Citation

Fisher RJ, Keashly L. J. Peace Res. 1991; 28(1): 29-42.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1991, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022343391028001005

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article provides a conceptual rationale for the potential complementarity of international mediation and third party consultation or problem-solving within the context of a contingency model. Social conflict is viewed as a dynamic process involving a mix of objective and subjective factors which changes over time, thus creating opportunities for different third party interventions. In the model, the various methods of intervention (conciliation, pure mediation, consultation, power mediation, arbitration and peacekeeping) are matched to one of four stages of conflict escalation where they are deemed to have the most influence on de-escalation. In addition, third party interventions are sequenced within the model to show how combining different methods might work toward the eventual resolution of the conflict. Within this context, mediation and consultation are seen as having two main points of complementarity. In the first instance, consultation which improves the relationship between the parties can serve a useful prenegotiation function. The second point occurs at a higher stage of escalation wherein power mediation, which is deemed useful to control hostility and gain settlement on some substantive issues, is followed by consultation to analyse and de-escalate the conflict to a less intense level. The potential of the contingency model is illustrated through reference to the Cyprus conflict and the numerous third party interventions that have attempted to address it. The analysis indicates that the model helps provide some possible reasons for the success and failure of different interventions over a thirty-five year period. The article concludes that the matching and sequencing of different third party interventions may be necessary for positive influence, especially in highly escalated and protracted conflict.