This study proposes a conceptual model that depicts middle power mediation as a foreign policy strategy in the context of asymmetric alliance dynamics. It expands on Touval’s (2003) mediation-as-foreign policy perspective and argues that once mediation is conceived of as a viable political option in the conduct of foreign policy, engaging in mediation activity enables middle powers to create an extra space of political power not otherwise available. The article introduces an analytical model that explains the dynamics of mediation-as-foreign policy approach and the mechanisms that translate mediation engagement into political leverage. The analysis focuses on aspects of Turkish mediation efforts between 2002 and 2009 in the context of Turkish-
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Barakat, Sultan (2014). “Qatari Mediation: Between Ambition and Achievement.” Brookings Doha Center Analysis Paper 12.
Beardsley, Kyle (2011). The Mediation Dilemma. New York: Cornell University Press.
Bercovitch, Jacob and A. Houston (1996). “The Study of International Mediation: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Evidence,” in Jacob Bercovitch, editor, Resolving International Conflicts: The Theory and Practice of Mediation. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.
Beriker, Nimet (1995). “Mediating Regional Conflicts and Negotiating Flexibility: Peace Efforts in Bosnia-Herzegovina.” The Annals 542: 185–201.
Beriker, Nimet (2009). “Conflict Resolution: The Missing Link between Liberal International Relations Theory and Realistic Practice,” in J. Dennis Sandole, S. Bryne, I. Sandole-Staroste and J. Senehi, editors, Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Abingdon: Routledge, 256–271.
Beriker, Nimet (2014). “Introducing the fpc-tr Dataset: Dimensions of ak Party Foreign Policy.” Insight Turkey 16, 3: 201–211.
Beriker, Nimet (2016). “US Grand Strategy and Middle Power Foreign Policy: Turkey as a Mediator,” in Doga Ulas Eralp, editor, Turkey as a Mediator: Stories of Success and Failure. London: Lexington Books.
Cooper, Andrew F. (ed.) (1997). Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers after the Cold War. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Cooper, Andrew F., R. A. Higgott, and K. R. Nossal (1993). Relocating Middle Powers: Australian and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Cooper, David A. (2011). “Challenging Contemporary Notions of Middle Power Influence: Implications of the Proliferation Security Initiative for ‘Middle Power Theory.’ ” Foreign Policy Analysis 2: 317–336.
Crocker, Chester A., F. O. Hampson, and P. R. Aall (2003). “Ready for Prime Time: The When, Who, and Why of International Mediation.” Negotiation Journal 19, 2: 151–167.
Davutoglu, Ahmet (2012). “Principles of Turkish Foreign Policy and Regional Political Structuring.” TEPAV Turkey Policy Brief Series.
Druckman, Daniel (1977). “Boundary Role Conflict: Negotiation as Dual Responsiveness.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 21: 639–662.
Druckman, Daniel (1997). “Negotiating in the International Context,” in I. William Zartman, editor, Peacemaking in International Conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 81–123.
Fisher, Roger and W. Ury (1981). Getting to Yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Flemes, Daniel (2007). “Emerging Middle Powers.” Soft Balancing Strategy: State and Perspectives of the IBSA Dialogue Forum. giga Working Papers, 57.
Frazier, Derrick V. and R. Stewart-Ingersoll (2010). “Regional Powers and Security: A Framework for Understanding Order within Regional Security Complexes.” European Journal of International Relations 16, 4: 731–753.
Greig, Michael J. and Paul F. Diehl (2012). International Mediation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Higgott, Richard A. (1997). “Issues, Institutions and Middle Power Diplomacy: Action and Agendas in the Post-Cold War Era,” in Andrew F. Cooper, editor, Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers after the Cold War. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 25–45.
Iklé, Fred C. (1964). How Nations Negotiate. New York: Harper and Row.
Kleiboer, Marieke (1996). “Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 40, 2: 360–389.
Linden, R., A. Evin, K. Kirisci and N. Tocci (2012). Turkey and Its Neighbors. Foreign Relations in Transition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Maundi, Muhammed O., I. W. Zartman, G. Khadiagala and Nuamah Kwaku (2006). Getting In: Mediators Entry into the Settlement of African Conflicts. Washington, DC, USIP Press.
McKibben, Elko Heather (2013). “The effects of structures and power on state bargaining strategies.” American Journal of Political Science 57, 2: 411–427.
Miller, Benjamin (2005). “When and How Regions Become Peaceful: Potential Theoretical Pathways to Peace.” International Studies Review 7: 229–267.
Neack, L. (2000). “Middle Powers Once Removed: The Diminished Global Role of Middle Powers and American Grand Strategy.” Paper presented at the International Studies Association 41st Annual Convention, Los Angeles, CA.
Neack, Laura (2008). The New Foreign Policy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pope, Hugh (2010). “Pax Ottomana? The Mixed Success of Turkey’s New Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 89, 6.
Pruitt, Dean and J. Rubin (1994). Social Conflict, Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Prys, Miriam (2010). “Hegemony, Domination, Detachment: Differences in Regional Powerhood.” International Studies Review 12, 4: 479–504.
Putnam, Robert D. (1988). “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42, 3: 427–460.
Ravenhill, John (1998). “Cycles of Middle Power Activism: Constraint and Choice in Australian and Canadian Foreign Policies.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 52, 3: 309–327.
Sook, Jong Lee (2012). “South Korea as New Middle Power Seeking Complex Diplomacy.” East Asia Institute (EAI), Asia Security Initative, Working Paper 25.
Taşpınar, Ömer (2012). “Turkey: The New Model?” Brookings Institution.
Touval, Saadia (2003). “Mediation and Foreign Policy.” International Studies Review 5, 4: 91–95.
Wallensteen, Peter and I. Svensson (2014). “Talking peace: International mediation in armed conflicts.” Journal of Peace Research 51, 2: 315–327.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 457 | 62 | 2 |
Full Text Views | 288 | 18 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 125 | 40 | 5 |
This study proposes a conceptual model that depicts middle power mediation as a foreign policy strategy in the context of asymmetric alliance dynamics. It expands on Touval’s (2003) mediation-as-foreign policy perspective and argues that once mediation is conceived of as a viable political option in the conduct of foreign policy, engaging in mediation activity enables middle powers to create an extra space of political power not otherwise available. The article introduces an analytical model that explains the dynamics of mediation-as-foreign policy approach and the mechanisms that translate mediation engagement into political leverage. The analysis focuses on aspects of Turkish mediation efforts between 2002 and 2009 in the context of Turkish-
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 457 | 62 | 2 |
Full Text Views | 288 | 18 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 125 | 40 | 5 |