Strengthening international mediation

Conclusion Any of these models can be pursued in tandem with any other. There are undoubtedly other options as well so these must be considered illustrative of what might be done.Such an informal approach to improving and extending the practice of international mediation would not preclude the eventual creation of a more formal organizational structure at some point should that be deemed useful. Indeed, it might prepare the way.If it is too soon to know whether or how a more formal service should be designed, perhaps the soundest way to begin is with a loose network offering an array of support services that can grow organically as it proves useful.William L. Ury is Associate Director of the Avoiding Nuclear War Project at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Director of the Nuclear Negotiation Project, 513 Pound Hall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. His publications includeBeyond the Hotline: How Crisis Control Can Prevent Nuclear War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985) and, with Roger Fisher,Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Houghton Mifflin, 1981).This column was composed as a think-piece for the Working Session on International Mediation held at the Carter Center of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, May 28–29, 1987, and cosponsored by the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School and the Carter Center. For their suggestions and ideas, I am indebted to Brian Urquhart, Harold Saunders, Larry Susskind, Roger Fisher, Cynthia Sampson, Bill Spencer and the members of the Core Group of the International Mediation Project (a faculty seminar sponsored by the Program on Negotiation).