Студопедия — While reading the text pay attention to different models of crisis mediation.
Студопедия Главная Случайная страница Обратная связь

Разделы: Автомобили Астрономия Биология География Дом и сад Другие языки Другое Информатика История Культура Литература Логика Математика Медицина Металлургия Механика Образование Охрана труда Педагогика Политика Право Психология Религия Риторика Социология Спорт Строительство Технология Туризм Физика Философия Финансы Химия Черчение Экология Экономика Электроника

While reading the text pay attention to different models of crisis mediation.






This study focuses on mediation as a means for mitigating or at least minimizing the potentially turbulent and violent consequences of international crises. Two main research questions are explored: (1) Does mediation in general affect the dynamics and outcomes of crisis negotiations? and (2) Does the impact of mediation vary in accordance with mediator style? Data are drawn from the International Crisis Behavior data set and from ongoing experimental work with human subjects. The historical data reveal that mediated crises are more typically characterized by compromise among crisis actors, are more likely to end in agreements, and show a tendency toward long-term tension reduction. The experimental research confirmed the relationship between mediation and the achievement of agreement and also revealed that mediation leads to crises of shorter duration and to greater satisfaction by the parties with the outcome. A manipulative mediation style is more likely to yield favorable crisis management outcomes than is a more restrictive facilitative style.

Keywords: international crisis; crisis management; negotiation; mediation; experiments; simulation

 

International crises are dangerous episodes that can be destabilizing not only to the actors directly involved but also to the entire international system. Crises can present overwhelming challenges to established institutions and belief systems and change forever the distribution of power within the international system or in a regional sub- system. Recognizing the primacy of crises, scholars and policy makers have been increasingly concerned with developing mechanisms for crisis prevention, management, and resolution. In this study, we investigate one such mechanism - mediation by a third party - to determine whether it is an effective means of mitigating, or at least managing, the all too often turbulent and violent consequences of crises. Toward this goal of determining the impact of mediation on the dynamics and outcomes of crises, we explore two main research questions: First, does mediation in general affect the nature of the outcome of crisis negotiations? Second, does the impact of mediation vary in accordance with the style of mediator involvement? Developing insights into the first of these research questions will entail comparison of data on outcomes of mediated and unmediated 20th-century crises. But analysis of these data alone cannot provide a sufficient understanding of how mediation might change the progress of crisis negotiations. To better understand the nature of the relationship between mediation and crisis dynamics, we report on a series of experiments conducted in a simulated crisis negotiation environment. These experiments provide direct feedback about negotiators' perceptions of mediation and data on the impact of varying styles of mediation. Mediation is not the sole determinant of crisis outcomes. We turn first to a brief examination of key studies that focus on the effect of mediation on international conflict and crises as well as to a review of work on the relationship between the procedural element of mediation style and crisis outcomes. This will be followed by an overview of patterns of crisis mediation in the 20th century, setting the stage for the examination of hypotheses derived from the two frameworks.

Bercovitch, Anagnoson, and Wille (1991) define mediation as a process of conflict management where disputants seek the assistance of, or accept an offer of help from, an individual, group, state, or organization to settle their conflict or resolve their differences without resorting to physical force or invoking the authority of the law. Bercovitch and Langley (1993) note that this behavioral definition is most useful because of its emphasis on the key components of mediation - the disputants, the third party, and the specific conflict resolution context. Two other definitional issues need to be addressed at the outset. First, it is important to be clear on what we mean by international and foreign policy crises. In this study, we employ the definitions developed by the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) Project. An international crisis is identified when it meets two criteria: (1) A change has occurred in the type, and/or an increase in the intensity, of disruptive (hostile verbal or physical) interactions between two or more states, with a heightened probability of military hostilities. (2) These changes, in turn, destabilize the states' relationship and challenge the structure of an international system. When an international crisis is triggered at the system level, at least one state is experiencing a foreign policy crisis. A state is considered a crisis actor if three conditions are present: decision makers perceive a threat to basic national values, leaders believe that they must make a decision within a finite period of time, and leaders consider the chances of involvement in military hostilities to be heightened (Brecher and Wilkenfeld 2000). A second definitional issue pertains to the differing goals of conflict resolution versus crisis management. As Stern and Druckman (2000) point out, there is no single definition of "successful" conflict resolution. Whereas general conflict resolution focuses on seeking long-term remedies that address the root causes of conflict and all underlying issues, interventions in crises have a distinct mission. The primary mission of crisis management is to terminate the immediate crisis before it escalates or spreads. Securing a cease fire or other form of deescalation would be considered a successful instance of crisis management but is not always considered a successful conflict resolution outcome. Dixon (1996) provides a useful definition of what we term crisis management (versus conflict resolution): successful crisis management occurs when "any written or unwritten mutually agreeable arrangements between parties that at least temporarily resolve or remove from contention one or more, but not necessarily all, of the issues underlying the dispute" are secured. Conflict resolution and crisis management are, of course, related but are distinct pursuits. The theoretical literature on the topic of mediation in international relations and international conflict is robust. Research that focuses on crisis mediation, however, is quite sparse. Analysts have generated a substantial number of case studies examining mediator involvement in individual crises. Although these analyses have generated a breadth of findings about specific situations, they have not provided as much progress toward general theories of crisis mediation. This study hopes to make a contribution toward the development of such a theory in this area. The dearth of systematic research on the topic of crisis mediation is especially problematic given Dixon's (1996) observation that "mediation efforts occur between two and three times more often during crisis and hostility phases (of conflicts) than during periods of lower intensity." In addition, Zartman and Touval (1996) argue that a crisis, with its perceived deadline, is most conducive to acceptance of mediation. Despite the likelihood that mediation will take place during international crises, both the mediation literature and the crisis literature have failed to offer systematic analyses of crisis mediation.

EXPECTED EFFECTS OF MEDIATION

All conflicting parties must consent to the involvement of a mediator as a third party in the dispute. But what motivates parties to agree to a mediator? In general, it is the individual expectations of those involved in the conflict that mediation will be effective in helping each secure a more favorable outcome than would otherwise be possible (Touval and Zartman 1985). Princen (1992) concurs that individual interests, rather than "shared values" or "a convergence of interests," are the driving force behind acceptance of mediation. Mediation can bolster the benefit an actor accrues from a conflict or crisis in a number of ways. First, mediators can help each side "get its way" in a negotiation; that is, they can lead one (or many) parties to victory in a conflict. In addition, Bercovitch (1992, 1997) notes that a disputing party may seek mediation in expectation that it would help bring an end more quickly to a conflict or crisis that would otherwise persist. A disputant may also agree to mediation to foster better relations with that third party for the future (Zartman and Touval 1996); conversely, a negotiating party may try to protect its reputation and image by using the mediator as the scapegoat for any unpopular concessions made as part of the final agreement. Parties may also seek mediation out of the belief that a mediator will act as a guarantor of an agreement, reducing the chances of future costly conflicts. Actors would view any of these effects of mediation as value added to the overall outcome of a conflict or crisis. Writing more specifically about the effect of mediators on the processes and evolution of crises, Morgan (1994) and Dixon (1996) both find that mediation benefits the relevant parties by effectively helping to defuse these dangerous situations. Morgan's framework on crisis escalation posits that the probability of an international crisis escalating to war decreases when third-party intervention takes the form of mediation. Similarly, Dixon finds that crisis mediation provides "the most consistently effective conflict management technique for both preventing escalation and promoting peaceful settlement". Dixon's definition of mediation, however, is somewhat unique within the conflict management literature. According to his categorization, efforts by third parties to facilitate communication between disputants do not qualify as mediation, but binding arbitration does qualify as mediation.' This definition stands in contrast to the one adopted here and by many in the field of mediation studies. As such, further analysis is needed, along the lines presented below, to help determine how effective mediation is as a crisis management tool.

A CLASSIFICATION OF MEDIATION STYLES

The literature on mediation has converged on three basic styles that mediators can adopt in their efforts to resolve a conflict - the facilitator, the formulator, and the manipulator. Some offer alternative classification schemes, somewhat more detailed than that of Touval and Zartman. We agree with Bercovitch (1997), however, that the facilitator-formulator-manipulator schema sufficiently distinguishes general mediator behavior. The crisis actors, the mediator, or both may decide which style is most appropriate for a given crisis, and each requires a different level of involvement and dictates the parameters of appropriate behavior by the mediator. The mediator as facilitator serves as a channel of communication among disputing parties. This type of mediation is also referred to as third-party consultation, good offices, or process facilitation (Hopmann 1996). The mediator as facilitator can organize the logistics of the negotiation process, collect information, set the agenda regarding which issues will be discussed and in what order, and/or deliver messages between parties if face-to-face communication is not possible or desired. The mediator as facilitator makes no substantive contribution to the negotiation process but, rather, is restrained to ensuring continued, and hopefully constructive, discussion and dialogue among disputants. The second role defined by Touval and Zartman (1985) is mediator as formulator. Unlike facilitation, formulation involves a substantive contribution to the negotiations - including developing and proposing new solutions to the disputants - to assist the disputants when the parties reach an impasse in the negotiation process. However, the mediator as formulator is not empowered to pressure the crisis actors to endorse or advocate any particular outcome - a capability associated with manipulation, as described below. The manipulative mediator also provides a substantive contribution to negotiations. In addition to formulating potential solutions, this mediator uses its position and its leverage - "resources of power, influence, and persuasion" - to "manipulate the parties into agreement" (Touval and Zartman 1985). The mediator augments the appeal of its solutions by adding and subtracting benefits to/from the proposed solution (Zartman and Touval 1996). Hopmann (1996) indicates that only a powerful mediator can play this role and notes that mediators can influence the direction of negotiations not only through carrot-and-stick measures but also by manipulating the international environment. A number of authors argue that mediators should not adopt one style in a situation but should adapt throughout the course of a conflict or crisis. Nonetheless, others believe that one or the other of these styles will be a more effective means of conflict resolution or crisis management. Advocates of the mediator-as-facilitator style contend that disputing parties should arrive at their own solutions and that styles that allow mediators to suggest solutions - that is, formulation and manipulation - would "prejudice his (the mediator's) position" (Burton 1972). Proponents of facilitation maintain that this approach is best suited to securing long-lasting, mutually reinforcing outcomes and to resolving fundamental causes of conflicts (Jabri 1996); whereas manipulative, directive strategies can damage the "atmosphere of good will, trust, and joint problem solving" between the parties (Princen 1992). Consistent with this perspective and specific to the question of mediation styles in crisis, Dixon (1996) concludes that facilitation effectively promotes peaceful settlement during crises more consistently than do manipulative moves. Although many support limiting a mediator's role to facilitation, Terris and Maoz (2001) find that mediators are more likely to employ an intrusive style such as manipulation. Mediation analysts who encourage the adoption of such a manipulative style argue that the manipulative mediator's ability to apply leverage will allow him or her to be more effective than the facilitator in bringing disputants to agreement (Bercovitch 1986, 1997; Bercovitch and Houston 1996). Touval and Zartman (1985) contend that only a mediator with leverage is likely to generate an agreement between the parties or assist them in getting out of a quandary. Morgan's (1994) analysis of crises is more favorable than Dixon's (1996) regarding the potential of manipulative strategies in times of crisis. Morgan notes that manipulative mediators' ability to provide side payments to conflicting parties makes them especially effective. Many authors have also found that intense settings, such as crises, are more receptive to the substantive contributions and pressuring moves of a manipulative mediator than are less intense situations. This disagreement over what path a mediator should follow during an international crisis serves as the motivation for our second research question: how do different mediation styles affect crises and crisis negotiations? First, however, we explore the occurrence, impact, and effects of crisis mediation in general.

CRISIS MEDIATION IN THE 20TH CENTURY: CROSS-NATIONAL FINDINGS

In fall 2000, we oversaw an evaluation of the role of mediation in the 419 cases coded as international crises in the ICB data set for the period from 1918 to 1996. Utilizing ICB case summaries, coders explored two new variables for each crisis: (1) Did mediation occur? and, if so, (2) To what degree did mediation affect the way the crisis ended?

WHEN ARE CRISES MEDIATED? The ICB data on instances of mediation revealed that mediation efforts were present in 125, or 30%, of all crises between 1918 and 1996. Although some crisis characteristics - number of actors involved, type of trigger, or whether the crisis was part of a larger protracted conflict - revealed little relationship to mediation, the analysis did reveal certain trends regarding the likelihood of mediation. Mediation occurs with greatest frequency in crises involving territorial threat - in 30% of cases overall but in 41% when territorial issues are involved. In addition, as the number of relevant issues in a crisis increases, so too does the chance that the crisis will be mediated: 52% of crises with three or more core issues were mediated. The data also reveal that mediation rates have changed as the distribution of power in the international system has shifted. Mediation occurred in only 20% of crises during the bipolar era between 1945 and 1962. During the polycentric period (1963- 1989), 34% of crises were mediated. And in the post-cold war unipolar era (1990- 1996), 64% of international crises involved mediation efforts. The data support the contention that mediation is an increasingly common tool of crisis management and one that we need to better understand.

Crises linked to ethnic conflicts have been prominent in the post-cold war era and are more likely to feature mediation than are those without ethnic ties. Twenty-three percent of non-ethnic crises were mediated, whereas 34% of secessionist crises and 52% of irredentist crises prompted mediation efforts. This phenomenon is no doubt related to our finding that territorial crises are the most likely to be mediated, but there may also exist an independent relationship between the ethnic roots of a crisis and whether mediation will be invoked. Mediation is more likely to occur the more geographically proximate the crisis adversaries are to one another. Crises between contiguous actors exhibit a 35% rate of mediation, compared with a 23% rate for near neighbors and only a 14% rate for actors that are geographically distant. This phenomenon is related to our findings on crisis mediation rates at different levels within the international system. Three-fourths of all crises between neighboring states are subsystem-level crises (involving non-major powers), and 36% of these subsystem crises involved mediation efforts. This contrasts with the paucity of mediation efforts in dominant system crises. Only 8% of these crises were subject to mediation. Finally, the level of violence associated with a crisis influences the likelihood that that crisis will be mediated. All crises involve an increased chance of violence erupting, but in 26% of ICB cases, no violence occurs among the crisis adversaries. Our data reveal that mediation is less likely to occur in these nonviolent crises. Only 19% of these crises were mediated, whereas mediation was attempted in 39% of crises characterized by violence at the level of a war. Overall, the results of this aggregate analysis of mediation in 20th-century international crises reveal that mediation became an increasingly prominent means of attempting to manage international crises as the system moved from bipolarity through polycentrism to post-cold war unipolarity. Mediation was most prevalent in crises involving territorial disputes, ethnic conflicts, and multiple issues; when contiguous adversaries were involved; in crises at the subsystem level; and in more violent crises.

Our analysis of international crises based on the ICB data indicates that historically, mediated crises are characterized by compromise among crisis actors, are more likely to end in agreements, and show a tendency toward long-term tension reduction. Although outcomes involving compromise or stalemate are the more likely result of mediation, those crises characterized by such non-definitive outcomes have a heightened tendency to recur. That is, although tensions are temporarily reduced through mediated crisis management, full conflict resolution - or a long-term reduction of tensions - is apparently more elusive. The experimental research confirmed the relationship between mediation and the achievement of agreement while also revealing that mediation leads to greater satisfaction with the crisis outcome. Although we consider these effects of mediation to be consistent with the goals of crisis management and with the negotiators' expectations of the effect of mediation, our subsequent analyses of mediation style demonstrate that it is necessary to attach some caveats to a general endorsement of mediation in crisis management. Although both facilitative and manipulative mediation are conducive to generating agreements, and agreements that are considered satisfactory to negotiators, only manipulative mediation has a positive effect on the level of benefits associated with crisis termination and on the duration of a crisis. Data from the Ecuador/Peru simulations indicate that only manipulative mediation meets the negotiators' expectations of leading them to a more beneficial outcome than they could have otherwise secured. On the other hand, facilitation may actually lower average benefits - a situation that could lead to discontent among disputants and, possibly, recurrent crises. In addition, the more rapid conclusion of a crisis - brought about only by manipulation - is an essential component of crisis management, given the relationship between prolonged crisis negotiations and the likelihood of escalating violence and war. Given our historical and experimental findings, then, we conclude that manipulative mediation - as compared with facilitation or no mediation - is an effective means of crisis management. Our endorsement of manipulation must be tempered, though, by at least two factors that need to be explored more rigorously in the future. First, our analysis has looked only at the two extreme styles of mediation-facilitation and manipulation. It may be the case that formulative mediation, which falls between these two extreme styles, is an even more effective management tool under certain circumstances. We intend to explore a broader range of mediation styles in future work using expanded versions of both ICB and our experimental research design. A second concern with manipulative mediation is one that is well developed in the literature on mediation. Scholars raise concerns about both the short- and long-term implications of solutions developed and forced on parties by an outsider, fearing that these situations can lead to feelings of alienation and resentment of the mediator, the process of negotiation, and even the other parties involved in the negotiation (Princen 1992; Kelman 1992; Keashly and Fisher 1996). Although our findings on negotiator satisfaction do not reveal resentment of manipulation vis-a-vis facilitation, greater consideration of the unintended consequences that could accompany the adoption of manipulative mediation as a crisis-management tool is necessary before we can conclude that manipulation is an appropriate - or perhaps the most appropriate - means of managing international crises. Our findings, however, do indicate that manipulation shows potential as a key approach to mitigating the violence and instability associated with international crises. It bears repeating that our findings pertain only to international crises and not to the broader phenomenon of international conflict in general. Our conclusions about the greater effectiveness of manipulative mediation in high-stress crisis situations are not likely to be applicable as one attempts to move from crisis management to conflict resolution. Thus, the research reported here reinforces the need to specify the goals of a specific intervention, as a review of one recent case demonstrates. Henry Kissinger's famous shuttle-diplomacy mediation in 1974 between Israel and Syria was aimed exclusively at reaching a stable cease fire. These efforts, resulting in the attainment of a separation-of-forces agreement, were an example of successful crisis management through manipulative mediation. Analysis of Israeli/Syrian relations shows the limits of this tool, however. Kissinger's efforts ended the crisis, but the conflict between the states persisted, and the two states faced off against each other in three subsequent crises (Al-Biqa Missiles I in 1981, War in Lebanon in 1982, and Al- Biqa Missiles II in 1985). According to Hopmann and Druckman (1981), Kissinger did not secure a lasting resolution of the conflict because his use of a manipulative mediation style - especially threats - prevented a basis for lasting communication and long-term cooperation from being procured, thus demonstrating a potential limit of manipulation. Similarly, 25 years after Kissinger's mission, Bill Clinton invited the leaders of Syria and Israel to Shepherdstown, West Virginia, to work through the core issues in contention between the states. Clinton used the same tool as Kissinger- manipulative mediation - but the president had a very different goal (conflict resolution) than did his predecessor, and here, that tool was ineffective. No agreement could be reached between the parties, and the conflict persists. Although we have just begun to uncover the complex interactions between crisis management and conflict resolution and how different styles of mediation may be more appropriate for one than for the other, we must add additional variables to both the historical and experimental analyses. As we examine further the additional issues of power discrepancy and zones of agreement, we hope to come closer to completing this picture and offering a general theory of mediation as a means of crisis management.

 

1. mediation – посредничество

2. to mitigate – смягчать, уменьшать

3. overwhelming – подавляющий, непреодолимый

4. to entail – влечь за собой, вовлекать

5. to resort to – прибегать к, обращаться

6. to invoke – призывать, взывать

7. disruptive – разрушительный

8. hostility – враждебность

9. to pertain – принадлежать, иметь отношение

10. to terminate – положить конец

11. robust – сильный, крепкий

12. sparse – редкий, разбросанный

13. dearth – нехватка, недостаток

14. conducive – благоприятный, способствующий

15. to bolster – поддерживать, приободрять

16. to accrue – увеличиваться, нарастать

17. to defuse – разряжать, нейтрализовать

18. facilitator – содействующий, способствующий

19. impasse – тупик, безвыходное положение

20. to augment – увеличивать, прибавлять

21. quandary – затруднительное положение

22. irredentist – сторонник партии воссоединения

23. paucity – малочисленность, недостаточность

24. contiguous – смежный, прилегающий

25. adversary – противник, враг

26. elusive – неуловимый, уклончивый

27. caveat – предостережение, протест

 







Дата добавления: 2015-10-18; просмотров: 433. Нарушение авторских прав; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!



Функция спроса населения на данный товар Функция спроса населения на данный товар: Qd=7-Р. Функция предложения: Qs= -5+2Р,где...

Аальтернативная стоимость. Кривая производственных возможностей В экономике Буридании есть 100 ед. труда с производительностью 4 м ткани или 2 кг мяса...

Вычисление основной дактилоскопической формулы Вычислением основной дактоформулы обычно занимается следователь. Для этого все десять пальцев разбиваются на пять пар...

Расчетные и графические задания Равновесный объем - это объем, определяемый равенством спроса и предложения...

Ведение учета результатов боевой подготовки в роте и во взводе Содержание журнала учета боевой подготовки во взводе. Учет результатов боевой подготовки - есть отражение количественных и качественных показателей выполнения планов подготовки соединений...

Сравнительно-исторический метод в языкознании сравнительно-исторический метод в языкознании является одним из основных и представляет собой совокупность приёмов...

Концептуальные модели труда учителя В отечественной литературе существует несколько подходов к пониманию профессиональной деятельности учителя, которые, дополняя друг друга, расширяют психологическое представление об эффективности профессионального труда учителя...

Медицинская документация родильного дома Учетные формы родильного дома № 111/у Индивидуальная карта беременной и родильницы № 113/у Обменная карта родильного дома...

Основные разделы работы участкового врача-педиатра Ведущей фигурой в организации внебольничной помощи детям является участковый врач-педиатр детской городской поликлиники...

Ученые, внесшие большой вклад в развитие науки биологии Краткая история развития биологии. Чарльз Дарвин (1809 -1882)- основной труд « О происхождении видов путем естественного отбора или Сохранение благоприятствующих пород в борьбе за жизнь»...

Studopedia.info - Студопедия - 2014-2024 год . (0.012 сек.) русская версия | украинская версия