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.
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
Adams, Gerry (2003). Hope and History: Making Peace in Ireland. Wellesley MA: Brandon.
Annan, Kofi (1999). “Secretary-General reflects on promise, realities of his role in world affairs, in address to Council on Foreign Relations.” Press Release sg/sm/6865, January 19, 1999.
Arthur, Paul (1999). “Multiparty Mediation in Northern Ireland,” in Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, Pamela Aall, editors, Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace.
Aydin, Aysegul and Patrick M. Regan (2011). “Networks of third-party interveners and civil war duration.” European Journal of International Relations: 1–25.
Beggan, Dominic and Rathnam Indurthy (1999). “The Conflict in Northern Ireland and the Clinton Administration Role.” International Journal of World Peace 16, 4: 3–25.
Bellamy, Alex J. (2010). “The Responsibility to Protect – Five Years On.” Ethics and International Affairs 24, 2: 143–169.
Ben-Porat, Guy (2008). The Failure of the Middle East Peace Process? Jerusalem: Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.
Bildt, Carl (1999). Peace Journey: The Struggle for Peace in Bosnia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Bohmelt, Tobias (2011). “Disaggregating Mediations: The Impact of Multiparty Mediation.” British Journal of Political Science 41, 4: 859–881.
Campbell, David (1998). National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Cash, Daniel John (1996). Identity, Ideology and Conflict, the Structuration of Politics in Northern Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chollet, Derek and Bennett Freeman (2005). “The Secret History of Dayton, US Diplomacy and the Bosnia Peace Process 1995.” Washington, D.C.: National Security Archive. Available at: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB171/index.htm%3E.
Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall, editors (1999). Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Dixon, Paul (2001). “British Policy towards Northern Ireland, 1969–2000: Continuity tactical adjustment and coesistnace.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 3, 3: 340–368.
dsd (1993). The Joint Declaration of 15 December 1993.
Fisher, Roger, Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Elizabeth Borqwardt, and Brian Ganson, editors (1996). Coping with International Conflict: A Systematic Approach to Influence in International Negotiation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Findley, Michael G. and Josiah F. Marineau (2015). “Lootable resources and third-party intervention into civil wars.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 32, 5: 465–486.
Gibbs, David N. (2009). First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Grove, Andrea (2001). “The Intra-National Struggle to Define ‘Us’: External Involvement as a Two-Way Street.” International Studies Quaterly 45: 357–388.
Guelke, Adrian (2012). “Perspective,” BBC, Eye Witness, Perspective. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/learning/eyewitness/changing/perspectives/index.shtml.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. (2014). “A Social Science of Human Rights.” Journal of Peace Research 51, 2: 273–286.
Hehir, Aidan (2010). “The Responsibility to Protect: ‘Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing?’ ” International Relations 24, 2: 218–239.
Hehir, Aidan and James Pattison (2015). “Introduction: The Responsibility to Protect after the Arab Spring.” Cooperation and Conflict: 1–7.
Helsinki Watch (1993). War Crimes in Bosnia.
Hill, Tom H. J. (2015). “Kofi Annan’s Multilateral Strategy of Mediation and the Syrian Crisis: The Future of Peacemaking in a Multipolar World.” International Negotiation 20: 444–478.
Hoddie, Matthew and Caroline Hartzell (2003). “Civil War Settlements and the Implementation of Military Power-Sharing Arrangements.” Journal of Peace Research 40, 3: 303–320
Lynch, Allen C. (2001). “The Realism of Russia’s Foreign Policy.” Europe-Asia Studies 53, 1: 7–31.
Jesse, Neal G. and Kristen P. Williams (2006). Identity and Institutions: Conflict Resolution in Divided Societies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Johnson, Rebecca, J. (2001). “Russian Responses to Crisis Management in the Balkans, How NATO’s Past Actions May Shape Russia’s Future Involvement.” Demokratizatsiya.
Kathman, Jacob D. and Reed M. Wood (2011). “Managing Threat, Cost, and Incentive to Kill: The Short-and Long-Term Effects of Intervention in Mass Killings.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 55, 5: 735–760.
Kydd, Andrew (2003). “Which Side Are You On? Bias, Credibility and Mediation.” American Journal of Political Science 47, 4: 597–611.
Krain, Matthew (2005). “International Intervention and the Severity of Genocides and Policides.” International Studies Quaterly 49: 363–387.
Krain, Matthew (2012). “J’accuse! Does naming and shaming perpetrators reduce the severity of genocides or politicides?” International Studies Quaterly 56, 3: 574–589.
Lake, Anthony (2006). “Between War and Peace, How to Manage Threats to Global Security.” Harvard International Review 25, Winter: 177–196.
Lischer, Sarah Kenyon (2007). “Military Intervention and the Humanitarian ‘Force Multiplier.’ ” Global Governance 13: 99–118.
Lundgren, Magnus and Isak Svensson (2014). “Leanings and Dealings: Exploring Bias and Trade Leverage in Civil War Mediation by International Organizations.” International Negotiation 19: 315–342.
McGarry, John (2001). “Northern Ireland, Civic Nationalism and the Good Friday Agreement,” in John McGarry, editor, Northern Ireland and the Divided World, Post Agreement Northern Ireland in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGarry, John and Brendan O’Leary (2015). “Power Sharing Executives Consociational and Centripetal Formulae and the Case of Northern Ireland.” Ethnopolitics 15, 5.
Menninga, Elizabeth (2015). Multiparty Mediation: Identifying Characteristics of the Mediation Dream Team, PhD Dissertation.
Mitchell, George (2001). Making Peace. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Morris, Justin (2016). “The Responsibility to Protect and the use of force: Remaking the Procrustean bed?” Cooperation and Conflict 51, 2: 141–147.
Murdie, Amanda and Dursun Peksen (2014). “The Impact of Human Rights INGO Shaming on Humanitarian Interventions.” Journal of Politics 76, 1: 215–228.
Nalbandov, Robert (2009). Foreign Interventions in Ethnic Conflicts: Global Security in a Changing World. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Owen, David (1997). Balkan Odyssey. New York: Mariner Books.
Ronald Paris (2014). “ ‘The Responsibility to Protect’ and the Sturctural Problems of Preventive Humanitarian Intervention.” International Peacekeeping 21, 5: 569–603.
Pattison, James (2015). “The Ethics of Diplomatic Criticism: The Responsibility to Protect, Just War Theory and Presumptive Last Resort.” European Journal of International Relations 21, 4: 935–957.
Peksen, Dursun (2011). “Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights.” Journal of Peace Research 48, 4: 455–468.
Regan, Patrick M. (1996). “Conditions of Successful Third-Party Intervention in Interstate Conflicts. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40, 2: 336–359.
Regan, Patrick M. (2002). Civil Wars and Foreign Powers; Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Regan, Patrick and Aysegul Aydin (2006). “Diplomacy and Other Forms of Intervention in Civil Wars.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50, 5: 736–756.
Regan, Patrick and Rodwan Abouharb (2002). “Interventions and Civil Conflicts.” World Affairs 165, 1.
Ryan, Stephen (1995). Ethnic Conflict and International Relations. London: Dartmouth Publishing Group.
Savun, Burcu (2008). “Information, Bias and Mediation Success.” International Studies Quaterly 52: 25–47.
Schwegmann, Christoph (2000). “The Contact Group and its Impact on the European Institutional Structure.” Institute for Security Studies – Western European Union.
Seawright, Jason and John Gerring (2008). “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research.” Political Research Quaterly 61, 2: 294–308.
Spitka, Timea (2015). International Intervention, Identity and Conflict Transformation: Bridges and Walls Between Groups. Abingdon: Routledge.
Stuenkel, Oliver (2014). “The Bricks and the Future of R2P.” Global Resposnsibility to Protect, 3–28.
Svensson, Isak (2007). “Bargaining, Bias and Peace Brokers: How Rebels Commit to Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 44, 2: 177–194.
Svensson, Isak (2009). “Who Brings Which Peace? Neutral versus Biased Mediation and Institutional Peace Arrangements in Civil Wars.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 53, 3: 446–469.
Svensson, Isak (2015). International Mediation Bias and Peacemaking: Taking Sides in Civil Wars. Abingdon: Routledge.
Tocci, Nathalie (2016). “On Power and Norms: Syria and the Responsibility to Protect.” Global Responsibility to Protect 8, 1: 51–75.
Tuck, Christopher (2007). “Northern Ireland and the British Approach to counter Insurgency.” Defense and Security Analysis 23 (2): 165–183.
unsc (1994). Special Forces: Final Report of the United Nations Commission of Experts. United Nations Security Council S/1994/647/Add2.
Wallensteen, Peter and Isak Svensson (2014). “Talking Peace International Mediation in Armed Conflict.” Journal of Peace Research, 5, 2: 315–327.
Weiss, Thomas G. (2004). “The Sunset of Humanitarian Intervention?” Security Dialogue 32, 2: 135–153.
Wood, Reed M. and Jacob D. Kathman (2012). “Armed Intervention and Civilian Victimization in Intrastate Conflicts.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49, 5: 647–660.
Yoshihara, Susan (2010). Waging War to Make Peace: US Intervention in Global Conflicts. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Zartman, I. William and Saadia Touval (1996). “International Mediation in the Post-Cold War Era,” in Chester A Crocker, Fen Hampson and Pamela Aall, editors, Managing Global Chaos. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press 1996, 445–461.
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 |
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.
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 |