Assignment

ARBITRATION/ 2: ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF CONFLICT 3: MEDIATION

IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT

Submitted By: SHERYAR KHAN

Roll No. 46374

BS 7th

Submitted To: Mr. Kiramat Ullah

Department of Political Science
Hazara University Mansehra

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

HAZARA UNIVERSITY MANSEHRA
2020
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARBITRATION/ 2: ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF CONFLICT 3: MEDIATION
IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT..........................................................................1
Arbitration..................................................................................................................2
Advantages and disadvantages...................................................................................3
Arbitration agreement.................................................................................................4
Comparative law.........................................................................................................5
Arbitration procedures inside the United States.........................................................5
Arbitration Procedures inside South Korea................................................................6
Arbitration Procedures inside North Korea................................................................7
International................................................................................................................7
Arbitration treaties of 1911–1914..............................................................................8
International agreements............................................................................................9
International enforcement.........................................................................................10
Government disputes................................................................................................11
Arbitral tribunal........................................................................................................11
Duties of the tribunal................................................................................................12
Arbitral awards.........................................................................................................13
Challenge..................................................................................................................13
Costs.........................................................................................................................14
ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF CONFLICT...............................................................16
Introduction..............................................................................................................16
Resource conflict model...........................................................................................16
Guns vs. butter model...............................................................................................16
Settlement in the shadow of conflict........................................................................17
Conflict, alliances and group structures...................................................................18
Mediation in International Conflict.........................................................................18
References...................................................................................................................23
 ARBITRATION/ 2: ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF CONFLICT 3: MEDIATION

IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT

Arbitration

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to

resolve disputes outside the courts. The dispute will be decided by one or

more persons (the 'arbitrators', 'arbiters' or 'arbitral tribunal'), which renders

the 'arbitration award'. An arbitration award is legally binding on both sides

and enforceable in the courts.

Arbitration is often used for the resolution of commercial disputes,

particularly in the context of international commercial transactions. In certain

countries such as the United States, arbitration is also frequently employed in

consumer and employment matters, where arbitration may be mandated by

the terms of employment or commercial contracts and may include a waiver

of the right to bring a class action claim. Mandatory consumer and

employment arbitration should be distinguished from consensual arbitration,

particularly commercial arbitration.

Arbitration can be either voluntary or mandatory (although mandatory

arbitration can only come from a statute or from a contract that one party

imposes on the other, in which the parties agree to hold all existing or future

disputes to arbitration, without necessarily knowing, specifically, what

disputes will ever occur) and can be either binding or non-binding. Non-

binding arbitration is similar to mediation in that a decision cannot be

imposed on the parties. However, the principal distinction is that whereas a

mediator will try to help the parties find a middle ground on which to

compromise, the (non-binding) arbiter remains totally removed from the

settlement process and will only give a determination of liability and, if

appropriate, an indication of the quantum of damages payable. By one

definition arbitration is binding and non-binding arbitration is therefore

technically not arbitration.

Arbitration is a proceeding in which a dispute is resolved by an

impartial adjudicator whose decision the parties to the dispute have agreed,

or legislation has decreed, will be final and binding. There are limited rights

of review and appeal of arbitration awards. Arbitration is not the same as:

judicial proceedings (although in some jurisdictions, court proceedings are

sometimes referred as arbitrations[2]), alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

[3], expert determination, mediation (a form of settlement negotiation

facilitated by a neutral third party).

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to

resolve disputes outside the courts. The dispute will be decided by one or

more persons (the 'arbitrators', 'arbiters' or 'arbitral tribunal'), which renders

the 'arbitration award'. An arbitration award is legally binding on both sides

and enforceable in the courts.

Arbitration is often used for the resolution of commercial disputes,

particularly in the context of international commercial transactions. In certain

countries such as the United States, arbitration is also frequently employed in

consumer and employment matters, where arbitration may be mandated by

the terms of employment or commercial contracts and may include a waiver

of the right to bring a class action claim. Mandatory consumer and

employment arbitration should be distinguished from consensual arbitration,

particularly commercial arbitration.

Arbitration can be either voluntary or mandatory (although mandatory

arbitration can only come from a statute or from a contract that one party

imposes on the other, in which the parties agree to hold all existing or future

disputes to arbitration, without necessarily knowing, specifically, what

disputes will ever occur) and can be either binding or non-binding. Non-

binding arbitration is similar to mediation in that a decision cannot be

imposed on the parties. However, the principal distinction is that whereas a

mediator will try to help the parties find a middle ground on which to

compromise, the (non-binding) arbiter remains totally removed from the

settlement process and will only give a determination of liability and, if

appropriate, an indication of the quantum of damages payable. By one

definition arbitration is binding and non-binding arbitration is therefore

technically not arbitration.

Advantages and disadvantages

Parties often seek to resolve disputes through arbitration because of a

number of perceived potential advantages over judicial proceedings.

Companies often require arbitration with their customers, but prefer the

advantages of courts in disputes with competitors:

In contrast to litigation, where one cannot "choose the judge",[5] arbitration

allows the parties to choose their own tribunal. This is especially useful when

the subject matter of the dispute is highly technical: arbitrators with an

appropriate degree of expertise (for example, quantity surveying expertise, in

the case of a construction dispute, or expertise in commercial property law, in

the case of a real estate dispute can be chosen.

1. Arbitration is often faster than litigation in court.

2. Arbitral proceedings and an arbitral award are generally non-public,

and can be made confidential.

3. In arbitral proceedings the language of arbitration may be chosen,

whereas in judicial proceedings the official language of the country of

the competent court will be automatically applied.

4. Because of the provisions of the New York Convention 1958,

arbitration awards are generally easier to enforce in other nations than

court verdicts.

In most legal systems there are very limited avenues for appeal of an

arbitral award, which is sometimes an advantage because it limits the

duration of the dispute and any associated liability.

Arbitration agreement
 Agreements which are signed after a dispute has arisen, agreeing that

the dispute should be resolved by arbitration (sometimes called a "submission

agreement")

The former is the far more prevalent type of arbitration agreement.

Sometimes, legal significance attaches to the type of arbitration agreement.

For example, in certain Commonwealth countries (not including England and

Wales), it is possible to provide that each party should bear their own costs in

a conventional arbitration clause, but not in a submission agreement.

In keeping with the informality of the arbitration process, the law is

generally keen to uphold the validity of arbitration clauses even when they

lack the normal formal language associated with legal contracts. Clauses

which have been upheld include: The courts have also upheld clauses which

specify resolution of disputes other than in accordance with a specific legal

system. These include provision indicating:

That the arbitrators "must not necessarily judge according to the strict

law but as a general rule ought chiefly to consider the principles of practical

business" "internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual

relations" Agreements to refer disputes to arbitration generally have a special

status in the eyes of the law. For example, in disputes on a contract, a

common defence is to plead the contract is void and thus any claim based

upon it fails. It follows that if a party successfully claims that a contract is

void, then each clause contained within the contract, including the arbitration

clause, would be void. However, in most countries, the courts have accepted
that: If the contract (valid or otherwise) contains an arbitration clause, then

the proper forum to determine whether the contract is void or not, is the

arbitration tribunal.

Comparative law

Nations regulate arbitration through a variety of laws. The main body

of law applicable to arbitration is normally contained either in the national

Private International Law Act (as is the case in Switzerland) or in a separate

law on arbitration (as is the case in England, Republic of Korea and

Jordan[20]). In addition to this, a number of national procedural laws may

also contain provisions relating to arbitration.

Arbitration procedures inside the United States

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Federal Arbitration Act

(FAA) of 1925 established a public policy in favor of arbitration. For the first

six decades of its existence, courts did not allow arbitration for "federal

statutory claims" through a bright-line "nonarbitrability" doctrine, but in the

1980s the Supreme Court of the United States reversed and began to use the

act to require arbitration if included in the contract for federal statutory

claims. Although some legal scholars believe that it was originally intended to

apply to federal courts only, courts now routinely require arbitration due to

the FAA regardless of state statutes or public policy unconscionability

determinations by state courts.

 Several arbitration organizations exist, including the American

Arbitration Association and JAMS. The National Arbitration Forum also

conducts arbitrations, but it no longer conducts consumer arbitrations

pursuant to a consent decree entered into in 2009 because of evidence that it

had been biased toward, and had incentives that favored, credit card

companies over cardholders. The AAA was also asked to exit the business.

but has not done so.

Arbitration Procedures inside South Korea

The Korean Arbitration Act is the main law governing arbitration in

the Republic of Korea. The official body that resolves disputes via arbitration

is the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Legal professionals and

corporations, in Korea, are increasingly preferring arbitration to litigation.

The number of arbitrations, in Korea, is increasing year on year.

Arbitration Procedures inside North Korea

According to Michael Hay, a lawyer who specialised in North Korean

law, North Korea has an advanced arbitration system even compared to

developed countries, and foreign companies face an even playing field in

dispute resolution. Arbitration cases could be concluded in as little as six

months. According to Hay, North Korea maintains an advanced dispute

resolution system in order to facilitate foreign investment.

International
 The United States and Great Britain were pioneers in the use of

arbitration to resolve their differences. It was first used in the Jay Treaty of

1795 negotiated by John Jay, and played a major role in the Alabama Claims

case of 1872 whereby major tensions regarding British support for the

Confederacy during the American Civil War were resolved. At the First

International Conference of American States in 1890, a plan for systematic

arbitration was developed, but not accepted. The Hague Peace Conference of

1899, saw the major world powers agreed to a system of arbitration and the

creation of a Permanent Court of Arbitration. Arbitration was widely

discussed among diplomats and elites in the 1890–1914 era. The 1895 dispute

between the United States and Britain over Venezuela was peacefully

resolved through arbitration. Both nations realized that a mechanism was

desirable to avoid possible future conflicts. The Olney-Pauncefote Treaty of

1897 was a proposed treaty between the United States and Britain in 1897 that

required arbitration of major disputes. The treaty was rejected by the U.S.

Senate and never went into effect.

Arbitration treaties of 1911–1914

American President William Howard Taft (1909–1913) was a major

advocate of arbitration as a major reform of the Progressive Era. In 1911 Taft

and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox negotiated major treaties with

Great Britain and with France providing that differences be arbitrated.

Disputes had to be submitted to the Hague Court or other tribunal. These

were signed in August 1911 but had to be ratified by a two thirds vote of the
Senate. Neither Taft nor Knox consulted with members of the Senate during

the negotiating process. By then many Republicans were opposed to Taft, and

the president felt that lobbying too hard for the treaties might cause their

defeat. He made some speeches supporting the treaties in October, but the

Senate added amendments Taft could not accept, killing the agreements.

The arbitration issue opens a window on a bitter philosophical dispute

among American progressives. some, led by Taft looked to legal arbitration as

the best alternative to warfare. Taft was a constitutional lawyer who later

became Chief Justice; he had a deep understanding of the legal issues. Taft's

political base was the conservative business community which largely

supported peace movements before 1914. However, his mistake in this case

was a failure to mobilize that base. The businessmen believed that economic

rivalries were cause of war, and that extensive trade led to an interdependent

world that would make war a very expensive and useless anachronism.

However, an opposing faction of American progressives, led by ex-

president Theodore Roosevelt, ridiculed arbitration as foolhardy idealism,

and insisted on the realism of warfare as the only solution to serious disputes.

Taft's treaties with France and Britain were killed by Roosevelt, who had

broken with his protégé Taft in 1910. They were dueling for control of the

Republican Party. Roosevelt worked with his close friend Senator Henry

Cabot Lodge to impose those amendments that ruined the goals of the

treaties. Lodge thought the treaties impinge too much on senatorial

prerogatives. Roosevelt, however, was acting to sabotage Taft's campaign

promises. At a deeper level, Roosevelt truly believed that arbitration was a

naïve solution and the great issues had to be decided by warfare. The

Rooseveltian approach had a near-mystical faith of the ennobling nature of

war. It endorsed jingoistic nationalism as opposed to the businessmen's

calculation of profit and national interest.

International agreements

By far the most important international instrument on arbitration law

is the 1958 New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign

Arbitral Awards, usually simply referred to as the "New York Convention".

Virtually every significant commercial country is a signatory, and only a

handful of countries are not parties to the New York Convention.

Some other relevant international instruments are:

 The Geneva Protocol of 1923

 The Geneva Convention of 1927

 The European Convention of 1961

International enforcement

It is often easier to enforce arbitration awards in a foreign country than

court judgments. Under the New York Convention 1958, an award issued in a

contracting state can generally be freely enforced in any other contracting

state, only subject to certain, limited defenses. Only foreign arbitration awards

are enforced pursuant to the New York Convention. An arbitral decision is

foreign where the award was made in a state other than the state of
recognition or where foreign procedural law was used. In most cases, these

disputes are settled with no public record of their existence as the loser

complies voluntarily, although in 2014 UNCITRAL promulgated a rule for

public disclosure of investor-state disputes.

Virtually every significant commercial country in the world is a party

to the Convention while relatively few countries have a comprehensive

network for cross-border enforcement of judgments their courts.

Additionally, the awards not limited to damages. Whereas typically only

monetary judgments by national courts are enforceable in the cross-border

context, it is theoretically possible (although unusual in practice) to obtain an

enforceable order for specific performance in an arbitration proceeding under

the New York Convention.

Government disputes

Certain international conventions exist in relation to the enforcement of

awards against states.

The Washington Convention 1965 relates to settlement of investment

disputes between states and citizens of other countries. The Convention

created the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (or

ICSID). Compared to other arbitration institutions, relatively few awards

have been rendered under ICSID.

The Algiers Declaration of 1981 established the Iran-US Claims

Tribunal to adjudicate claims of American corporations and individuals in

relation to expropriated property during the Islamic revolution in Iran in

1979. The tribunal has not been a notable success, and has even been held by

an English court to be void under its own governing law.

Arbitral tribunal

The arbitrators which determine the outcome of the dispute are called

the arbitral tribunal. The composition of the arbitral tribunal can vary

enormously, with either a sole arbitrator sitting, two or more arbitrators, with

or without a chairman or umpire, and various other combinations. In most

jurisdictions, an arbitrator enjoys immunity from liability for anything done

or omitted whilst acting as arbitrator unless the arbitrator acts in bad faith.

Arbitrations are usually divided into two types: ad hoc arbitrations and

administered arbitrations. In ad hoc arbitrations, the arbitral tribunals are

appointed by the parties or by an appointing authority chosen by the parties.

After the tribunal has been formed, the appointing authority will normally

have no other role and the arbitration will be managed by the tribunal.

Duties of the tribunal

The duties of a tribunal will be determined by a combination of the

provisions of the arbitration agreement and by the procedural laws which

apply in the seat of the arbitration. The extent to which the laws of the seat of

the arbitration permit "party autonomy" (the ability of the parties to set out

their own procedures and regulations) determines the interplay between the

two. to act fairly and impartially between the parties, and to allow each party

a reasonable opportunity to put their case and to deal with the case of their
opponent (sometimes shortened to: complying with the rules of "natural

justice"); andto adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the

particular case, so as to provide a fair means for resolution of the dispute.

Arbitral awards

Although arbitration awards are characteristically an award of damages

against a party, in many jurisdictions tribunals have a range of remedies that

can form a part of the award. These may include:

 payment of a sum of money (conventional damages)

 the making of a "declaration" as to any matter to be determined in the

proceedings

 in some[which?] jurisdictions, the tribunal may have the same power

as a court to:

 order a party to do or refrain from doing something ("injunctive relief")

 to order specific performance of a contract

 to order the rectification, setting aside or cancellation of a deed or other

document.

In other jurisdictions, however, unless the parties have expressly granted

the arbitrators the right to decide such matters, the tribunal's powers may be

limited to deciding whether a party is entitled to damages. It may not have

the legal authority to order injunctive relief, issue a declaration, or rectify a

contract, such powers being reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the

courts.
Challenge

Generally speaking, by their nature, arbitration proceedings tend not to

be subject to appeal, in the ordinary sense of the word. However, in most

countries, the court maintains a supervisory role to set aside awards in

extreme cases, such as fraud or in the case of some serious legal irregularity

on the part of the tribunal. Only domestic arbitral awards are subject to set

aside procedure.

In American arbitration law there exists a small but significant body of

case law which deals with the power of the courts to intervene where the

decision of an arbitrator is in fundamental disaccord with the applicable

principles of law or the contract. However, this body of case law has been

called into question by recent decisions of the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately there is little agreement amongst the different American

judgments and textbooks as to whether such a separate doctrine exists at all,

or the circumstances in which it would apply. There does not appear to be

any recorded judicial decision in which it has been applied. However,

conceptually, to the extent it exists, the doctrine would be an important

derogation from the general principle that awards are not subject to review by

the courts.

Costs

The overall costs of arbitration can be estimated on the websites of

international arbitration institutions, such as that of the ICC, the website of

the SIAC and the website of the International Arbitration Attorney Network.

The overall cost of administrative and arbitrator fees is, on average, less than

20% of the total cost of international arbitration.

In many legal systems – both common law and civil law – it is normal practice

for the courts to award legal costs against a losing party, with the winner

becoming entitled to recover an approximation of what it spent in pursuing

its claim (or in defense of a claim). The United States is a notable exception to

this rule, as except for certain extreme cases, a prevailing party in a US legal

proceeding does not become entitled to recoup its legal fees from the losing

party.
 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF CONFLICT

Introduction

The presence of conflict affects people's economic incentives. Some

sectors of activity flourish, while others suffer. For understanding structural

problems in developing countries and designing appropriate post-conflict

reconstruction policies, it is essential to understand in what ways conflict

affects the structure of the economy. We develop a simple model of conflict

and multiple sectors of activity, where conflict efforts, the allocation of factor

endowments and the production outputs are endogenous. We predict that for

moderately destructive conflicts labor-intensive sectors are most affected by

fighting, while for highly destructive conflicts capital-intensive sectors suffer

most. In the latter case, under some conditions it is also possible that - in the

presence of endogenous conflict - an increase in the price of the capital-

intensive commodity reduces the output of this same good. The model further

predicts that export-sectors and sectors that require inter-temporal

investments are particularly exposed to conflict activity. In the empirical part

of the paper, we study the impact of various forms of conflict, separately and

as an aggregate conflict index constructed with principal component analysis.

We present some basic stylized facts about the effect of conflict on the

productive structure of the economy. Conflict reduces the share of the

manufacturing sector in the GDP, increases the exploitation of some simple

natural resources (i.e. forestry) and reduces the production of crops. Using

industrial level data for developing countries we study the channels through
which conflict affects the manufacturing sector. As expected, we find that

industries that are more institutional/transaction intensive are the ones that

suffer most in conflictive societies. Laborintensive sectors are also negatively

affected by conflict. It is also found that exporting industries and sectors

requiring external financing suffer more during conflict. Our results are

robust to sensitivity analysis.

Conflict economics is a branch of economics that puts the allocation of

resources by means of violent fighting, i.e. conflict, into economic models. In

traditional economics, appropriation is a non-violent process that is

guaranteed by perfect property rights and their costless enforcement. Conflict

economics sheds a different light on appropriation. It is set in a model of

contest between two players. Conflict economics introduces the idea that

agents have to decide between production of resources and production of

guns, i.e. tools that have the sole purposes of appropriating the resources

produced by the other player. Different models are introduced to illustrate

various situations that have similarities to real life conflicts.

Resource conflict model

Two parties contest a given resource Z. The player who wins the

contest claims the entire resource, not leaving anything for the losing party.

The probabilities of winning are determined by each party’s choice of guns.

Guns vs. butter model

In this model, agents face a trade-off between producing themselves

and grabbing the output of the other agent. Each party is endowed with a

secure resource R. The resource cannot be consumed directly but has to be

allocated between producing guns (tools for conflict) or butter (consumption).

Again, the probability of winning the contest and grabbing the other output

depend on the relative numbers of guns produced. This model allows testing

of different power structures between the players. One of the interesting

outcomes is that if one agent has higher productivity, i.e. if he uses one unit of

the resource he will gain more butter than his opponent would, he will

receive a relatively lower expected pay-off. This is due to the fact that each

player will then exploit his or her comparative advantage, with the more

productive player producing more butter and the less productive player

producing more guns, resulting in a higher chance of winning the conflict

thus leading to a higher expected pay-off.

Settlement in the shadow of conflict

Conflict is not the only way that parties can appropriate resources.

Depending on the risk preferences of the agents, a simple division of the

contested resource according to a settlement can be envisioned. A two-stage

game serves to illustrate this. In the first stage, parties make their gun choices.

In the second stage, negotiations take place. If the negotiations are successful,

the players agree on a division and share the good.

 If the negotiations are not successful, conflict ensues with the winning

party again taking the whole resource. This two-stage model is especially

interesting if one includes the possibility of destruction into the model, i.e. in

case of conflict the winner is left with only a part of the contested resource.

Parties might prefer settlement over conflict if they have an aversion to

uncertainty (outcome of conflict dependent on probabilities) or destruction.

However, in the long term conflict might be the dominant strategy.

Introducing a discount rate for payoffs in the future might induce players to

start conflict in the present. Defeating your opponent in the present will

secure the resource for you in the future (opponent is eliminated), thus not

having to share it in a settlement.

Conflict, alliances and group structures

Conflict might not occur between two agents only, but a number of

agents can be involved in hostilities. Individuals and parties have been

repeatedly proven to form alliances to achieve a common goal. There are cost

advantages to be realized or the sum of individual efforts creates synergies

that cannot be realized by individuals on their own. However one has to keep

in mind that if individuals work together there are always incentives for "free

riding." In conflict economics, group conflict builds upon the resource conflict

model. A two-stage game is constructed. In the first stage (inter-group

conflict) groups and individuals compete for the resource. The probabilities of

winning depend on the effort, i.e. number of guns, that individuals are

contributing to the group. In the second stage (intra-group conflict) the

successful group allocates the won resource among its members. This

allocation can be according to the efforts that individuals spent, contracts or

just an equal distribution according to the number of members.

Mediation in International Conflict

Mediation is not a mysterious art, as early myth would have it.

Mediation can be studied, taught and understood. Bercovitch defines

mediation as " a process of conflict management, related to but distinct from

the parties' own negotiations, where those in conflict seek the assistance of, or

accept an offer of help from, an outsider (whether an individual, an

organization, a group, or a state) to change their perceptions or behavior, and

do so without resorting to physical force or invoking the authority of law." (p.

130) Within this broad definition, mediators may adopt a variety of roles and

approaches.

Estimates of the rate of international mediation generally fall in the 60

percent range, although surveys have reported rates ranging from a low of 45

percent to a high of 82percent. Surveys also report significant success rates.

Bercovitch says, "Mediation may well be the closest thing we have to an

effective technique for dealing with conflicts in the twenty-first century."

Studies of international mediation fall into four general approaches.

Prescriptive studies offer advice to negotiators. Other studies seek to develop

a comprehensive model of conflict resolution. Economists and game theorists

seek mathematical models of rational negotiation behavior. The final

approach seeks to distill conflict resolution guidelines from empirical case

studies and experiments. Each approach has made valuable contributions to

our understanding, although the author feels that the last approach has been

the most productive.

When and why should mediators mediate? Mediation is most useful in

protracted conflicts, where the parties have reached an impasse but still want

to end their fighting and are willing to compromise to do it. Traditionally,

mediators intervene out of humanitarian interests. However, many other

motives may play a role in their decision, including the desire to affect

history, to spread their own ideas, to limit the conflict's impact on their own

(national) interests, to extend their own influence, because they were asked or

because it is part of their job. Disputants may seek mediation to reduce

conflict escalation and promote settlement, in the hope that the mediator will

influence the other party, to show their commitment o resolution, to have a

scapegoat should negotiations fail, or as a guarantor for the any settlement.

Mediators engage in a wide array of roles, functions and behaviors. In

the case of international mediators, these may be classified under three main

strategies. Communication strategies include contacting the parties,

transmitting messages, building trust and rapport, clarifying and supplying

missing information. Formulation strategies include arranging the mediation

setting and protocols, shaping the agenda, controlling timing and maintaining

parties' focus, suggesting concessions, options and settlement proposals.

Manipulative strategies include keeping the parties in negotiation, changing

their expectations, pressing them to be flexible, filtering information, adding

incentives or threatening punishment, and threatening to withdraw. The

choice of strategy and behavior should depend on the nature of the conflict.

International mediators may be individuals, states or other organizations.

Conflict researchers and Quakers have both served as informal individual

mediators. States usually serve as mediators by through their senior decision

making officials. Smaller, less powerful states such as Sweden have a

reputation for impartiality, and often conduct low-profile interventions by

invitation. Larger, more powerful states have more resources to employ

sanctions and inducements, and often offer to mediate in high-profile talks.

Organizational mediators range from international groups such as the UN, to

transnational groups like Amnesty International or the Red Cross, to regional

groups like the European Union or the Arab League.

Bercovitch identifies three factors that contribute to effective

mediation. First, parties must be motivated to settle their conflict and

seriously committed to mediation. Second, the conflict circumstances must be

ripe for intervention. "The existence of a hurting stalemate (e.g. a military

setback, a change in power relations, or a failure to impose a unilateral

outcome) remains the best benchmark in a conflict for deciding when to

initiate mediation."(p. 145) Certainly, the parties must have already tried and

failed to negotiate on their own. Third, an appropriate mediator must be

available. Bercovitch notes that "there is wide agreement among scholars and

practitioners that appropriate mediators should possess intelligence, tact,

skills in drafting formal proposals, and a sense of humor, in addition to

specific knowledge of the conflict at hand."(p. 146) High rank is associated

with mediator effectiveness, as is the use directive strategies.

Finally, Bercovitch considers methods and standards for evaluating

international mediation efforts. Since mediation may pursue many different

goals, different sets of criteria will be needed. Subjective criteria assess party

satisfaction, perception of fairness, and the quality of the parties' relationship.

Objective criteria focus on such elements as reductions in violent behavior,

reaching an agreement, and the breadth and endurance of settlements. Both

sorts of criteria are important. General assessments must be sensitive to the

goals of the mediation and to the complex nature and context of the conflict.
References

"Savills Mediation". Savills.co.uk. Retrieved 2 May 2012.

"SIMK ADR news Ausbildungsverordnung für Mediatoren". SIMK

Hannover, Germany. 19 November 2012. Retrieved 2 July 2017.

T. Sourdin, Alternative Dispute Resolution, 5th ed, 2016, Thomson Reuters

Monk, John; Winslade, Gerald (2000). Narrative Mediation: A New Approach

to Conflict Resolution. p. 3.

White, Michael; Epston, David (2005). "Externalizing the problem". In

Malone, Caroline; Forbat, Liz; Robb, Martin; Seden, Janet (eds.).

Relating experience: stories from health and social care. London; New

York: Routledge. pp. 88–94. ISBN 0415326575. OCLC 56012666.

Svensson, Isak (June 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.

doi:10.1177/0022002709332207.

Lundgren, Magnus; Svensson, Isak (2014). "Leanings and Dealings: Exploring

Bias and Trade Leverage in Civil War Mediation by International

Organizations" (PDF). International Negotiation. 19 (2): 315–342.

doi:10.1163/15718069-12341280.

The International Mediation Institute has a decision tree on its website, which

is designed to help the parties to jointly select the most suitable

 mediator out of several neutrals who have all achieved certain level of

professional competency. "International Mediation Institute Decision

Tree". Retrieved 1 March 2012.

Simkin, W. E., (1971); Mediation and the Dynamics of Collective Bargaining;

Bureau of National Affairs Books, Washington DC, ISBN 0-87179-127-7

The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators, Australia Archived 15 August

2007 at the Wayback Machine, retrieved 2007-11-24

"ENE". Adr.cand.uscourts.gov. Retrieved 2 May 2012.

Mediation vs Arbitration – Mediation, Arbitration, Divorce and ADR

Services, retrieved 2010-08-27