Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
THE ROLE OF MEDIATION AND MEDIATOR ESSAY
evaluating mediation
short note on media ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: THE ROLE OF MEDIATION AND MEDIATOR ESSAY
The journal article "Which side are you on? Bias, credibility and mediation" written by Andrew Kydd (2003) queried the significance of mediator’s impartiality. In the field of international relations, merely the study by Kydd (2003) has directly attributed mediator effectiveness to the provision of private information. The study is based on a game theo-retical model of mediation and draws on the theory of ‘cheap talk’ , which has its origin in economic science. There are two key findings of the study. Firstly, the study analytically pinpoints that mediators with accession to private information can, under certain condi-tions, help decrease the probability of war. Secondly, the author analyzes the effects of third-party bias. The analysis comes to the vague conclusion that “only a mediator who is effectively ‘on your side’ will be believed” (Kydd 2003: 598). For scientists a certain de-gree of bias is not merely acceptable but is in fact obligatory for some roles that media-tors play. Moreover, it points up this result for a role, information provision, that a number of scholars have claimed correctly belong to neutral weaker mediators rather than po-werful, and possibly even biased, mediators. (cf. ibid.: 608).
With regard to the scope of Kydd’s model, I have to mention that the model makes no particular assumption about whether the two conflicting sides are recently at peace and trying to prevent a war or are negotiating the end of a continuing conflict. The main assumption behind the model is that the success of bargaining causes a decrease in the expected level of cost for both sides from fighting compared to what would have happened if the negotiations had been unsuccessful. The author assumes two main is-sues concerning med...
... middle of paper ...
...oint and this emerged as crucial for truth telling in the trust-building context. An interior ideal point creates the possibility that the mediator can be seen in a sense as biased toward both sides. This means that the mediator shares with both of them a preference that they not be exploited. (cf. Kydd 2006: 457)
In conclusion while taking Kydd’s model from 2003 into consideration, it is possible to argue that the neutral mediators, which have not supported any of the adversaries in direct manner, involve themselves for the reason that they want to end the conflict. Humanitarian, altruistic and political (reputation and image) issues may be key reasons for this interest. In this context, Kydd states that the neutral mediators suffer costs if war maintains. Nevertheless, they have no particular preferences over the result of the dis-pute. (cf. Svensson 2009: 448)
War termination and the decision of when to negotiate peace are rarely effectively planned before a war. The Russo-Japanese War is one of a few historical exceptions. The Russo-Japanese War provides three enduring lessons about war termination in a conflict fought for limited aims. First, the most effective war termination plans are created before the war. Second, continued military and political pressure can effectively improve your position to negotiate peace. Third, common interests and compromise are required for durable peace.
Mingst, K. A. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 78). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
First, in the long run the negative effects of a military international intervention, even if against oppressive governments, could actually outweigh the positive ones. Moreover, coercive policy could, in fact, aggravate a conflict by providing grounds for long lasting hostility, aggression, or ev...
The main reason given for the success of religious actors in conflict resolution is their ability to gain trust and act as "honest brokers" between the groups involved. The Western powers cannot afford to ignore the importance of religion around the world nor can they afford to let the rare skills of relationship building brought by religious actors to go to waste. Religious groups have the desire and key qualities of trust building, patience, and unbiased involvement necessary to facilitate reconciliation and build peace around the world. These attributes are vital to reconciliation and mediation in a world where deception and diplomacy often come hand in hand.
Rosato, S. (2003). The flawed logic of the democratic peace theory. The American Political Science Review, 97(4), 585–602.
This essay will answer this question through a variety of means. In order to measure the question posed, we must first define the concepts of democracy, international peace and security. After having defined these, we must apply the promotion of democracy, using examples from the past to consider whether this is a worthwhile endeavour, and if so, how should we approach it to ensure we achieve what we set out to. This essay will give reference to, but will not provide a comprehensive analysis of, the ‘Democratic Peace Theory’.
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
...ation. In D. Bloomfield, T. Barnes & L. Huyse (Eds.), Reconciliation after violent conflict: A handbook (pp. 19–39). Retrieved from http://www.idea.int/publications/reconciliation/loader.cfm?csmodule=security/getfile
Since March 2011, Syria had no longer experienced a situation called peace and harmony. Syrian’s daily life is filled with the events of killing, bombing and torturing of their brothers and sisters. This unresolved conflict began with a revolution to against the government for brook the promise to have betterment in political system (citation). However the government had responded by harsh action. Starting from this point, Syria had slide into Civil War. Based on the brief description about situation in Syria, I strongly believe that the best International Relation theory to describe this situation is constructivism. This is because the Civil War in Syria is socially constructed by some factors which will be discussed deeply in the next paragraph. In this essay, I will emphasize on the two factors that lead to Syria Civil War which are identity conflict in a state and the absence of shared norms of sovereignty; and provide a solution from constructivism perspective which is diplomacy negotiation and limitation to it.
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
Ripeness and readiness are good theory’s to explain why conflicts ends. They both show how multiple factors come into play to end a conflict. “Ripeness is not sudden, but rather a complex process of transformations in the situation, shifts in public attitudes and new perceptions and visions among decision-makers” (Rambotham, 2011: 180). The Oslo negotiations and the peace process are good examples of the readiness theory and its ease explaining the resolution of these conflicts. The Cambodian conflict poses more difficulty being explained through ripeness. When conflicts are multilateral poses a challenge to readiness theory. Adapting readiness theory
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
Causes of conflicts: Why wars happen. The Economist, 16 Dec. 2008. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. .
Kegley, Charles W Jr., and Raymond, Gregory A. From War to Peace. New York: St. Martins Press, 2001.