Citation

Kleiboer M. J. Peace Res. 1994; 31(1): 109-116.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1994, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022343394031001009

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The theories of Zartman, Haass and Stedman focus on the notion of ripeness of conflict. In their view, conflict resolution depends above all on the identification of a ripe moment in the course of a conflict. This is the only time a third party has any chance to succeed. This essay seeks to provide an answer to the question whether the idea of ripeness is a fruitful notion in the discussion of third-party intervention. In doing so, the empirical usefulness and theoretical foundation of the idea of ripeness in the three studies are examined and compared. The analysis has five parts: (1) it discusses the concept of ripeness as developed by the three authors; (2) it looks at the role of a third party in relation to such ripe moments; (3) it compares the methodological basis on which the idea of ripeness has come about and how it has been used in the three books; (4) and it assesses the analytical value of ripeness as an explanatory and prescriptive tool. In the conclusion (5) the author provides three arguments why the notion of ripeness in the way it has been approached so far is problematic. The idea of willingness is proposed as a useful alternative.