Motives, Roles, Effectiveness and the Future of the EU as an International Mediator

in International Negotiation
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

This article concludes this special issue on the European Union as international mediator that set out to advance our theoretical and empirical knowledge about EU mediation. Providing a comprehensive reflection of EU mediation activities and the diverse settings where they take place, this concluding article identifies some connection points between the articles and discusses their findings on the motives/drivers, roles/strategies, effectiveness and institutional capacities of EU mediation. It discusses the implications of these findings for policymaking, focusing on the conditions for EU mediation effectiveness, the advantages of the multi-layered nature of EU mediation and the need for flexible adaptation of mediation strategies. Finally, the article sets the scene for future research endeavors on EU mediation by identifying three future research avenues that focus on the politics, domestic effects and comparative advantage of the EU as international mediator.

Motives, Roles, Effectiveness and the Future of the EU as an International Mediator

in International Negotiation

Sections

References

AggestamK. and A. Bergman-Rosamond (2016). “Swedish Feminist Foreign Policy in the Making: Ethics, Politics, and Gender.” Ethics & International Affairs 303: 323334.

BeardsleyK.C.D.M. QuinnB. Biswas and J. Wilkenfeld (2006). “Mediation Style and Crisis Outcomes.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 501: 5886.

BercovitchJ. and S.-M. Lee (2003). “Mediating International Conflicts: Examining the Effectiveness of Directive Strategies.” International Journal of Peace Studies 81: 117.

BergmannJ. (2018). “Same Table, Different Menus? A Comparison of UN and EU Mediation Practice in the Kosovo-Serbia Conflict.” International Negotiation 232: 238257this issue.

BergmannJ. and A. Niemann (2015). “Mediating International Conflicts: The European Union as an Effective Peacemaker?” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 535: 957975.

BergmannJ.T. HaastrupA. Niemann and R. Whitman (2018). “Introduction: The EU as International Mediator – Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives.” International Negotiation 232: 157176this issue.

DavisL. (2018). “The EU as a multi-mediator: The case of the Democratic Republic of Congo.” International Negotiation 232: 177198this issue.

Diez T. and N. Tocci (2017). The EU Promoting Regional Integration and Conflict Resolution. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

ElgströmO.N. ChabanM. KnodtP. Müller and S. Pardo (2018). “Perceptions of the EU’s role in the Ukraine-Russian and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts: A biased mediator?” International Negotiation 232: 299318this issue.

Goetz A. and R. Jenkins (2016). “Agency and accountability: Promoting women’s participation in peacebuilding.” Feminist Economics 221: 211236.

GuerrinaR and K.A.M. Wright (2016). “Gendering Normative Power Europe: Lessons of the women, peace and security agenda.” International Affairs 922: 293312.

HarpazG. (2017). “The causes of the EU’s ineffectual contribution to resolution of the Abkhazian and South Ossetian Conflicts.” European Foreign Affairs Review 222: 253270.

HaastrupT. (2018). “Creating Cinderella? The Unintended Consequences of the Women Peace and Security Agenda for EU’s Mediation Architecture.” International Negotiation 232: 218237this issue.

NatorskiM. (2018). “EU Mediation Practices in Ukraine during Revolutions: What Authority as a Peacemaker?” International Negotiation 232: 278298this issue.

NiemannA. and C. Bretherthon (2013). “Introduction: EU external policy at the crossroads.” International Relations 273: 261275.

PinfariM. (2018). “EU Mediation in Egypt: The Limits of Reactive Conflict Management.” International Negotiation 232: 199217this issue.

QuinnD.J. WilkenfeldP. EralpV. Asal and T. Mclauchlin (2013). “Crisis managers but not conflict resolvers: Mediating ethnic intrastate conflict in Africa.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 304: 387406.

RichterS. (2018). “Missing the Muscles? Mediation by Conditionality in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” International Negotiation 232: 258277this issue.

SherriffA.V. Hauck and C. Rocca (2013). “Glass half full: Study on EU lessons learnt in mediation and dialogue.” Study submitted to the European External Action Service by ECDPM through the AETS Consortium – Cardno. 2013Maastricht: European Centre for Development Policy Management.

TouvalS. (1975). “Biased Intermediaries: Theoretical and historical considerations.” Jerusalem Journal of International Affairs 1: 5169.

TouvalS. (1982). The Peace Brokers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

TouvalS. and I.W. Zartman (1985a). “Introduction: Mediation in theory,” in S. Touval and I.W. Zartman editors International Mediation in Theory and Practice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press717.

TouvalS. and I.W. Zartman editors (1985b). International Mediation in Theory and Practice. Boulder, CO: Westview.

TouvalS. and I.W. Zartman (2007). “International Mediation in the Post-Cold War Era,” in C. CrockerF. Hampson and P. Aall editors Leashing the Dogs of War. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.

ZartmanI.W. (2008). “Introduction: Bias, Prenegotiation and Leverage in Mediation.” International Negotiation 133: 305310.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 55 55 31
Full Text Views 93 93 59
PDF Downloads 7 7 5
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0