Currently viewing the tag: "mediation"

Guy Gabriel

More peacebuilders does not mean more peace. There are numerous diplomatic tracks hoping to lead to peace in Sudan at present, each one pitched differently to the others, […]

Continue Reading

The civil war in Ethiopia is reaching a point at which the government of Ethiopia is actively seeking the intervention of UN Security Council members. It is time for the […]

Continue Reading

The United Nations Guidance for Effective Mediation recognizes mediation as one of the most effective methods of preventing, managing and above all, resolving conflicts. To be effective, however, a […]

Continue Reading

In South Sudan’s political marketplace, a bad peace deal—or a badly-implemented peace deal—can be as bad as no deal at all. A collapsing peace deal has the potential of unleashing […]

Continue Reading

This article systematically examines the varying effectiveness of African and non-African third parties in mediating civil wars in Africa. Drawing on data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, supplemented with unique data on mediation efforts, which together cover all mediation efforts in civil wars in Africa between 1960 and 2012, this article presents quantitative evidence supporting the effectiveness of African third parties. Compared to non-African third parties, African third parties are far more likely to conclude peace agreements and these peace agreements are more likely to be durable. Most effective, however, are mixed mediation efforts in which there is coordination between African and non-African third parties, but in which African third parties take the lead. The phrase, ‘African solutions to African challenges’ should thus be understood as a division of labour and responsibilities, rather than an excuse for non-African third parties to ignore Africa’s problems or African third parties acting on their own.

Continue Reading

There is an international norm of inclusion in peace processes and political settlements. This is recent. Twenty years ago, the participation of unarmed political parties, civil society actors and women, was only a moral principle and an aspiration, disputed by political elites and questioned by conflict mediators. Today it has become a norm of international political practice, in the sense that people in conflict-affected countries demand inclusion, the international sponsors of peace processes seek it, and protagonists in conflicts tactically call upon it, occasionally to good effect. Inclusion is not law. It is still contested, but its challengers are in retreat. This paper examines what has occurred.

Continue Reading