ABSTRACT
By undertaking a two-step qualitative comparison of twenty-three public mediation cases, I explore predictable patterns from early stage to deadline negotiations. The study uncovers brakes and accelerators in public conflict resolution and reveals that both inclusivity (i.e. including all relevant participants in the process) and low political and administrative restrictions enable greater effectiveness. Furthermore, the study also suggests that high levels of recognition and argumentation are essential for reaching a consensual agreement. In combination, the chapter summarizes the answers on key conditions for effective conflict resolution from more than twenty public mediators.
