Softening Up: Making Conflicts More Amenable to Diplomacy

Greig, J. Michael; Diehl, Paul F.

doi:10.1080/03050620601011032

Cited by 60 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a finding could occur because repeated conflict management exerts more pressure on disputants. Alternatively, over time, disputants may "soften" their belief that violence will achieve their desired outcome (Greig and Diehl, 2006;Zartman, 2000), perhaps because they place greater trust in the information that third-parties provide (Kydd, 2003). Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, the involvement of a greater number of state-state dyads in the I-CMC leads to more peaceful outcomes, particularly with respect to preventing a conflict from crossing the threshold for full-scale civil war (Model 3), the duration of peace spells (Model 2), and the decline in conflict-related fatalities (Models 5 and 7-8).…”

Section: Addressingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing complexity: addressing the civil conflict component of international-civil militarized conflicts (I-CMCs)

Owsiak

Diehl²,

Goertz

2023

IJCMA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpuse of this study is to answer the following two questions. Do conflict management efforts mitigate the recurrence and severity of civil conflict? If so, how? Do some conflict management strategies fare better than others in these tasks? This study theorizes about the connection between the costliness of a conflict management strategy – with respect to both the disputants and third parties – and civil conflict outcomes. This theory produces two contradictory predictions: that more costly strategies either increase or decrease violence. This study not only adjudicates between these two possibilities but also incorporates the role of timing. The early use of more costly strategies, for example, may encourage disputants to reduce violence in civil conflicts. Design/methodology/approach To evaluate the predications that the authors derive from their theoretical argument, the authors quantitatively analyze the effect of conflict management strategies’ relative cost on various measures of civil conflict recurrence and severity. The authors first identify the set of international–civil militarized conflicts (I-CMCs) during the period 1946–2010. I-CMCs contain two dimensions – interstate and intrastate – making them the most complex and dangerous form of militarized conflict. To each I-CMC, the authors then link all third-party attempts to manage the I-CMC’s civil conflict dimension. Finally, after developing quantitative indicators, a series of regression equations explore the relationships of primary interest. Findings Two main findings emerge. First, when third parties use a relatively more costly conflict management strategy to manage a civil conflict (e.g. a peace operation or military intervention, as opposed to mediation), the severity of the conflict increases, while conflict recurrence rates remain unchanged. Second, this study uncovers a trade-off. The early use of a relatively more costly management strategy lowers a civil conflict’s severity in the short-term. It also, however, increases the likelihood – and speed with which – civil conflict recurs. The timing of certain conflict management strategies matters. Originality/value Scholars typically isolate conflict management strategies in number (i.e. consider efforts as independent of one another, even those within the same conflict) and kind (i.e. examine mediation but not peace operations). This study, in contrast, includes the following: the full menu of conflict management strategies available to third parties – negotiation, mediation, adjudication/arbitration, peace operations, sanctions and military intervention – over a lengthy time period (1946–2010); theorizes about the relative merits of these strategies; and considers the timing of certain conflict management efforts. In so doing, it highlights a policy trade-off and proposes promising areas for future research.

show abstract

Section: Addressingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing complexity: addressing the civil conflict component of international-civil militarized conflicts (I-CMCs)

Owsiak

Diehl²,

Goertz

2023

IJCMA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within the scholarly literature on international mediation, significant attention has been devoted to understanding how contextual characteristics of the conflict and the timing of mediation efforts influence mediation success (Bercovitch 1997;Bercovitch and Langely 1993;Greig 2001;Greig and Diehl 2006;Kleiboer 1994;Pruitt 1997Pruitt , 2007Zartman 2000). Theories about ripeness attempt to identify the distinct moment in time at which mediation is most likely to succeed (Bercovitch 1997;Zartman 2000).…”

Section: Contextual Explanations and Theories Of Ripenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hostilities are less entrenched early in the conflict, but the accumulation of costs later in the conflict provides greater motivation to seek resolution (Greig 2001;Kleiboer 1994;Zartman 2000). Additionally, some scholars criticize the tendency to view ripeness as a discrete state and propose conceptions of willingness or readiness as an alternative (Greig 2001;Greig and Diehl 2006;Pruitt 1997Pruitt , 2007.…”

Section: Contextual Explanations and Theories Of Ripenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although vast, the scholarship on international mediation focuses primarily on temporal and contextual factors to explain mediation success (Greig 2001;Greig and Diehl, 2006;Pruitt 1997Pruitt , 2007Zartman 2000). This limited focus has produced debate over the best timing for conflict mediation (Greig 2001;Pruitt 1997) and precluded a detailed empirical analysis of the interaction between the conflict situation and the role of the mediator in the mediation process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

International Mediation as a Rhetorical Situation: Connecting Context, Actors, and Strategy for Mediation Success

Harroff¹

2011

TEF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the relationship between characteristics of (1) conflict situations, (2) the participants in mediation processes, and (3) mediation strategies and the influence of these characteristics on mediation success. Previous studies on international mediation have identified numerous conditions of ripeness mediator characteristics that influence the likelihood of mediation success, as well as varying effects of mediation strategies. However, these studies lack a comprehensive framework to connect the context of the situation to the mediation process.Because mediation is inherently a rhetorical process, this study employs a theoretical framework based on the components of the rhetorical situation to analyze how the context of mediation influences the mediator's ability to facilitate a successful mediation outcome. The findings suggest that communication-based strategies may increase the likelihood of mediation success if the conflict situation does not meet conditions of ripeness, and characteristics of the mediator and the disputants' representatives in the mediation process may further influence the likelihood of success.

show abstract

“…2 However, to break the ice, the rival parties need to "soften up." 3 This is usually when the time is ripe for conflict resolution attempts meant to address economic crisis, policy failure, compatible governments in both countries, and most importantly a military stalemate followed by a sequence of indeterminate confrontations. 4,5 The US military engagement in Afghanistan-the longest war in American history-which has claimed the lives of more than 100,000 Afghan civilians and 2,300 US soldiers and cost $778 billion (from October 2001-September 2019), has led the US government to a stalemate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The US Peace Diplomacy in Afghanistan

Mehran¹

2020

SAIS Review of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2001, following the Taliban's ousting from Afghanistan, the United States signed the Bonn Agreement directly with an Afghan delegation. Nineteen years later, in a bid to end the longest war in American history, the Trump administration signed the "Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan" with the Taliban, this time circumventing any direct involvement from the Afghan government. Is the US-Taliban deal a major diplomatic solution to a protracted conflict that signifies the importance of diplomatic solutions to military action? Or is it a war-failed and diplomacy-bound-to-fail scenario? This paper analyzes the issues and challenges facing the peace process in Afghanistan, with a focus on the diplomatic efforts by the United States.

show abstract

Softening Up: Making Conflicts More Amenable to Diplomacy

Cited by 60 publications

References 61 publications

Managing complexity: addressing the civil conflict component of international-civil militarized conflicts (I-CMCs)

Managing complexity: addressing the civil conflict component of international-civil militarized conflicts (I-CMCs)

International Mediation as a Rhetorical Situation: Connecting Context, Actors, and Strategy for Mediation Success

The US Peace Diplomacy in Afghanistan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About