The Normative Agency of Regional Organizations and Non‐governmental Organizations in International Peace Mediation*

Abstract

This article analyzes the increasingly prominent role of regional organizations (ROs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in promoting norms in mediation processes. In particular, we seek to understand the processes by which RO and NGO mediators promote the inclusivity norm to negotiating parties and the outcomes that result. We employ the concepts of local agency and social practices in examining the normative agency of ROs and NGOs in promoting and redefining the inclusivity norm. Through illustrative case studies of peace processes in South Sudan and Myanmar, we argue that ROs' and NGOs' mediation practices reflect their claims to alternative resources of power, such as long-standing expertise and insider status in the context, and build congruence with strong local norms. We provide nuanced theoretical insights on RO and NGO mediators' claims to agency and provide empirical illustrations on how these claims contribute to constitutive changes to norms.

The other side of resistance: Challenges to inclusivity within civil society and the limits of international peace mediation

“…Moreover, research on spoiling has explained how conflict parties resort to arms to be included in the peace process or boycott the talks as leverage against their rival conflict parties (Blaydes and de Maio, 2010; Hellmüller 2019a; Paffenholz, 2015a; Stedman, 1997; Zahar, 2010). As a response, research focused on engaging with armed actors and recommends that mediators bulk up their mandate, resources, and strategies to counter such leverage (de Waal, 2017; Hirblinger and Landau, 2020; Paffenholz, 2014a; Pring and Palmiano Federer, 2020). Research examining strategies for mediators is premised on the mediator’s agency vis-à-vis the conflict parties, particularly the mediator’s ability to design inclusive processes and persuade the conflict parties to adopt them.…”

Toward a Normative Turn in Track Two Diplomacy? A Review of the Literature

“…First, the normative imperative to broaden participation of non‐armed actors in peace processes has centered civil society actors as target participants, moving beyond carefully selected influential elites (Jones 2015). Second, the field increasingly recognizes the institutionalization of NGOs as third parties in Track Two initiatives and as promoters of inclusion (Pring and Palmiano Federer 2020). Third, the inclusivity norm has embedded Track Two within the increasingly mainstreamed multitrack approach to peace processes as a modality for inclusion rather than a distinct form of unofficial conflict resolution with a specific history and methodology.…”

Neutral States as Peace Mediators: Favoured or Restrained by Norms?

“…Within the framework of the UN, which offers the most relevant environment for this, neutral states could engage to foster a proper understanding of mediation and remind the prioritization on definitional norms. This might be particularly relevant in cases in which the contestation of norms becomes even more complex through their adaptation or translation into local contexts or when national or international actors disagree on the relative importance of different norms (Pring and Palmiano‐Federer 2020). In such cases, mediators enter into spheres of additional power struggle.…”

“…As two contributions to this Special Issue show (Hellmüller 2020; Pring and Palmiano‐Federer 2020 ), one of the most discussed of these norms is the one of “inclusivity”, meaning that in order to prevent spoilers from damaging a process or even an agreement, all relevant actors to a conflict should find a possibility to get their voices heard including civil society and armed non‐state actors (Paffenholz and Zartman 2019).…”

“…As this Special Issue shows, norms and their differentiation provide an extremely fruitful concept to analyse these changes. The increased expectations, which resulted from the enhanced political agenda described above, led to the emergence of new norms relating to the content and to the process of mediation (Hellmüller et al 2015): examples for the first category are norms linked to democracy or justice (Nathan 2020), examples for the second category are the ones of inclusivity (Hellmüller 2020; Pring and Palmiano‐Federer 2020) or the abstention from talking to terrorists (Haspeslagh 2020). These different types of norms led to all kinds of discussions and even conflicts between actors involved in mediation processes: “definitional” or “settled” norms, the prevailing ones linked to the definitional core of mediation, have found themselves contending with other, “non‐definitional” or “unsettled” norms (Hellmüller et al 2015; Nathan 2020).…”