Negotiation or Mediation in International Conflicts?

Examining Factors Influencing the Choice

The study titled “Negotiation or Mediation? An Exploration of Factors Affecting the Choice of Conflict Management in International Conflict” by Jacob Bercovitch and Richard Jackson thoroughly examines the conditions leading to the preference for negotiation or mediation methods in international conflicts. The research explores not only the motivations and rational calculations of states but also the impact of contextual factors in this decision-making process.

Objective of the Study

The study aims to understand why negotiation is preferred in certain cases while mediation comes to the forefront in others during the management of international conflicts. Bercovitch and Jackson developed a framework analyzing the contextual conditions influencing the choice between negotiation and mediation and tested this framework using a comprehensive dataset.

Differences Between Negotiation and Mediation

• Negotiation: A process where two parties engage in direct communication and exchange of proposals. The goal is to reach a joint decision to end the conflict and determine future relations.
• Mediation: A process where a neutral third party assists in resolving the conflict, particularly when parties cannot achieve a direct resolution themselves. Mediation is effective in high-intensity and complex conflicts where direct negotiations are not feasible.

Findings of the Study

Conditions for Choosing Negotiation

1. Low-Intensity Conflicts: Negotiation is preferred in simple, low-intensity, and short-term conflicts. For instance, conflicts with fewer than 500 casualties saw negotiation used in 54.8% of cases.
2. Equal Power Distribution: Negotiation is more likely to be chosen when the parties are of equal strength.
3. Simpler Issues: Conflicts involving tangible and material issues (e.g., resource allocation, territorial disputes) provide a suitable ground for negotiation.

Conditions for Choosing Mediation

1. High Intensity and Complexity: Mediation is the preferred method for high-intensity (over 10,000 casualties), long-term, and complex conflicts. Mediation was used in 70% of such cases.
2. Asymmetric Power Balance: When there is a significant power disparity between the parties, mediation is favored over negotiation.
3. Ideological or Abstract Issues: Mediation is more effective in disputes involving abstract topics such as identity, ideology, and security.
4. Internal Divisions Among Parties: When parties are politically or culturally divided internally, mediation helps build trust among them.

Methodology of the Study

The study analyzed 295 international conflicts that occurred between 1945 and 1995. Each conflict was examined for contextual and structural variables that influenced the choice of negotiation or mediation. Key findings include:

• No conflict management method was used in 75 conflicts.
• Negotiation alone was employed in 49 conflicts, while mediation alone was used in 50 conflicts.
• Both negotiation and mediation were attempted in 121 conflicts.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The study reveals that the choice of conflict management methods is significantly influenced by contextual factors. The intensity of the conflict, the balance of power between parties, the nature of the issues, and internal divisions among parties are decisive factors in choosing negotiation or mediation.

• Negotiation: Should be preferred in simpler and lower-intensity conflicts.
• Mediation: Should be utilized in complex, long-term, and high-intensity conflicts.

The findings emphasize the importance of international actors tailoring their conflict management strategies to the specific context of the conflict.

Source: Jacob Bercovitch and Richard Jackson, “Negotiation or Mediation?: An Exploration of Factors Affecting the Choice of Conflict Management in International Conflict,” Negotiation Journal, January 2001.

Full article available here!