Just Say No: Explaining the Lack of International Mediation in Kashmir
In: International NegotiationSearch for other papers by Bidisha Biswas in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is one of the world’s most protracted and potentially dangerous conflicts. While the international community has strong interest in limiting violent conflagration between the two states, third party action aimed at amelioration has been very limited. This contrasts with overall global mediation efforts, which have increased in the post-Cold War period. Using archival research, this study explores the reasons for the Government of India’s implacable opposition to any external intervention in the conflict. We argue that both strategic and ideational motivations have influenced its decisions. In particular, India’s strict adherence to the principle of strategic autonomy precludes the possibility of accepting external mediation. By exploring how and why strategic and ideational motivations intersect to become a formidable barrier to third party intervention, this article contributes to our understanding of why certain countries develop resistance to mediation.
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
-
Acharya, Amitav (2011). Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
-
Allee, T. L. and P. K. Huth (2006). “The Pursuit of Legal Settlements to Territorial Disputes.” Conflict Management and Peace 23, 4: 285–307.
-
Andersen, P., J. Bumgardner, M. J. Greig and P. F. Diehl (2001). “Turning Down the Heat: Influences on Conflict Management in Enduring Rivalries.” International Interactions 27, 3: 239–274.
-
Bajpai, Kanti (2003). “Managing Conflict in South Asia,” in Paul F. Diehl and Joseph Lepgold, editors, Regional Conflict Management. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield. 209–238.
-
Beardsley, Kyle (2011). The Mediation Dilemma. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
-
Beardsley, Kyle (2013). “Using the Right Tool for the Job: Mediator Leverage and Conflict Resolution.” Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs 2, 1: 57–65.
-
Beardsley, K. and J. M. Greig (2009). “Disaggregating the Incentives of Conflict Management: An Introduction.” International Interactions 35, 3: 243–248.
-
Beardsley, K. and N. Lo (2014). “Third-Party Conflict Management and the Willingness to Make Concessions.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 58, 2: 363–392.
-
Beardsley, K., D. Quinn, B. Biswas and J. Wilkenfeld (2006). “Mediation Style and Crisis Outcomes: A Cross-National Analysis, 1918–2001.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50, 1: 58–86.
-
Bercovitch, Jacob (2004). “International Mediation and Intractable Conflict.” in Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, editors, Beyond Intractability. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. At <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/med-intractable-conflict>.
-
Biswas, Bidisha (2009). “Can’t We Just Talk? Reputational Concerns and International Intervention in Sri Lanka and Indonesia (Aceh).” International Negotiation 14, 1: 121–147.
-
Biswas, Bidisha (2014). Managing Conflicts in India: Policies of Coercion and Accommodation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.
-
Biswas, B. and A. Goel (2014). “In Kashmir, They Disappear: Civilians, Militants, and Democracy.” Foreign Policy: The South Asia Channel. At <http://southasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/11/07/in_kashmir_they_disappear_civilians_militants_and_democracy>.
-
Bose, Sumantra (2003). Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
-
Bose, Sumantra (2007). Contested Lands: Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Cyprus, and Sri Lanka. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
-
Brecher, J. and J. Wilkenfeld (2000). A Study of Crisis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
-
Brecher, Michael (1953). The Struggle for Kashmir. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Chari, P. R., and P. I. Cheema (2001). The Simla Agreement 1972: Its Wasted Promise. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Regional Centre for Strategic Studies.
-
Chari, P. R., P. I. Cheema, and S. P. Cohen (2007). Four Crises and a Peace Process: American Engagement in South Asia. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
-
Chaudhuri, Rudra (2013). Forged in Crisis: India and the United States Since 1947. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Cohen, Stephen P. (2001). India: Emerging Power. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
-
Colaresi, Michael (2004). “When Doves Cry: International Rivalry, Unreciprocated Cooperation, and Leadership Turnover.” American Journal of Political Science 48, 3: 555–570.
-
Colaresi, M. P., K. Rasler, and W. R. Thompson (2007). Strategic Rivalries in World Politics: Position, Space, and Conflict Escalation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Cohen, Stephen P. 2013. Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution Press.
-
Crescenzi, M., K. M. Kadera, S. M. Mitchell and C. L. Thyne (2011). “A Supply Side Theory of Mediation.” International Studies Quarterly 55, 4: 1069–1094.
-
Crocker, C. A., F. O. Hampson, and P. Aall (2007). “Introduction: Mapping the Nettle Field,” in Chester A. Croker, Fen Olser Hampson, and Pamela Aall, editors, Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. 3–32.
-
Dasgupta, C. (2002). War and Diplomacy in Kashmir: 1947–48. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
-
Diehl, P. F. and J. M. Greig (2012). International Mediation. Malden, MA: Polity.
-
Dixon, William J. (1993). “Democracy and the Management of International Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution. 37, 1: 42–68.
-
Dixon, W. J. and P. D. Senese (2002). “Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46, 4: 547–571.
-
Eliasson, Jan (2002). “Perspectives on Managing Intractable Conflict.” Negotiation Journal 18: 371–374.
-
Fearon, James D. (1994). ‘‘Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.’’ American Political Science Review 88, 3: 577–592.
-
Ganguly, S. and M. S. Pardesi (2009). “Explaining Sixty Years of India’s Foreign Policy.” India Review 8, 1: 4–19.
-
Gent, S. and M. Shannon (2011). “Bias and the Effectiveness of Third Party Conflict Management Mechanisms.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 28, 2: 124–144.
-
George, A. L. and A. Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-
Gerring, John (2004). “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For?” American Political Science Review 98, 2: 341–354.
-
Ghosn, Faten (2010). “Getting to the Table and Getting to Yes: An Analysis of International Negotiations.” International Studies Quarterly 54: 1055–1072.
-
Gilboy, G. J. and E. Heginbotham (2013). “Double Trouble: A Realist View of Chinese and Indian Power.” The Washington Quarterly 36, 3: 125–142.
-
Grono, Magdalena Frichova (2010). Georgia’s Conflicts: What Role for the EU as Mediator. Initiative for Peacebuilding. At <http://georgica.tsu.edu.ge/files/05-Security/Frichova-2010.pdf>, Accessed December 8, 2016.
-
Human Rights Watch (2006). Everyone Lives in Fear: Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir. At http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/india0906web.pdf, accessed May 5, 2012.
-
Human Rights Watch (2012). “Between Two Sets of Guns”: Attacks on Civil Society Activists in India’s Maoist Conflict. At http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/india0712ForUpload.pdf, accessed January 16, 2013.
-
Hardin, Russell (2002). Trust and Trustworthiness. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
-
Hensel, Paul R. (2001). “Contentious Issues and World Politics: The Management of Territorial Claims in the Americas, 1816–1992.” International Studies Quarterly 45, 1: 81–109.
-
Huth, Paul K. (1998). Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
-
Jamal, Arif (2009). Shadow War: The Untold Story of Jihad in Kashmir. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House.
-
Kearn, David W. (2014). “Toward Alliance or Ambivalence: A Theoretical Assessment of US-India Relations.” India Review 13, 2: 129–148.
-
Kydd, Andrew H. (2006). “When Can Mediators Build Trust?” American Political Science Review 100, 3: 449–462.
-
Melin, Molly M. (2013). “When States Mediate.” Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 2, 1: 78–90.
-
Melin, M. M., S. S. Gartner, and J. Bercovitch (2013). “Fear of Rejection: The Puzzle of Unaccepted Mediation Offers in International Conflict.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 30, 4: 354–368.
-
Melin, M. M. and I. Svensson (2009). “Incentives for Talking: Accepting Mediation in International and Civil Wars.” International Interactions 35, 3: 249–271.
-
Miller, Manjari Chatterjee (2013). Wronged by Empire: Post-Imperial Ideology and Foreign Policy in India and China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
-
Narang, V. and P. Staniland (2012). “Institutions and Worldviews in Indian Foreign Security Policy.” India Review 11, 2: 76–94.
-
Nayak, P. and M. Krepon (2012). The Unfinished Crisis: US Crisis Management after the 2008 Mumbai Attacks. Washington, DC: The Henry L. Stimson Center.
-
Nayar, Baldev Raj and T V Paul. 2003. India in the World Order: Searching for Major-Power Status. New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Obama, Barack (2010). “Remarks by the President to the Joint Session of the Indian Parliament in New Delhi, India.” Speech, New Delhi, November 8, 2010. At <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/08/remarks-president-joint-session-indian-parliament-new-delhi-india>.
-
Padder, Sajad (2012). “The Composite Dialogue Between India and Pakistan: Structure, Process and Agency.” Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, 65. At <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/13143/1/Heidelberg_Papers_65_Padder.pdf>.
-
Pant, H. V. and J. M. Super (2015). “India’s ‘Non-Alignment’ Conundrum: A Twentieth Century Policy in a Changing World.” International Affairs 91, 4: 747–764.
-
Paul, T. V. (2006). “Why Has the India-Pakistan Rivalry Been So Enduring? Power Asymmetry and an Intractable Conflict.” Security Studies 15, 4: 600–630.
-
Paul, T. V. (2014). Warrior State: Pakistan in the Contemporary World. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Putnam, Robert D. (1988). “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42, 3: 427–460.
-
Raja Mohan, C. (2004). Crossing the Rubicon: The Shaping of India’s New Foreign Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Rice, Condoleezza (2011). No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington. New York: Crown.
-
Schaffer, Howard B. (2009). The Limits of Influence: America’s Role in Kashmir. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
-
Schofield, Victoria (2003). Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan, and the Unending War. New York: I.B. Tauris and Company, Limited.
-
Singh, Sandeep (2014). “From a Sub-Continental Power to an Asia-Pacific Player: India’s Changing Identity.” India Review 13, 3: 187–211.
-
Svensson, Ted (2012). “Regional Security Governance: The Case of South Asia,” in Shaun Breslin and Stuart Croft, editors, Comparative Regional Security Governance. London: Routledge.
-
Tarar, A. and B. Leventoglu (2009). ‘‘Public Commitment in Crisis Bargaining.’’ International Studies Quarterly 53, 3: 817–839.
-
Talbott, Strobe (2006). Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
-
Tellis, A., C. Fair, and J. J. Medby (2001). Limited Conflicts under the Nuclear Umbrella: Indian and Pakistani Lessons from the Kargil Crisis. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
-
Trager, R. F. and L. Vavreck (2011). ‘‘The Political Costs of Crisis Bargaining: Rhetoric and the Role of Party.’’ American Journal of Political Science 55, 3: 526–545.
-
Zartman, William I. (2008). Negotiation and Conflict Management: Essays on Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
-
Zartman, William I. (2001). “The Timing of Peace Initiatives: Hurting Stalemates and Ripe Moments.” Global Review of Ethnopolitics 1, 1: 8–18.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 838 | 97 | 14 |
| Full Text Views | 365 | 13 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 203 | 28 | 0 |
Just Say No: Explaining the Lack of International Mediation in Kashmir
In: International NegotiationSearch for other papers by Bidisha Biswas in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is one of the world’s most protracted and potentially dangerous conflicts. While the international community has strong interest in limiting violent conflagration between the two states, third party action aimed at amelioration has been very limited. This contrasts with overall global mediation efforts, which have increased in the post-Cold War period. Using archival research, this study explores the reasons for the Government of India’s implacable opposition to any external intervention in the conflict. We argue that both strategic and ideational motivations have influenced its decisions. In particular, India’s strict adherence to the principle of strategic autonomy precludes the possibility of accepting external mediation. By exploring how and why strategic and ideational motivations intersect to become a formidable barrier to third party intervention, this article contributes to our understanding of why certain countries develop resistance to mediation.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 838 | 97 | 14 |
| Full Text Views | 365 | 13 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 203 | 28 | 0 |