This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bercovitch, J. Articles by Schneider, G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Who Mediates? the Political Economy of International Conflict Management

Department of Political Science, University of Canterbury

Gerald Schneider

Faculty of Public Policy and Management, University of Konstanz

Studies on international mediation have traditionally focused on the effectiveness of international efforts to settle or resolve militarized conflicts. In this article, we start from a different perspective and examine the identity of mediators and the factors determining the choice of mediators. We build an integrative theoretical framework to explain the number of mediation mandates an international actor receives. The hypotheses we derive are subsequently tested in a multivariate event count model using an original dataset on international mediation from 1950 to 1990. The results obtained from Poisson and negative binomial regressions disconfirm the assertion that the effectiveness of a mediator influences the number of mandates it receives. The most important structural force on the international mediation market seems to be the hegemonic status of the USA. The analysis further demonstrates that international conflict management is largely, but not exclusively, restricted to the permanent members of the Security Council of the UN. As the theoretical framework suggests, ideological factors, such as the neutrality of the mediator, play a less significant role on the market for mediation. Democracies equally are not significantly more active than autocracies in the management of international conflicts.

Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, 145-165 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343300037002002


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Shannon Preventing War and Providing the Peace?: International Organizations and the Management of Territorial Disputes Conflict Management and Peace Science, April 1, 2009; 26(2): 144 - 163. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Dorussen and H. Ward Intergovernmental Organizations and the Kantian Peace: A Network Perspective Journal of Conflict Resolution, April 1, 2008; 52(2): 189 - 212. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. E. Hansen, S. McLaughlin Mitchell, and S. C. Nemeth IO Mediation of Interstate Conflicts: Moving Beyond the Global versus Regional Dichotomy Journal of Conflict Resolution, April 1, 2008; 52(2): 295 - 325. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y.-C. Chang Economic Interdependence and International Interactions: Impact of Third-Party Trade on Political Cooperation and Conflict Cooperation and Conflict, June 1, 2005; 40(2): 207 - 232. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. A. Schrodt and D. J. Gerner An Event Data Analysis of Third-Party Mediation in the Middle East and Balkans Journal of Conflict Resolution, June 1, 2004; 48(3): 310 - 330. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. SAIDEMAN Discrimination in International Relations: Analyzing External Support for Ethnic Groups Journal of Peace Research, January 1, 2002; 39(1): 27 - 50. [Abstract] [PDF]