| ID | 158142 |
| Title Proper | Mediating among mediators |
| Other Title Information | building a consensus in multilateral interventions |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Spitka, Timea |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | The conditions under which multilateral international intervention are effective in ending a violent conflict is a critical question for scholars and practitioners. Scholarly studies have demonstrated the importance of a united intervention but have been in disagreement over the effectiveness of neutral versus partisan intervention. This article examines the conditions under which mediators construct a consensus on the type of intervention process. What are the factors that enable a consensus on a neutral versus a partisan intervention? Distinguishing between four types of international intervention processes – united-neutral, united-partisan, divided-partisan, and divided neutral and partisan intervention – this article argues that it is a united intervention, whether united partisan or united-neutral, that contributes to creating leverage on conflicting parties to end a conflict. The article examines consensus building among mediators within two divergent case studies: Northern Ireland and Bosnia and Herzegovina. |
| `In' analytical Note | International Negotiation Vol. 23, No.1; 2018: p.125 – 154 |
| Journal Source | International Negotiation Vol: 23 No 1 |
| Key Words | Northern Ireland ; Multilateral ; Mediation ; Bosnia and Herzegovina ; Partisan ; United ; Divided ; Neutral |