Anticipating mediated talks

Abstract

Research on mediation has shown that mediation can be an effective conflict management tool to contain intrastate conflicts, prevent escalation of low intensity conflicts, and foster de-escalation. But can ripe moments for conflict prevention effectively be anticipated? This article argues that the short-term conflict history provides a good predictor of the probability of mediation onset in low-intensity conflicts. It builds on an expected utility theory of mediation and states that conflict intensity is a primary indicator of whether a window of opportunity for mediation exists. Thereby, the article asserts that the direction of the effect is conditional on the respective probability of victory of each conflict party. The theory postulates that high conflict intensity only increases the probability of mediation onset when neither side is likely to prevail militarily. If one of the conflict parties has a high chance of a military success, then it will not regard conflict intensity as costly, since it can expect to impose these costs on its opponent. Under these circumstances the conflict parties will not be willing to engage in mediation. The article presents empirical support for this proposition. It uses temporally disaggregated data of low-intensity African conflicts from 1993 to 2004 and demonstrates that the theoretically motivated model predicts mediation onset with high accuracy. The results show that conflict dynamics are highly relevant covariates in predicting mediation. This selection process should be considered when the impact of mediation is evaluated.

Impeding fatal violence through third-party diplomacy: The effect of mediation on conflict intensity

“…Finally, mediation may be more likely in particular conflict contexts and could therefore be subject to a self-selection bias. Recent work has shown that mediation in civil wars is predicted by developments on the battlefield (Ruhe, 2015). In the supplementary files, I address this concern through the use of endogenous treatment models.…”

Forecasting peace agreement content: How conflict events predict the substance of peace settlements

“…Two strive to predict different war outcomes, one using conflict dynamics suggested to be relevant by utility theory (Mason et al, 1999), the other using market data (Mitchener et al, 2015). More closely related to peace processes, Clayton and Gleditsch (2014) and Ruhe (2015) attempt to predict mediation onset, while Montoya and Tellez (2020) focus on public opinions on peace negotiations.…”

“…Reiter, 2003), and the latter's historical and theoretical roots (Blainey, 1988;Clausewitz, 1980). Hence, several studies have used distance measures to explain or predict conflict management and outcome (Greig, 2015;Greig et al, 2018;Ruhe, 2015). We expand this literature and assess how well distance predicts agreement content.…”

“…However, most current work focuses on forecasting civil conflict onset or civil war violence (Weidmann and Ward, 2010;Chiba and Gleditsch, 2017;Hegre et al, 2019;Hultman et al, 2022). Only a few studies assess if social science can predict conflict management or conflict resolution out-of-sample Mitchener et al (2015); Clayton and Gleditsch (2014); Ruhe (2015); Montoya and Tellez (2020). To our knowledge, no study concentrates on what type of peace agreement content we should expect if actors decide to sign an agreement.…”

Predators and Peace: Explaining the Failure of the Pakistani Conflict Settlement Process in 2013-4

“…In particular, the notions of the mutually hurting stalemate and the ripe moment for seeking a settlement have become prominent: parties that are relatively equally balanced in their military capabilities and unable to achieve a decisive military victory become locked in a situation in which they must seek alternatives to a military strategy (Zartman 2001). This then creates a specific window of opportunity (Bapat 2005, Ruhe 2015.…”