Negotiation or Mediation?: An Exploration of Factors Affecting the Choiceof Conflict Management in International Conflict

The conditions under which negotiation or mediation are chosen in internationalconflict have been little studied. Previous research has tended tofocus on the motivations and rational calculations of the states involved.Scant attention has been given to examining the effect of the context onthis choice. In this article, we present a framework for studying the contextualconditions under which negotiation or mediation are likely to takeplace. Employing an original data set, we find that negotiation tends to beused when conflicts are relatively simple, of a low intensity, and when bothparties are relatively equal in power. Mediation, on the other hand, tends tobe used in disputes characterized by high complexity, high intensity, longduration, unequal and fractionated parties, and where the willingness ofthe parties to settle peacefully is in doubt.     

Redefining American Security Interests in Europe

Despite sometimes promiscuous claims by President Trump's critics, controversy about America's commitment under Article 5 dates back seven decades. If largely quiescent through the Soviet Union's collapse, it was because the core Article 5 commitment thankfully went untested. Controversy reemerged with NATO enlargement eastward. In a strange inversion, what c.1949 was a prime objection to its commitment to use force—what Senator Forrest Donnell called the illusory discretion of the “such action as it deems necessary” condition added by George Kennan and other proponents to rescue the Washington Treaty in the Senate—is now embraced, ahistorically, by Article 5 hawks: that the commitment is mechanical, not discretionary. It is substantially a unilateral American one, too. Chronic European underspending and anemic public support across the continent challenge whether most NATO countries could—or would—rally to an ally's defense.     

Assessing the Dayton Accord: The structural weaknesses of the general framework agreement for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina - the Dayton Accord — brought a formal end to the war in Bosnia, but the prospects for an enduring peace remain uncertain. One of the obstacles to peace is the accord itself. This article outlines the main provisions of the agreement and then examines its structural weaknesses. These weaknesses, it is argued, though significant, may not be insuperable. There is broad scope for interpretation of the treaty's terms and for innovation within its framework. Its effectiveness in the long term will depend in part on whether the implementing powers succeed in exploiting this potential.     

Obligation by Association? A Reply to John Horton

In a recent two-part article in this journal, John Horton offers reasons to reject 'philosophical anarchism', and claims that rejecting that view should lead us to an 'associative' account of political obligations. This article argues for a different conclusion. The claim that local obligations are irreducible or independent is vulnerable to critique, and does not provide a compelling account of moral conflict. Rejecting philosophical anarchism should lead us to a version of moral universalism that can find a place for local attachment.