Save

Mediating among Mediators: Building a Consensus in Multilateral Interventions

In: International Negotiation
Author:
Timea Spitka Sophie Davis Postdoctoral Fellow, Gender, Peace and Conflict Resolution, Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations, Hebrew University Jerusalem Israel

Search for other papers by Timea Spitka in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00

Abstract

The conditions under which multilateral international intervention are effective in ending a violent conflict is a critical question for scholars and practitioners. Scholarly studies have demonstrated the importance of a united intervention but have been in disagreement over the effectiveness of neutral versus partisan intervention. This article examines the conditions under which mediators construct a consensus on the type of intervention process. What are the factors that enable a consensus on a neutral versus a partisan intervention? Distinguishing between four types of international intervention processes – united-neutral, united-partisan, divided-partisan, and divided neutral and partisan intervention – this article argues that it is a united intervention, whether united partisan or united-neutral, that contributes to creating leverage on conflicting parties to end a conflict. The article examines consensus building among mediators within two divergent case studies: Northern Ireland and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Content Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 896 135 4
Full Text Views 306 6 0
PDF Views & Downloads 131 17 0