“Traditional Mediation Along with Modern Mediation Techniques Effective in Permanent Conflict Resolution"

Abstract

Common methods of conflict resolution include mediation and policing. How well do they work together, and how well do they terminate violent conflicts? Mediating helps parties reach mutually agreeable agreements, whereas peacekeeping keeps the peace after it has been reached. But it's not uncommon for mediation and peacekeeping to occur together. It might be argued that missions of peacekeeping rely on ongoing political procedures, while peacekeepers themselves provide an environment that is amenable to mediation and serve as a vital independent source of information. Empirical evidence, analyzed using a wide range of model specifications (including selection models), supports the following three claims: (a) mediation, not peacekeeping, is the key to ending hostilities; (b) mediation and preserving peace are largely complementary; and (c) this complementary nature is conditional: in the years following the Cold War period, transforming peacekeeping increased the efficiency of mediation to end civil wars. Peacekeeping efforts, by themselves, have not been shown to be effective in preventing or resolving violence. Last but not least, this paper discusses the effectiveness of community elders as mediators in permanently resolving disputes as the level of confidence and trust between the parties would be higher in contrary to neutral third party because mediation may take either an evaluative or a facilitative approach.