ABSTRACT
The conditions under which negotiation or mediation are chosen in international conflict have been little studied. Previous research has tended to focus on the motivations and rational calculations of the states involved. Scant attention has been given to examining the effect of the context on this choice. In this article we present a framework for studying the contextual conditions under which negotiation or mediation is likely to take place. Employing an original data set, we find that negotiation tends to be used when conflicts are relatively simple, of a low intensity, and when both parties are relatively equal in power. Mediation, on the other hand, tends to be used in disputes characterized by high complexity, high intensity, long duration, and unequal and fractionated parties, and where the willingness of the parties to settle peacefully is in doubt. Wherever conflict occurs, the potential exists for violence or other harmful consequences. In the international arena, in the absence of any generally accepted ‘rules of the game’, conflicts can easily escalate into highly destructive and destabilizing wars. The course of a conflict depends on how the parties manage their disagreements. Typically, international actors deal with conflict by taking one or more of three possible actions: unilateral, bilateral or third-party interventions (Bercovitch and Houston, 1996: 11). The unilateral mode may involve an attempt to win over the opponent through violent struggle, or it may involve withdrawal or avoidance. The bilateral mode implies some form of bargaining and compromise (i.e. negotiation). The third-party mode means the intervention of a party not directly involved in the conflict (i.e. adjudication or mediation). In this essay we shall examine the conditions that influence the choice of negotiation or mediation as the preferred way of dealing with an international conflict. A significant amount of research on conflict has centred on the processes of international negotiation and mediation, and the general effectiveness of those processes. The question of how negotiation or mediation begins – why parties choose one method or the other – has been relatively ignored. While institutionalized mechanisms exist for dealing with some types of conflict, giving specifications about the process and how to initiate it (e.g. arbitration for labour-management disputes), conflicts in the international arena generally lack such procedural guidelines. Very often, states apply conflict management procedures on an ad hoc
basis only, choosing (implicitly or explicitly) from a broad range of techniques, including, among others, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, inquiry, conciliation, or referral to international organizations. The study presented here focuses on the conditions for negotiation and mediation. It is part of a broader effort to place international conflict management within an empirical context and to analyse the conditions under which parties will enter negotiation or mediation. This essay is divided in three sections: the development of a theoretical understanding of negotiation and mediation; presentation of a study of contextual conditions that may affect their acceptance; and, utilizing an original data set, an exploration of some of our theoretical propositions.
