THE NOTION OF SUCCESS IN MEDIATION
How do we know that mediation has been successful or not? How can we evaluate its impact? Was the Dayton Agreement a success? And if so, why? Was the Oslo Agreement a success? Are we looking only for a change effected as a result of mediation, or for a specific kind of change? And how do we assess change in the context of social relations? There will be as many answers to these questions as there are commentators.
And yet, we have to be able to answer this most fundamental of questions. Too often, it seems success or failure are assumed, postulated, or defined on a case by case basis, and usually in an arbitrary and poorly reasoned manner. Furthermore, the indicators utilized by those attempting to define success or failure are so diverse as to be almost unworkable. We need to engage in a more comprehensive discussion of what is success, what is a failure, and how to recognize them (for a fuller discussion of these, see Bercovitch 2006).Because international mediation is not a uniform practice, it seems futile to draw up one set of criteria to cover all possible constructs of success. Individual mediators, for instance, may adopt communicationfacilitating strategies, and be more concerned with the quality of interaction and the creation of a better environment for conflict management. Mediating states, on the other hand, may seek to achieve more than just a change in interactions; they would like to see a real change in behavior. Different objectives give rise to different meanings of success in mediation. Here, I wish to suggest two broad criteria, subjective and objective, to assess the effects and consequences of mediation in international conflicts.
Subjective criteria
Subjective criteria refer to the parties' or the mediator's perception (and, to some extent, that of other relevant external actors) that the goals of mediation have been achieved, or that a desired change has taken place.
Using this perspective, we can suggest that mediation has been successful when the parties feel, or express, satisfaction with the process or outcome of mediation, or when the outcome is seen as fair, efficient, or effective (Susskind and Cruickshank 1987).Fairness is an intangible abstraction. One cannot define fairness so stringently that it will not still be interpreted differently by different people, much like success itself. However, we do recognize that whatever it may be, fairness suggests to most people an even-handedness of procedure and equitability of outcome, and that is clearly indicative of some conception of “success.” Sheppard (1984) presents a number of concrete indicators of fairness that serve to assuage concerns regarding the threat of abstraction. Levels of process neutrality, disputant control, equitability, consistency of results and consistency with accepted norms are all relatively easily observed. Susskind and Cruikshank (1987) meanwhile present similar indicators of fairness (e.g. improvement of procedure and institution of precedent, access to information and opportunity for expression) which provide reasonably concrete conceptions of fairness. However, while there are certain observable indices of fairness, both Sheppard (1984) and Susskind and Cruikshank (1987) talk about the importance of “perceived fairness” in proceedings. Indicators of fairness mean little to parties in conflict if they themselves do not think the proceedings are fair. This “perception of unfairness,” justified or not, is often more crucial than any concrete measures of success. Hence, while such indicators may emphasize balanced procedures, or even equitable solutions, if parties to it don't perceive these as fair, it is unlikely that any resulting outcome will be seen as a “success.”
In some respects, participant satisfaction seems like a better indicator of success. If parties in mediation are satisfied with the process or outcome, they are more likely to perceive it as a success and, as Sheppard indicates (1984), more likely to be committed to it.
This in turn produces other relevant dimensions of success, such as stability, more likely to be achieved. Shepherd identifies a number of measurable indicators, both as regards process (privacy, level of involvement) and outcome (benefit, commitment).However, as with fairness, parties' satisfaction is largely a perceptual and very personal quality. Satisfaction is often deemed an almost emotional response to the achievement of a goal or attainment of some requirement. Clearly, the sorts of goals taken into an event by those involved in conflict are personal in nature, and formed by the specific configuration of their personality, environment, values, expectations, etc. This is neither unexpected nor unusual. Satisfaction is both a very personal and very subjective quality, but it does not mean mediators should abandon their quest to achieve outcomes that “satisfy” the parties. Outcomes that are “satisfactory” are more likely to be longer lasting, and least likely to be breached by repeated conflict.
Another possible indication of mediation success is the quality of effectiveness. Effectiveness is a measure of results achieved, or change brought about, of new forms of behavior agreed to. Successful mediation is about achieving some change. For a mediation effort to be deemed successful, it must have some (positive) impact, or effect on the conflict. The kind of change I am talking about relates to moving from violent to non-violent behavior, signing of an agreement, accepting a ceasefire or a settlement, agreeing to a UN peacekeeping force, or any such measures. If any of these has occurred as a result of mediation, mediation may be said to have been effective, and thus successful. Effectiveness allows us to observe what has changed after a mediator has entered a conflict. It is to a large extent much less subject to perceptual disagreements and more easily observable and measurable.
The fourth subjective criterion, efficiency, is primarily focused on the procedural and temporal dimension of conflict management.
Efficiency addresses such issues as the cost of conflict management, resources devoted to it, timeliness and disruptiveness of the undertaking. In some respects, this may seem extraneous. If a mediation episode is effective in other ways, does efficiency matter? Once again, it must be stressed that conflict and its management does not tend to occur in a vacuum. Costs racked up in order to accrue benefits may be such that those benefits lose their sheen. Susskind and Cruikshank give efficiency the most weight. They suggest that “fairness is not enough. A fair agreement is not acceptable if it takes an inordinately long time to achieve or if it costs several times what it should have” (Susskind and Cruickshank, 1987, p. 27). An agreement may not be all that elegant, but if it is achieved within a reasonably short time without entangling too many people in it, there is much to be said for it.Fairness of mediation, satisfaction with its performance, or improvement in the overall climate of the parties' relationship cannot be easily demonstrated, but they are undoubtedly consequences of successful mediation. They are subjective because they depend on the perceptions of the parties in conflict. Even if a conflict remains unresolved, mediation— in any guise—can do much to change the way the disputants feel about each other and lead, however indirectly, to both a long-term improvement in the parties' relationship and a resolution of the conflict. We would all describe these efforts as successful, even if we are not quite certain how to demonstrate the correlates of such success.
Objective criteria
Objective criteria in the study of mediation offer a totally different perspective. Objective criteria rely on substantive indicators that can be demonstrated empirically. Usually such criteria involve observations of change and judgments about the extent of change as evidence of the success or failure of mediation. Thus, one can consider a particular mediation successful when violence has abated, fatalities reduced, conflict intensity lessened, or a cessation of violent behavior and the opening of some dialogue between the parties were achieved.
Or, one can call mediation successful when a formal and binding agreement that settles the conflict's issues has been signed. These are tangible changes one may observe and whose significance one may evaluate.Thinking of the relationship between mediation and objective criteria of success is a relatively straightforward task. Here, success can be gauged in terms of months both parties observe a ceasefire, reduced number of fatalities following mediation, acceptance of UN peacekeeping force, or any other measures which demonstrably affect the extent and seriousness of a conflict. On the face of it, objective criteria seem to offer a perfectly valid way to assess the impact, consequences, and effectiveness of international mediation.
However, it would be unwise to rely solely on objective criteria. Different mediators, and indeed different parties in conflict, have different goals in mind when they enter conflict management. Changing behavior could well be only one amongst many other objectives. Some international mediators may focus on the substance of interactions; others may focus on its climate, setting, and decisionmaking norms. These goals cannot always be evaluated easily. Mediation should ideally be evaluated in terms of the criteria that are significant to each of the participants in the process. Thus, the questions of whether or not mediation works, or how best to evaluate it, can only be answered by finding out as much as we can about each party's goals and objectives, as well as learning to ascertain when positive change had taken place. There are just too many conceptual problems with the issue of evaluation, and it seems that, on this question at least, our theoretical ambitions must be tempered by the constraints of a complex reality.