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?     

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.     

Comparing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual offences versus nonsexual violent offences

Using data from the National Trajectory Project, we compared 50 individuals found Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) for sexual offences with 50 age- and gender-matched individuals found NCRMD for nonsexually violent offences. We also described the concurrent offenses, the symptoms at the time of the offense and the characteristics of the victims of offenders found NCRMD for sexual offences. Persons found NCRMD for sexual offences were less likely to be employed and were significantly younger at time of first psychiatric contact, but did not differ in other sociodemographic characteristics, other aspects of their psychiatric histories or in criminal history. Despite no differences in recidivism and no differences in behaviours between Review Board hearings when adjusting for unequal time at risk, persons found NCRMD for sexual offences had longer tenures under a Review Board mandate than persons found NCRMD for nonsexually violent offences. Given the many similarities between the two groups, this finding suggests that Review Boards may be unnecessarily conservative in how they manage sexual offenders.