The Influence of Directive Strategies on Settlement Duration

Abstract

A bstractAre Directive Strategies in international disputes the most effective mediation method for obtaining durable peace? A standard statistical analysis shows no effect of Directive Strategies on settlement durability. This result however, is misleading, failing to take selection and indirect effects into account. In this article, I identify when selection and process effects reinforce or oppose each other. Directive Strategies have opposing neg ative selection and positive process effects, which can distort inferences about their influence. Strategies' direct and indirect effects are also examined. Directive Strategies are more likely to lead to Full Settlements -the most comprehensive form of agree ment, which improve the settlement durability (an indirect effect). However, Directive Strategies are used in more intractable disputes that result in fragile settlements (a direct effect). A statistical analysis of international disputes that takes these conflicting dynamics into account demonstrates the efficacy of Directive Mediation Strategies in producing durable agreements.

Towards a comprehensive framework of mediation success: EU mediation in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue

“…Data from the Heidelberg Conflict Barometer suggest that from 2012, local, intra-Kosovo conflicts have appeared that are directly related to the outcome of the dialogue. Overall, the case study proved the argumentation of Gartner (2014) and Beardsley (2011) on the duration of directive mediation strategies. Accordingly, choosing a directive mediation strategy by offering strong incentives (EU perspective) led to a quick agreement with limited durability.…”

Determinants of mediation success in post-conflict Bosnia: a focused comparison

“…The large-N tradition could benefit from this literature to further nuance its classical categorisation (directive, procedural and communication) and effectively operationalise the concept of post-conflict in its efforts to achieve more refined and robust causal conclusions. Lastly, Gartner's (2014) discussion on the direct and indirect effects of mediation strategies could be an interesting research area in post-conflict mediation settings.…”

“…Kressel's (1972) three-type typology for mediator roles (reflexive, non-directive and directive) paved the way for other similar taxonomies in the international context, such as communication, facilitation and manipulation styles (Zartman and Touval 1985). Research (mostly quantitative) on armed conflict offers other related categories for mediation strategies-communication, procedural and directive-which are also referred to as facilitation, formulation and manipulation (Beardsley et al 2006;Bercovitch and Gartner 2006;Gartner 2014;Quinn et al 2013). Communication and facilitation strategies are generally considered to be 'light' strategies compared to manipulation strategies.…”

“…However, Beardsley (2011, 119) argued that directive strategies lead to agreements that have a relatively short time span-from 5 to 10 years-as powerful mediators 'artificially inflate the incentives for peace and leave the actors with an arrangement that is not self-enforcing'. Similarly, Gartner (2014) claimed that a directive style has a negative direct effect on durability but a positive indirect effect on reaching full settlement. Wilkenfeld et al (2003) contributed to this discussion by drawing attention to two distinct goals/outcomes-crisis management and conflict resolution-and concluded that a manipulative mediation style is more likely to yield better crisis-management outcomes than a facilitative style.…”

‘Bumps in the Road Ahead’: How External Actors Defuse Power-Sharing Crises

“…The 'heavy hand' approach by external actors in a power-sharing system might otherwise be conceptualised as a 'directive strategy' that is a 'robust and intense form of mediation' (Butler 2009, 131) or engagement that seeks to manipulate outcomes (Gartner 2014). This more assertive position will likely have complex and potentially difficult consequences for power-sharing when viewed as favouring the position of one group over another.…”