest that interviewees had experienced a mix of evaluative and facilitative interventions by mediators. The data support the contention that construction mediation in the UK mirrors the experience of the USA and is becoming “lawyer‐driven” and adversarial, with mediators utilising evaluative techniques which some members of the legal profession prefer.

The qualitative data are based on a small sample of mediation users in the UK construction industry. However, interviewees were selected from respondents to a randomly conducted large‐scale postal survey of commercial and construction lawyers. All interviewees were repeat users of the process and all but one had received training in mediation or are practising lawyer‐mediators.

The data provide evidence of different mediator techniques currently utilised in the UK construction industry and the practices of lawyers in the mediation process. The findings have implications for party choice and should inform the development of professional standards in construction mediation practice.

The paper provides original data on the practices of mediators and lawyers in construction mediation.

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.