ABSTRACT
Introduction One of the central issues in the field of conflict resolution concerns the degree to which we can define a mediated or negotiated outcome as successful. How do we know that an outcome meets the criteria of success? How can we evaluate it? For example, how would we define the conclusion of the Camp David talks, where President Carter so ably mediated between the parties, and which produced a historic agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1978? Was that groundbreaking agreement successful? There will be as many opinions on that as there are commentators, but few will stop and think carefully about what it means to be successful at mediation or negotiation, or how to recognize that success. Or to take another example, the Oslo talks, which culminated in the signing of another historic agreement, this time between Israel and the PLO. Were the talks successful? Here again, we may have as many different opinions as there are commentators. Clearly, we need to think more carefully about what constitutes a successful outcome, how to recognize it and what factors may affect it. That is what I propose to do in this article. Although we have a considerable body of work on the causes of conflict, its evolution and how best to manage it, very little work has focused on developing a clear understanding of what constitutes success. Too often, it seems success or failure is assumed, postulated, or defined on a case-by-case basis, and usually in an arbitrary and poorly reasoned manner. Furthermore, the indicators utilized by those attempting to define success or failure are so diverse as to be almost unworkable. We need to engage in a more comprehensive discussion of what success entails. A clear understanding of what is success or failure is essential to the development of conflict management theory.
