The Evolution of Mediation in International Conflicts from 1940s to 2020s

The article analyzes the evolution of international mediation from the middle of the 20th century to the present day. How do changes in international environment influence mediation and research on it? The paper’s hypothesis is that the transformation of international order and political organization of the world, the dynamics of (de)globalization and changes in the nature of international conflict determine the specifics of international mediation and shape the relevant research. Over the last 80 years international mediation evolved through three stages. During the first stage, shaped by the cold war, conflicts were mostly of interstate nature and were settled by states and international organizations. Meanwhile, the growing activity of non-state actors led to the emergence of mediation via “track II diplomacy”. At this stage, the study of international mediation becomes an established research area. The second stage, since the end of 1980s to the beginning of the 21st century, witnessed a rapid progress in the settlement of many protracted regional conflicts, aided by the mediation efforts of the USSR and the United States. In Russia, research on international mediation, previously fragmentary and legalistic, developed into a separate subfield of international studies. During the third stage, in the 21st century, the political organization of the world has been undergoing a turbulent transformation at all the three levels: Westphalian system, the system of interstate relations, and political systems of individual states. The all-encompassing nature of this change increases conflict potential and changes the nature of international conflicts, which become multidimensional and involve a variety of actors. Responding to the demand for managing complex conflicts, new trends in mediation emerge, such as the growth in mediation attempts by developing nations, engagement of peacekeeping missions in mediation, the use of digital technologies for mediation purposes. At the same time, the erosion of the old political organization of the world triggers the rise in identity-based conflicts that involve disagreement over values. As parties to such conflicts are less likely to seek interestbased compromises, the likelihood of successful mediation decreases. 

1. Aall P. 1996. Nongovernmental Organizations and Peacemaking. Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict. Ed. by Ch.A. Crocker, F.O. Hampson with P. Aall. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press. P. 433-444.

2. Alexander N. 2019. Ten trends in international mediation. Singapore Academy of Law Journal. Vol. 31. P. 405-447.

3. Arana-Catania M., van Lier F. A., Procter R. 2021. Machine Learning for Mediation in Armed Conflicts. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2108.11942. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.11942

4. Bercovitch J. 1986. International Mediation: A Study of the Incidence, Strategies and Conditions of Successful Outcomes. Cooperation and Conflict. 21(3). P. 155-68. DOI: 10.1177/001083678602100302

5. Bercovitch J. 1996. Thinking about Mediation. Resolving International Conflicts: The theory and practice of mediation. Ed. by J. Bercovitch. Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. P. 1-9.

6. Bercovitch J., Houston A. 1996. The Study of International Mediation: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Evidence. Resolving International Conflicts: The Theory and Practice of Mediation. Ed. by J. Bercovitch. Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. P. 11-35.

7. Bercovitch J., Houston, A. 2000. Why Do They Do It Like This? An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Mediation Behavior in International Conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 44(2). P. 170-202.

8. Böhmelt T. 2009. International Mediation and Social Networks: The Importance of Indirect Ties. International Interactions. 35(3). P. 298-319. DOI: 10.1080/03050620903084786

9. Burton J. 1969. Conflict and Communication: The Use of Controlled Communication in International Relations. New York: The Free Press. 246 p.

10. Chen F.R. 2019. Disentangling bias: national capabilities, regime type, and international conflict mediation. Conflict Management and Peace Science. 36(2). P. 149-168. DOI: 10.1177/0738894216689560

11. Clayton G., Dorussen H. 2022. The Effectiveness of Mediation and Peacekeeping for Ending Conflict. Journal of Peace Research. 59(2). P. 150-165. DOI: 10.1177/0022343321990076

12. Cohen S., Kelman H., Miller F., Smith B. 1977. Evolving Inter-Group Techniques for Conflict Resolution: An Israeli-Palestinian Pilot Workshop. Journal of Social Issues. 33(1). P. 165-189. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01874.x

13. Da Rocha J. P. 2019. The Changing Nature of International Mediation. Global Policy. 10(S2). P. 101-107. DOI:10.1111/1758-5899.12683

14. Doob L.W., Foltz W.J., Stevens R.B. 1969. The Fermeda Workshop: A Different Approach to Border Conflicts in Eastern Africa. The Journal of Psychology. 73(2). P. 249-266. DOI: 10.1080/00223980.1969.10544975

15. Duursma A. 2020. African Solutions to African Challenges: The Role of Legitimacy in Mediating Civil Wars in Africa. International Organization. 74(2). P. 295-330. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818320000041

16. Duursma A. 2023. Peacekeeping, Mediation, and the Conclusion of Local Ceasefires in Non-State Conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 67(7-8). P. 1405-1429. DOI: 10.1177/00220027221148132

17. Eriksson J. 2015. Small-State Mediation in International Conflicts: Diplomacy and Negotiation in Israel-Palestine. London, New York: I.B. Tauris. 288 р.

18. Fisher R., Ury W. 1981. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 215 p.

19. Fisher R. J. 2001. Cyprus: The Failure of Mediation and the Escalation of an Identity-Based Conflict to an Adversarial Impasse. Journal of Peace Research. 38(3). P. 307-326. DOI: 10.1177/002 2343301038003003

20. Güney A. 2004. The USA’s Role in Mediating the Cyprus Conflict: A Story of Success or Failure? Security Dialogue. 35(1). P. 27-42. DOI: 10.1177/0967010604042534

21. Hirblinger A.T. 2022. When Mediators Need Machines (and Vice Versa): Towards a Research Agenda on Hybrid Peacemaking Intelligence. International Negotiation. 28(1). P. 94-125. DOI: 10.1163/15718069-bja10050

22. Iji T. 2017. The UN as an International Mediator: From the Post–Cold War Era to the Twenty-First Century. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. 23(1). P. 83-100. DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02301008

23. Kelman H., Cohen S. 1979. Reduction of International Conflict: An Interaction Approach. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Ed. by W.G. Austin, S. Worchel. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing. P. 288-303.

24. Keohane R.O., Nye J.S. 1971. Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction. International Organization. 25(3). P. 329-349. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300026187

25. Khairunnisa B. W. 2021. The Role and Challenges of A Mediator To Resolve The International Conflict in The Digital Era (Case Study: The Role of OANA). Journal of Social Science. 2(5). P. 558566. DOI: 10.46799/jss.v2i5.199

26. Kleiboer M. 1998. The Multiple Realities of International Mediation. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 249 р.

27. Lundgren M., Svensson I. 2020. The Surprising Decline of International Mediation in Armed Conflicts. Research & Politics. 7(2). DOI: 10.1177/2053168020917243

28. Natsios A.S. 1997. An NGO Perspective. Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques. Ed. by I.W. Zartman, J.L. Rasmussen. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. P. 337-361.

29. Qi H 2007. A Comparison of the Effectiveness of International Conflict Mediation Strategies. The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 1(4). P. 589–62. DOI: 10.1093/cjip/pom011

30. Raiffa H. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 368 p.

31. Richmond O.P. 2018. A Genealogy of Mediation in International Relations: From ‘Analogue’ to ‘Digital’ Forms of Global Justice or Managed War? Cooperation and Conflict. 53(3). P. 301-319. DOI: 10.1177/0010836717750198

32. Slim R.M. 1992. Small-State Mediation in International Relations: The Algerian Mediation of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management. Ed. by J. Bercovitch, J. Rubin. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. P. 206-231.

33. Spitka T. 2018. Mediating Among Mediators: Building a Consensus in Multilateral Interventions. International Negotiation. 23(1). P. 125-154. DOI: 10.1163/15718069-23011132

34. Susskind L., Babbitt E. 1992. Overcoming the obstacles to effective mediation of international disputes. Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management. Ed. by J. Bercovitch, J. Rubin. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. P. 30-51.

35. Ury W.L. 1990. Dispute Resolution Notes from the Kalahari. Negotiation Journal. 6(3). P. 229238. DOI: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1990.tb00576.x

36. Volkan V. 2006. Killing in the Name of Identity: A Study of Bloody Conflicts. Durham: Pitchstone Publishing. 307 p.

37. Vukovic S. 2020. Debunking the Myths of International Mediation: Conceptualizing Bias, Power and Success. The Changing Global Order: Challenges and Prospects. Ed. by Hosli, M.O., Selleslaghs, J. Springer, Cham. P. 429-451. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-21603-0_21

38. Bogdanov O.V. 1957. Peregovory – osnovnoye sredstvo uregulirovaniya mezhdunarodnykh raznoglasiy [Negotiations are the main means of settling international disputes]. Sovetskoye gosudarstvo i pravo. 1957. No. 7. P. 75-80. (In Russian).

39. Khrustalev M.A. 2006. Blizhnevostochnyy konflikt: dinamika i perspektivy [Middle East Conflict: Dynamics and Prospects]. Mezhdunarodnyye protsessy. 4(2). P. 4-18. (In Russian).

40. Ladyzhenskiy A.M., Blishchenko I.P. 1963. Mirnyye sredstva razresheniya sporov mezhdu gosudarstvami [Peaceful means of settling disputes between states]. Moscow: Gosyurizdat. 173 p. (In Russian).

41. Lebedeva M.M. 1997. Politicheskoye uregulirovaniye konfliktov [Political Management of Conflicts]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 271 p. (In Russian).

42. Lebedeva M.M. 2016. Sistema politicheskoy organizatsii mira: «Ideal'nyy shtorm» [System of Political Organization of the World: ‘Perfect Storm’]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. No. 2. P. 125-133. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2016-2-47-134-144 (In Russian).

43. Lebedeva M.M., Morozov V.M., Raynkhardt R.O., Shebalina Ye.O. 2024. Tekhnologii mezhdunarodnogo posrednichestva [Technologies of International Mediation]. Ed. by M.M. Lebedeva. Moscow: MGIMO University Press. 27 p. (In Russian).

44. Lebedeva M.M., Zinov'yeva E.S. 2023. Spetsifika mezhdunarodnykh peregovorov v epokhu tsifrovizatsii [International Negotiations in the Digital Age]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. 23(1). P. 144-156. DOI: 10.22363/2313-0660-2023-23-1-144-156 (In Russian).

45. Mayorov M.V. 2007. Mirotvortsy. Iz opyta rossiyskoy diplomatii v posrednichestve [Peacekeepers. From the Experience of Russian Diplomacy in Mediation]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. 158 p. (In Russian).

46. Molchanov N.N. 1984. Diplomatiya Petra Pervogo [Diplomacy of Peter the Great]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. 1984. 403 p. (In Russian).

47. Pushmin E.A. 1970. Posrednichestvo v mezhdunarodnom prave [Mediation in International Law]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. 170 p. (In Russian).

48. Pushmin E.A. 1974. Mirnoye razresheniye mezhdunarodnykh sporov (mezhdunarodno-pravovyye voprosy) [Peaceful Resolution of International Disputes (International Legal Issues)]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. 175 p. (In Russian).

49. Sharafiyeva O.Kh. 2013. Mezhtadzhikskiye peregovory kak primer uregulirovaniya vnutrennego konflikta [Inter-Tajik negotiations as an example of resolving an internal conflict]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. No. 367. P. 84–91. (In Russian).

50. Shevchuk N.V., Sachik A.A. 2021. Posrednichestvo ES: Evolyutsiya podkhodov v kontekste uregulirovaniya sovremennykh konfliktov [EU Mediation: Evolution of Approaches in the Context of Modern Conflict Resolution]. Postsovetskiye issledovaniya. 4(6). P. 479-487. DOI: 10.24412/26187426-2021-6-479-487 (In Russian).

51. Shevchuk N.V. 2021. Osobennosti podklyucheniya ES k peregovornomu protsessu po pridnestrovskomu uregulirovaniyu (1994-2005) [Features of the EU involvement in the negotiation process on the Transnistrian settlement (1994-2005)]. Sovremennaya Yevropa. No. 3. P. 106-116. DOI: 10.15211/soveurope32021106116 (In Russian).

52. Syomkina Yu.N. 2008. Mezhdunarodnoye posrednichestvo v uregulirovanii konflikta v Kosovo [International Mediation in the Settlement of the Conflict in Kosovo]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Yuridicheskiye nauki. No. 4. P. 71-81. (In Russian).

53. Torkunov A.V. 2019. Diplomatiya akademicheskogo soobshchestva: proshloye i nastoyashcheye [Academic Community Diplomacy: Past and Present]. World Economy and International Relations. 63(9). P. 22-28. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-9-22-28 (In Russian).

54. Zonova T.V. 2000. Diplomatiya Vatikana v kontekste evolyutsii yevropeyskoy politicheskoy sistemy [Diplomacy of the Vatican in the context of the evolution of the European political system]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. 2000. 197 p. (In Russian).