Which Side Are You On? The Study of Algerian and American Biased Mediation
(2007)Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- Mediators are often thought to be more effective if they are unbiased or have no preferences over the issue in dispute. In addition, impartiality is a traditional feature attributed to the mediator. This study presents comparative analysis of small state and great power mediation which highlights a contrary logic. With the help of a contingency approach, combined with a model of mediation drawn on the theory of cheap talk, the concept of biased mediation is explored in two important avenues. First, it shows that strategies adopted by biased mediators are more likely to foster success. Moreover, a mediator with a bias can reduce the likelihood of the conflict by providing information on the resolve of the parties. Second, it demonstrates... (More)
- Mediators are often thought to be more effective if they are unbiased or have no preferences over the issue in dispute. In addition, impartiality is a traditional feature attributed to the mediator. This study presents comparative analysis of small state and great power mediation which highlights a contrary logic. With the help of a contingency approach, combined with a model of mediation drawn on the theory of cheap talk, the concept of biased mediation is explored in two important avenues. First, it shows that strategies adopted by biased mediators are more likely to foster success. Moreover, a mediator with a bias can reduce the likelihood of the conflict by providing information on the resolve of the parties. Second, it demonstrates that states as members of international community are locked in a web of interactions and interests, and therefore biases should be expected by adversaries and perceived as a natural feature of mediating state. These assumptions are illustrated by two case studies: Algerian mediation in Iran Hostage Crisis and United States? mediation between Israel and Egypt conducted by Henry Kissinger. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1321435
- author
- Kazmierczak, Marta
- supervisor
- organization
- year
- 2007
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- 'International Mediation', 'Biased Mediation', 'Successful Mediation', 'Contingency Approach', Political and administrative sciences, Statsvetenskap, förvaltningskunskap
- language
- English
- id
- 1321435
- date added to LUP
- 2007-06-12 00:00:00
- date last changed
- 2007-06-12 00:00:00
@misc{1321435,
abstract = {{Mediators are often thought to be more effective if they are unbiased or have no preferences over the issue in dispute. In addition, impartiality is a traditional feature attributed to the mediator. This study presents comparative analysis of small state and great power mediation which highlights a contrary logic. With the help of a contingency approach, combined with a model of mediation drawn on the theory of cheap talk, the concept of biased mediation is explored in two important avenues. First, it shows that strategies adopted by biased mediators are more likely to foster success. Moreover, a mediator with a bias can reduce the likelihood of the conflict by providing information on the resolve of the parties. Second, it demonstrates that states as members of international community are locked in a web of interactions and interests, and therefore biases should be expected by adversaries and perceived as a natural feature of mediating state. These assumptions are illustrated by two case studies: Algerian mediation in Iran Hostage Crisis and United States? mediation between Israel and Egypt conducted by Henry Kissinger.}},
author = {{Kazmierczak, Marta}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Which Side Are You On? The Study of Algerian and American Biased Mediation}},
year = {{2007}},
}