A Crowded Stage: Liabilities and Benefits of Multiparty Mediation

In today's environment, the international response to conflict often entails multiple mediators as well as other third-party actors such as peacekeeping forces, development agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and lone operators. Such a profusion of actors has often made peacemaking efforts messy, difficult, and at times chaotic. The vicious nature of internal conflicts, however, and the high costs for the international community of failing to prevent or end war make it critical to understand these multiple third-party interventions. The principal question is: do these multiparty mediations help or hurt the cause of peace? If the answer to that question is that a multiplicity of third parties can hurt a peace process, does the solution lie in stopping multiple third-party attempts at peacemaking? On the other hand, if the answer is that multiparty mediation can help, are there ways of increasing the chances that it will?     

The Risks of Peace: Implications for International Mediation

International mediators are often called upon to manage the risks of negotiation leading to a peace settlement. This article argues that important risks are often contained in the terms of a peace settlement, which must also be addressed by international negotiators. These risks are described as incurable covenant risks, curable covenant risks, and legal and systemic risks. This article discusses several different strategies for managing these risks. The article argues that although some of these risks can be managed by international mediators, not all are amenable to negotiated interventions.     

Ready for Prime Time: The When,Who, and Why of International Mediation

Most of the literature on international dispute resolution emphasizes timing and ripeness when considering whether or not a dispute is suitable for mediation. In addition to this focus, the authors believe analysts should consider whether a particular mediator is ready for prime time. Their framework posits that one may gauge the appropriateness of a mediator for a particular dispute along three different types of considerations: operational and political; strategic and diplomatic; and relationship and cultural fit. They provide numerous case examples illustrating how the choice of a mediator might apply in each dimension.