MEDIATION: DEFINITIONS AND APPROACHES

Definitions

For many years, the study of mediation has suffered from conceptual imprecision and a startling lack of information. Practitioners of mediation, formal or informal, in the domestic or international arena were keen to sustain its image as a mysterious practice, akin to some art form, taking place behind closed doors; scholars of mediation, on the other hand, did not think their field of study was susceptible to a systematic analysis.

The prevalent agnosticism toward analysis and the desire to maintain the intuitive mystique of mediation are best exemplified in the observations of two noted American practitioners. Arthur Meyer, commenting on the role of mediators, notes that “the task of the mediator is not an easy one. The sea that he sails is only roughly charted, and its changing contours are not clearly discernible. He has no science of navigation, no fund inherited from the experience of others. He is a solitary artist recognizing at most a few guiding stars, and depending on his personal powers of divination” (Meyer 1960, 160). William Simkin, an equally respected practitioner of mediation, comments in a slightly less prosaic but no less emphatic fashion that “the variables are so many that it would be an exercise in futility to describe typical mediator behavior with respect to sequence, timing or the use or non-use of the various functions theoretically available” (Simkin 1971, 118).

Etymologically, mediation comes from the Latin root to halve, but different definitions of mediation purport to (a) capture the gist of what mediators do or hope to achieve; (b) distinguish between mediation and related processes of third-party intervention (i.e.

Focusing on what mediators hope to achieve and how they may go about achieving it, Oran Young offers a definition of mediation as “any action taken by an actor that is not a direct party to the crisis, that is designed to reduce or remove one or more of the problems of the bargaining relationship, and therefore to facilitate the termination of the crisis itself” (Young 1967, 34). In much the same vein, Chris Mitchell defines mediation as any “intermediary activity... undertaken by a third party with the primary intention of achieving some compromise settlement of the issues at stake between the parties, or at least ending disruptive conflict behavior” (Mitchell 1981,287). And in a somewhat more detailed fashion, Blake and Mouton define mediation as a process involving “the intervention of a third party who first investigates and defines the problem and then usually approaches each group separately with recommendations designed to provide a mutually acceptable solution” (Blake and Mouton 1985, 15).

Other definitions are less outcome-oriented and focus on the act of the intervention itself. Ann Douglas defines mediation as “a form of peacemaking in which an outsider to a dispute intervenes on his own or accepts the invitation of disputing parties to assist them in reaching agreement” (Douglas 1957, 70). Moore defines it as “an extension and elabo­ration of the negotiation process. Mediation involves the intervention of an acceptable, impartial, and neutral third party who has no authoritative decision-making power to assist contending parties in voluntarily reaching their own mutually acceptable settlement” (Moore 1986, 6). And Linda Singer defines it as a “form of third-party assistance [that] involves an outsider to the dispute who lacks the power to make decisions for the parties” (Singer 1990, 20).

Still other definitions focus on neutrality and impartiality as the distinguishing features of mediation.

These definitions (and they are but a sample) exemplify the enormous scope of mediation. Mediation may take place in conflicts between states, within states, between groups of states, organizations, and between individuals. Mediators enter a conflict to help those involved achieve a better outcome than they would be able to achieve by themselves. Once involved in a conflict, medi­ators may use a wide variety of behaviors to achieve this objective. Some mediators make suggestions for a settlement, others refrain from doing so. Some mediators are interested in achieving a compromise, others are not. We should also note that some mediators may be neutral, others are decidedly not. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the Middle East, Presidents Carter and Clinton at Camp David, former British and Russian Foreign Secretaries Robin Cook and Yevgeny Primakov or Ambassador Holbrooke all mediating in Kosovo, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice shuttling to and fro in the Middle East, or the Chinese in North Korea, as well as many other mediators, may or may not have been neutral in mediating their different conflicts, but that was hardly the most notable feature of their performance.

Some may consider this quibbling over definitions or aspects of neutrality to be a futile exercise in semantic sophistry. It is most emphatically not so. The myriad of possible mediators and the range of mediation roles and strategies are so wide as to defeat many attempts to understand, as we seek to do here, the “essence” of mediation. In the absence of a generally accepted definition, there is a tendency to identify mediation with one particular role (e.g. a go-between) or a single strategy (e.g. offering proposals). This does not help us to understand the reality of international mediation. Assigning an exclusive role or strategy to one kind of mediation overlooks the dynamics of the process. It is also detrimental to the search for common and divergent dimensions of mediation in international and other social contexts, and the effort to draw general lessons from mediation experience.

The reality of international mediation is that of a complex and dynamic interaction between mediators who have resources and an interest in the conflict or its outcome, and the protagonists or their representatives. The most helpful approach to mediation links it to a related approach to conflict, that of negotiation, but at the same time emphasizes its unique features and conditions. The param­eters of such an approach were established by Carl Stevens and Thomas Schelling. Stevens (1963, 123) states that “mediation, like other social phenomena, is susceptible to systematic analysis. The key to analysis is in recognizing that where mediation is employed it is an integral part of the bargaining process.... [A]n analysis of mediation is not possible except in the context of general analysis of bargaining negotiations.” In a similar vein, Schelling (1960, 22) notes that a mediator “is probably best viewed as an element in the communication arrangements, or as a third party with a payoff structure of his own.”

In any given conflict, mediators may change, their role may be redefined, issues may alter, indeed even the parties involved in the conflict may and often do change. A comprehensive definition seems to be a primary requisite for understanding this com­plex reality.

This may be a broad definition, but it is one that can be generally and widely applied. It forces us to recognize, as surely we must, that any mediation situation comprises

(a) parties in conflict, (b) a mediator, (c) a process of mediation, and (d) the context of mediation. All these elements are important in mediation. Together they determine its nature, quality, and effectiveness, as well as why some mediation efforts succeed while others fail.

Mediation is, at least structurally, the continuation of negotiations by other means. Mediation differs from other accommodative strategies such as negotiation (which is dyadic rather than triadic in structure) and arbitration (which has a strong binding character). What mediators do, can do, or are permitted to do in their efforts to resolve a conflict may depend, to some extent, on who they are and what resources and competencies they can bring to bear. Ultimately, though, their efforts depend on who the parties are, the context of the conflict, what is at stake, and the nature of their interaction. “Mediation,” as Stulberg so rightly notes, “is a procedure predicated upon the process of negotiation” (Stulberg 1981, 87). Mediation is, above all, adaptive and responsive. It extends the process of negotiation to reflect different parties, different possibilities, and a different situation. To assume otherwise is to mistake wishful thinking for reality.

Characteristics of mediation

What, then, are the main features or charac­teristics of mediation across levels? Anumber of these may be listed below:

• Mediation is an extension and continuation of peaceful conflict management.

• Mediation involves the intervention of an outsider—an individual, a group, or an organiza­tion, with values, resources, and interests of their own—into a conflict between two or more states or other actors.

• Mediation is a non-coercive, non-violent and, ultimately, non-binding form of intervention.

• Mediators enter a conflict, whether internal or international, in order to affect it, change it, resolve it, modify it, or influence it in some way.

• Mediators bring with them, consciously or other­wise, ideas, knowledge, resources, and interests of their own or of the group or organization they represent. Mediators often have their own assumptions and agendas about the conflict in question.

• Mediation is a voluntary form of conflict manage­ment. The actors involved retain control over the outcome (if not always over the process) of their conflict, as well as the freedom to accept or reject mediation or mediators' proposals.

• Mediation usually operates on an ad hoc basis only (i.e., a particular mediation effort or series of efforts are undertaken by one or more actors, and then mediation ceases with or without an agreement).

Approaches in the study of mediation

The literature on international mediation has attracted many scholars and reflects a great diversity in terms of approaches and perspectives (see Kolb and Rubin 1991). All these approaches—and there is a seemingly endless variety of them—range from purely scholarly studies to policy implications to the reflections of mediators themselves, and to studies suggesting that academics should act as third parties in mediation efforts. Different scholars categorize studies of medi­ation under different categories. For instance, Wall and Lynn (1993) differentiates “general theories,” “context-specific theories” and “extended context theories.” Sometimes these approaches offer implications for practical involvement, while at other times they focus on descriptions and theory development. The following can be identified as the three main traditions in the study of international mediation:

(1) The first group of studies is essentially pre­scriptive and is devoted to offering advice on what constitutes good conflict management in real-world situations (e.g. Fisher and Ury 1981). These studies, mostly developed by scholars associated with the Program on Negotiation at Harvard University, generate books and manuals on how mediators and negotiators should behave, what constitutes good negotiation or mediation, and how conflicts—serious or otherwise—can be resolved.

(2) Some studies of mediation in a variety of contexts are based on theoretical notions and the participation of academic practitioners in a variety of actual conflicts, with the aim of testing ideas and developing a generic theory for the resolution of social conflicts. These studies use a variety of interaction and problem-solving techniques to combine political action with scientific experimentation and thus contribute to the development of a set of rules that can address all (not just international) conflicts. Some of this research (Burton 1969,1972,1984; Doob 1971; Fisher 1983; Kelman 1992; Walton 1969) has generated valuable insights, but much of it is still in a pioneering phase.

(3) The third set of studies is based on actual descriptions and empirical examinations of mediation cases. These studies seek to develop theories and to offer general guidelines through: (a) the detailed description of a particular case of international mediation (e.g. Ott 1972; Rubin 1981); (b) laboratory and experimental approaches to mediation (e.g. Bartunek et al. 1975; Rubin 1980) to discover how parties and mediators behave in controlled circumstances; and (c) a contingency framework that relies on large-scale systematic studies. This approach draws on numerous cases of international medi­ation to formulate and test propositions about effective mediation and to assess the conditions under which mediation can be made to work better (e.g. Bercovitch and Rubin 1992; Touval and Zartman 1985). The contingency approach has its roots in the social-psychological theories of negotiation as developed by Sawyer and Guetzkow (1965) and modified by Druckman (1977). This is the approach that I believe can yield the most significant insights and policy advice on mediation.

The contingency approach provides a framework that permits a systematic analysis of the underlying structures and conditions that shape conflict events, and complex relationships of the conflict management process. It takes into consideration the indi­vidual influences of personal, role, situational, goal, interactional and outcome variables (Bercovitch 1984, 2000; Fisher and Keashley 1991; Gochman 1993; Keashley and Fisher 1996) as well as their interactive effects within the context, process, and outcome of conflict management (Bercovitch 2000). The contingency approach makes it clear that the choice of a particular form of mediation is rarely random. The choice of mediation is rarely random. It is affected by the characteristics of the dispute, the nature of the social environment and the identity of a mediator, the characteristics of the dispute, and the nature of the social environment amongst others (Assefa 1987). Mediation is a rational, political process, representing a strategic engagement between parties and a mediator, which, under some conditions, may stop violence and hostilities or even facilitate a peace agreement and a transformation of the conflict. What the contingency framework allows us to do is disentangle some conditions from the myriad of factors that may affect conflict management and study these in a systematic manner.