Constraints on Third Party Flexibility

Abstract

The article uses two very different examples of third party mediation to illustrate the argument that intermediary flexibility has two aspects: freedom from constraint and capacity to undertake an influential interventive role by carrying out a variety of important functions. It concludes that both aspects are important for the success of mediation initiatives—although each confers very different advantages on particular mediator types and circumstances—and that the constituencies of other types of mediators need to be delineated and analyzed before further general propositions can be advanced.

Ready for Prime Time: The When, Who, and Why of International Mediation

“…On the other hand, mediation requires independence not only to facilitate early intervention by the mediator but also to allow him or her to respond quickly to rapidly changing events. To take advantage of what may be a suddenly emerging set of opportunities because the balance of forces has changed on the ground, mediators have to act quickly and to demonstrate flexibility (Mitchell and Botes 1995). If mediators and their backup teams are hamstrung by superiors and work in an organizational environment or institutional setting that stifles initiative and creativity, their efforts will be suboptimal and parties will either turn to others who have a proven track record, or, in the worst case scenario will turn away from even considering political solutions.…”