Methodology for Analyzing International Conflict Settlement Efforts

• After discussing the phase of conflict management, we now transition to the phase of conflict resolution.
• Hypothesis: There is a relationship between the phase of conflict management and the phase of conflict resolution: The more rational the management of the conflict, the more it aids in resolving or settling the dispute.
• Settlement: Establishing an agreement that does not satisfy either party (temporary resolution).
• Resolution: Reaching an agreement that satisfies both parties and definitively ends the conflict (final resolution).

1/ Peace-Making

• This concept refers to diplomatic actions taken by states to resolve disputes (legal diplomatic activities).
• It is a traditional approach to conflict resolution, primarily involving states engaging in negotiations aimed at establishing agreements, which are the final outcomes of peace-making efforts.

2/ Peace-Keeping

• Operations carried out by international organizations to mediate conflicts. These organizations work to maintain peace established after previous agreements are achieved.
• International organizations are the primary actors in peacekeeping efforts.

3/ Peace-Building

• A modern approach to conflict resolution. It goes beyond making peace or peacekeeping efforts, as opposing forces may arise and escalate the conflict again.
• The goal is to eliminate the conflict through:
  • Societal-level interventions that focus on individual perceptions of the conflict (for example, implementing educational programs that do not focus on historical grievances).
  • Working to establish and build peace, which is a long-term process starting from the community and ultimately reaching the authorities.

In our study, we focus on peace-making to explore the tools of resolution between the conflicting parties.

2/ Observing Negotiation Processes

Every conflict generally experiences a continuous series of negotiation processes. At this level, we will track the negotiation process chronologically.

3/ Selecting a Specific Negotiation Process and Justifying the Choice:

A- A particular negotiation process (framework agreement) is selected based on the following criteria:

• Inclusion of contentious issues and the common goals of both parties without focusing on alternative negotiations.
• Involving all parties to the conflict.
• Availability of continuity across multiple negotiation rounds without suspension or interruption.
• Inclusion of a mediator party (mediational process).

Note: Emphasizing these elements contributes to a comprehensive analysis of the negotiation process and ensures that no critical aspect is overlooked, enhancing our understanding during negotiations and giving us a clear perspective on ideal theoretical negotiations.

B- Negotiation Environment:

• Name of the negotiations.
• Date and location of the negotiations.
• Participating parties in the negotiations.

C- Timing of Negotiations: Here, we attempt to explain why parties turn to negotiations at a specific time. Why this time in particular?

• Timing is a crucial factor for negotiations, as it can significantly affect the feasibility of resolving the dispute.
• Researchers have identified the most suitable timing or theoretical ideal timing for negotiations, analogous to the timing of fruit harvesting, distinguishing between harvesting before or after the ripening stage. Similarly, if negotiations occur before or after the ideal timing, this choice will influence their success or failure.
• An essential condition for selecting the timing of negotiations is: the parties’ conviction of the necessity to enter negotiations, particularly when the conflict reaches:
  • The detrimental stalemate model: Each party attempts to achieve its goals through the applied strategy; however, it becomes evident that both parties are incapable of fully or partially achieving their objectives, in addition to the rising costs of conflict (material and human damage). This imbalance of costs against objectives leads both parties to be unable to continue, necessitating negotiations for a satisfactory solution.
  • The common disaster model: After the parties fail to achieve their goals, the situation may escalate to a level threatening the survival of one or both parties, resembling cases of genocide. In this scenario, chaos reigns, violence spirals out of control, and everyone turns against the opposing party, leading to widespread violence.

4/ Analyzing the Negotiation Agenda:

Theoretically, a negotiation agenda must meet several essential criteria for success: A- Comparison of contentious topics with the negotiation agenda: The agenda must realistically reflect the disputed topics. Here, we compare the content of the agenda with the realities of the contentious issues between the disputing parties.

B- Completeness of the agenda in terms of reflecting the interests of both parties: Here, we analyze the content of the negotiation agenda to what extent it reflects the interests of both parties.

C- Absence of preconditions: The existence of preconditions can significantly hinder the success and completeness of negotiations.

5/ Analyzing Negotiation Management (Analyzing Negotiation Behavior)

A- Identifying Negotiation Strategies: At this level, “Dean Pruitt” distinguishes theoretically between four strategies used in negotiation management:

1. Cooperative Strategy (Problem-Solving Strategy): Aims to reconcile the proposals, demands, and goals of both parties, including the following tactics:
   • Mutual and equal concessions.
   • Minimizing the cost of concessions as much as possible (not conceding in areas that do not require concessions).
   • Avoiding sticking to maximum goals.
   • Not establishing preconditions.
   • Not inflating demands.
   • Creating new negotiation topics.
   • Avoiding threats for persuasion.
   • Flexibility in handling goals and the means employed.

This strategy is considered the optimal one for resolving disputes as it allows the parties to achieve the maximum benefits with minimal losses, while also incorporating satisfaction by reconciling the demands of both sides.

2. Competitive Strategy (Position Bargaining Strategy): Aims to persuade the other party to accept the solution advantageous to the strategy’s party. It can be seen as the opposite of the cooperative strategy and includes the following tactics:
   • Not offering concessions.
   • Sticking to maximum goals.
   • Inflating demands.
   • Not establishing preconditions.
   • Using threats for persuasion.

Applying this strategy in conflict resolution tends to create weak and unsustainable negotiations, as it does not reflect the interests of both parties. It may escalate the conflict instead of resolving it (like the conflict in the Basque region and between Iran and the UAE).

3. Concession Strategy (Yielding): This strategy includes the following tactics:
   • Parties reduce their ambitions and goals.
   • The weaker party shows less concern about the outcomes.

This strategy is effective for wrapping up negotiations when the issues are non-critical, time pressure is high, and one party rushes to make more concessions than the other.

4. Stalemate Strategy: This is time-related and is used by one party to increase time pressure on the other. This strategy includes the following tactics:
   • Deliberately ignoring the other party’s initiatives and demands.
   • Failing to express clear positions on the negotiation issues to waste time for the other party.
   • Following this strategy from a certain party indicates its lack of belief in the effectiveness of negotiations, believing it can continue the conflict and reap benefits, thus opting for the stalemate and indifference strategy, neglecting initiatives proposed by the other side, leading to the collapse of negotiations.

B- Explaining the Choice of a Specific Negotiation Strategy: After identifying the models of strategies employed in managing negotiations, we will explore the reasons and ways that lead a party or state to choose one strategy over another, always relying on “Dean Pruitt’s” research, which presents us with two models to understand the reasons for choosing negotiation strategies.

1. Mutual Interest Model: It allows identifying the strategy applied based on how much the parties care about achieving common outcomes or the opposite, affecting the shape of the strategy. A strategy is chosen based on the following factors:

• The case where each party is interested in achieving its results without overlooking the other party’s outcomes, aiming for a common ground for dialogue and negotiation, which encourages resolution (Cooperative strategy).
• The case where one party is only concerned with achieving its own results (Competitive strategy).
• The case where one party only cares about the other party’s outcomes (Concession strategy).
• The case where parties do not care about achieving their results or the other party’s outcomes (Stalemate strategy).

2. Feasibility Model: Refers to an effective strategy “Dean Pruitt”: (This strategy is deemed viable if it is capable of achieving the defined goals). This model also helps explain the reasons for selecting the strategy, with each strategy having its feasibility and benefits:

• Feasibility of the Cooperative Strategy: Related to the extent of the parties’ awareness of a perceived common ground, where “Dean Pruitt” identifies four factors that enhance the P.C.G:
  1. Reduced ambitions and demands and at least some trust from one party.
  2. Their confidence in their abilities to solve the problem.
  3. Willingness to cooperate.
  4. Having a mediator who creates and supports the formation of a common ground, fostering a collaborative atmosphere.
• Feasibility of the Stalemate Strategy: Increases if it wastes time, and if the other party is sensitive to time pressures, prompting them to concede. It also indicates that the competitive strategy party is unaffected and able to keep the conflict going.
• Feasibility of the Concession Strategy: Useful when applied by a party that is time-sensitive, allowing it to concede on non-critical issues. It is also effective if no new developments affect the timing and significance of the issues at stake.

6/ Supporting Negotiations (Analyzing Negotiation Behavior)

In addition to the negotiations involving specific strategies from the parties, there must be realistic and effective support in the negotiation process to achieve desired results for the parties. This reinforces the good faith of the parties and their genuine desire to reach a solution, not merely a formal framework. Furthermore, negotiating parties should demonstrate their commitment to achieving peaceful results beneficial to all parties, while also enhancing their international image.

Many negotiations have been relatively successful in achieving communication and creating common ground, especially due to the critical role played by mediating parties, which can persuade parties to strengthen negotiations by making decisions and actions that bring positions closer and facilitate concessions. Both conflicting parties may willingly or under mediating pressure disarm and declare a ceasefire during negotiations, prompting the second party to offer a corresponding concession.

This creates an atmosphere of trust and allows substantive discussions on contentious issues between them. Conversely, a lack of support for negotiations can halt ongoing negotiation processes and foster an atmosphere of distrust, leading to the failure of the negotiation process or undermining what has been achieved, such as renewed conflict or continued behaviors contrary to negotiation language. For example, the negotiations held between Iran and the UAE in Doha were unsuccessful; subsequently, there was no positive support but rather negative support, as Iran sought to entrench its presence in the three islands, establishing a power plant on Greater Tunb in 1996, inaugurating an airport in Abu Musa in the same year, and announcing the opening of a branch of a university affiliated with Iran just seven months later.

Reports also emerged about deploying missiles on the island, which the UAE vehemently protested, describing it as a threat to the region’s security and stability. Furthermore, in 1977, Iran organized a football tournament on Abu Musa Island, disregarding protests from the UAE, thereby adhering to stagnation and procrastination, complicating the negotiations further and intensifying the conflict.

7/ Mediation Process in Resolving Conflicts:

A- Definition of Mediation: Let’s examine the following scenario:

• A specific conflict in a particular area has persisted for a certain period, during which the conflicting parties have been unable to reach a resolution.
• A mediator or third party (from the United Nations / an international NGO / a renowned international figure / a head of state, etc.) intervenes to resolve the dispute.
• Questions arise: Who are these mediators? What are their relationships with the conflicting parties? What actions, functions, or roles do they perform to resolve the conflict? What are their goals for intervention? Are they pursuing the interests of the conflicting parties or their own? What are the aims of the mediation process?
• Mediation is defined as: (Mediation entails third-party intervention in negotiations or disputes, where the mediator is acceptable to both parties, lacks authority or has limited authority in decision-making, and helps the involved parties reach a mutually acceptable settlement voluntarily. In addition to addressing core issues, mediation can establish and engender relationships of trust and respect between the parties, while also minimizing material costs and psychological damage.)

From this definition of mediation, we conclude: 1- The Mediator: The third party often has no direct connection to the conflict or the core issues raised (although there are instances where the mediator is part of the conflict, these are rare). This characteristic is crucial in managing and resolving disputes, as external third-party involvement often provides the conflicting parties with new perspectives on the contentious issues that divide them (influencing their self-perception about the conflict), alongside effective means to build the necessary relationships to resolve problems.

2- Acceptance of the Mediator’s Involvement: There must exist a willingness among the disputants to allow a third party to intervene in the conflict and assist them in finding a resolution. However, acceptance of a third party does not imply that the disputants enthusiastically welcome the mediator’s intervention or are willing to follow their instructions unconditionally; rather, it means the parties agree to the mediator’s presence and are willing to consider their suggestions (recommendations) seriously in the context of managing or resolving the conflict.

Mediators intervene in conflicts based on various factors including:

• Direct invitation from one of the disputing parties or from more than one party.
• Recommendations from secondary parties.
• A direct initiative from the mediator themself.
• Appointed by a known authority or entity, such as a governmental official or agency.

Each of these factors necessitating intervention imposes specific strategic choices regarding the mediator’s activities and can affect the quality and likelihood of a resolution.

A direct request from one or several parties is among the most common mechanisms for the mediator’s entry into the dispute, potentially coming from an individual party, a faction within a group, a coalition of parties, or even all parties involved. This request may occur before or after the launch of negotiations. The source and timing of the request also impact the negotiation dynamics.

3- Mediation essentially extends the dialogue and negotiation process involving a third party, expanding the negotiation process to include new formats and introducing new variables and dynamics into interactions among disputants. Without negotiations, there is no mediation. Thus, “William Zartman” defines mediation as: (a pattern of negotiation in which a third party assists the direct disputing parties (A) and (B) in finding solutions they have been unable to identify independently).

4- Mediation Process is Voluntary: aimed at reaching a mutually acceptable settlement regarding contentious issues. The term voluntary implies a free choice to participate and a free agreement free from coercion. However, voluntary participation in mediation denies any pressures that the mediator may later impose on one of the parties to submit to demands or persuade through force, sanctions, or threats. This aspect is addressed within the mediator’s techniques to achieve mediation objectives.

B- Types of Mediators: The intervening party acting as a mediator in resolving a particular conflict can take on various forms. The most commonly known forms typically include:

• A state, government or non-governmental international organization, individual or well-known global figure.

C- The Mediator’s Role and Responsibilities: We now explore some tasks performed by the mediator, who assumes various roles to assist the disputing parties in resolving their disagreements (American Arbitration Association). Among these roles are the following: (Note: Important considerations regarding the mediator’s roles indicate the ideal model of what the mediator’s role should encompass, irrespective of its form, as well as providing a standard to evaluate the mediator’s behavior or process and their commitment to successfully facilitating negotiations, thus aligning with their existence – mediation is intended to assist disputants in finding suitable solutions.)

1- The mediator opens communication channels or facilitates better communication if the parties are currently in negotiation processes.

2- The mediator helps all parties understand the rights of others participating in the negotiations.

3- The mediator facilitates the negotiation process by providing resources, often through leading the negotiation proceedings.

4- The mediator acts as a coach, assisting novice negotiators or those unprepared for negotiation or lacking the skills necessary to engage in the process effectively.

5- The mediator serves as a help resource, providing assistance tools to parties and connecting them with external expertise (for instance, lawyers, technicians, decision-makers, or any other mutually beneficial expertise) that enables broader options for acceptable settlements.

6- The mediator identifies the problem, allowing disputing parties to examine it from different perspectives, determining core issues and interests, and considering mutual options satisfying all parties.

7- The mediator acts as a fundamental component in establishing realistic resolutions, facilitating the formation and application of reasonable remedies while holding parties accountable and challenging those striving for extreme and unrealistic ends.

8- The mediator may resemble a scapegoat, assuming part of the responsibility or blame in the event of an undesirable decision from one party’s supporters. These last parties might utilize the mediator in this way to save face and maintain the support of their constituents.

9- The mediator often acts as a leader, proactively moving negotiations forward, sometimes proposing concrete actions and other times through specific initiatives.

D- Mediator Techniques: To fulfill their duties and achieve the objectives of intervening in conflict resolution, mediators typically resort to a variety of means and techniques, which they use as tools to achieve their goals. Some of these techniques can be derived from previous elements. The mediator uses three fundamental techniques in the early stages of negotiations: 1- Focusing on assisting communication between the parties by carrying messages and clarifying them.

2- Establishing a framework for negotiations, that is, creating common ground that lays foundations for dialogue and understanding.

3- Using pressures on the parties: This element is crucial in the mediator’s work. By employing certain means, the mediator exerts pressure on the parties to persuade them of the need to agree on contentious issues. The mediator has four means of pressure:

• Persuasion: The most widely used tool in mediation, where the mediator urges the parties to rethink their beliefs and perceptions regarding the conflict and convinces them that seeking solutions will save them the costs of conflict.
• Suggesting proposals: Assisting the parties in arriving at mutually beneficial solutions.
• Threat of withdrawal: The mediator threatens to withdraw from negotiations; however, timing is crucial, as the mediator should only issue this threat once the parties have committed to the mediator’s recommendations, thus serving as leverage for the mediator to exert pressure on the disputing parties.
• Utilizing sanctions and incentives: This method diminishes one or both parties’ situation, thus increasing their inclination towards resolution. The mediator resorts to this technique when parties inflate demands without offering concessions while also having the potential and interest to continue negotiating, at which point the mediator might impose economic penalties on the party insisting on competitiveness during negotiations or offer incentives to persuade the parties to cooperate in negotiations.

The strength of these pressure techniques stems from the parties’ need for reconciliation and resolution; the more acute this sense, the greater the mediator’s ability to influence the behavior of the disputing parties.

E- Motivations for Mediator Intervention: This element is one of the most substantial factors that help us understand mediator behavior. Why does a third party (the mediator) intervene to halt a specific conflict? Is it to achieve humanitarian objectives? Is it to pursue personal or self-interests through intervention? How does the mediator’s form influence the nature of the intervention’s motives? Are the motivations consistent across all types of mediators?

Typically, the mediator intervenes to serve two goals:

• A desire to demonstrate peace (from individuals, international organizations characterized by humanitarian or human rights interests, etc.).
• The defense of their personal or self-interests (in the case of nation-states).

1- Motivations for Intervention by States: States operate based on defensive or offensive interests.

• Defensive interests: States seek to protect their interests from competitive interventions by other states aiming for influence, providing a justifiable rationale for intervention. Here, the mediating state defends its interests in the area (the dispute may concern the territory of the defending state, internal ethnic conflicts, or in adjacent regions). Solutions offered through defensive mediation tend to be better than those provided through offensive mediation since they aim for stability.
• Offensive interests: States mediate to enhance their influence. Here, states often show little genuine interest in resolving the conflict as much as promoting their national interests, where the mediating state advocates for its interests more than those of the conflicting parties. This ultimately influences the success of mediation in resolving the conflict.

2- Motivations for Intervention by Governmental International Organizations: They are influenced by the policies and interests of their member states.

3- Motivations for Intervention by Non-Governmental International Organizations: They typically focus on peacekeeping as their primary motivation, but they may also be driven by self-interest, such as supporting a regime in exchange for obtaining a legal status to bolster their activities within that region.

4- Motivations for Intervention by Informal Individuals: For example, “Carter” in 1994 in North Korea or “James Baker” in Western Sahara; motivations typically revolve around:

• Developing communication networks among parties.
• Executing their ideas regarding the conflict.
• Achieving economic (as a commercial mediator) or academic research goals, framing the conflict as a case study to enhance their research on conflict resolution.
• Humanitarian reasons.

8 / Negotiation Outcomes:

The outcomes of negotiations are tied to the nature of the strategy applied during the negotiation process, with four potential outcomes: 1- Imposed Solution: When the results favor one party (under a competitive strategy, while one side concedes and the other does not). 2- Compromise: Outcomes beneficial to both parties. 3- Concession: 4- Stalemate: Occurs when one party employs a competitive or stalemate strategy and the other applies the same strategy but is stronger, leading to both parties reaching a deadlock.

We evaluate the results at this level based on the criteria essential for conflict resolution. Are they successful or unsuccessful, and why?

References

• International Conflict Management” by Michael J. Butler
• Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict” edited by Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall

• “Contemporary Conflict Resolution” by Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall
• “International Mediation in a Fragile World” by David Carment and Evan Hoffman
• “The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice” edited by Peter T. Coleman, Morton Deutsch, and Eric C. Marcus
• “Conflict Management and Resolution: An Introduction” by Ho-Won Jeong
• “International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War” edited by Paul C. Stern and Daniel Druckman
• “Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques” edited by I. William Zartman and J. Lewis Rasmussen
• “Negotiating Peace: A Guide to the Practice, Politics, and Law of International Mediation” by Sven M.G. Koopmans
• “The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide” by Bernard Mayer
• “Conflict Management in International Relations: Theories and Practice” by Sujata Ashwarya
• “Managing Conflict in a World Adrift” edited by Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall