Patterns of third-party and disputant-initiated mediation inmilitarized interstate disputes, 1946-1992

Abstract

In this dissertation, I seek to explain mediation initiation in militarized interstate disputes. In large part this purpose serves to bridge an important gap in the mediation literature between the onset of mediation and its outcome. Specifically, I examine how various dispute, disputant and third party traits interact to foster a mediation attempt. In doing so, I focus on answering three related questions. First, what are the differences between third party and disputant initiated mediation? Second, why are the two types different? Third, what are the implications of these differences? A new dataset on third party intermediary interventions is utilized for this study, covering the post World War II period from 1946 to 1992. During this period, there are 1137 militarized interstate disputes, with 379 mediation attempts by third party actors. After a thorough description of the data and the manner in which the dataset was compiled, I empirically test various hypotheses concerning both third party and disputant initiated mediation as they relate to the conflict and mediation literatures. In doing so, I distinguish between three dimensions of a militarized dispute: power, severity and regime type. Additionally, I incorporate a triadic model of conflict management behavior that takes into account third party characteristics and linkages to disputants to explain mediation initiation. Finally, I disaggregate disputant initiated mediation to determine if different conditions lead to one or both disputants initiating mediation efforts. My results suggest that the conditions leading to third party initiation are rather different than those leading to disputant initiation. Most notable are how dispute factors such as territory, multilateral disputes and power asymmetry affect the likelihood of either type of initiation. Additionally, the role of third party characteristics like major power status and linkages such as trade and alliance ties are also found to be important in determining when third parties will initiate mediation. Such results on the whole suggest a further need to re-evaluate our observations about mediation outcome and mediation theory in general.