The effectiveness of mediation and peacekeeping for ending conflict
| Author | Han Dorussen,Govinda Clayton |
| Published date | 01 March 2022 |
| Date | 01 March 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343321990076 |
| Subject Matter | Regular Articles |
The effectiveness of mediation
and peacekeeping for ending conflict
Govinda Clayton
Center for Security Studies, ETH-Zurich
Han Dorussen
Department of Government, University of Essex
Abstract
Mediation and peacekeeping are commonly used tools to manage conflict. To what extent are they complementary
and effective instruments for ending violent conflicts? Generally, they are seen as distinct tools: mediation aims to
facilitate negotiated settlements, while the goal of peacekeeping is to prevent agreements from collapsing. However,
peacekeeping and mediation regularly occur simultaneously. Arguably, peacekeeping operations rely on continuing
political processes, while peacekeepers create a context favorable for mediation and provide a valuable source of
independent information. Using a variety of model specifications, including selection models, empirical evidence
supports that (a) mediation rather than peacekeeping is key to halting hostilities, (b) mediation and peacekeeping are
largely complementary, but (c) this complementarity is conditional: in the post-Cold War period, transformative
peacekeeping boosted the effectiveness of mediation to halt civil wars. There is no evidence that peacekeeping on its
own matters for ending conflict. Finally, counterfactual analysis shows the substantial impact of mediation and
peacekeeping on the frequency of conflict.
Keywords
conflict management, conflict termination, mediation, peacekeeping
Introduction
Are mediation and peacekeeping effective conflict man-
agement tools? To what extent are they complementary
in ending armed conflict in the sense of stopping the
fighting? Regardless of widespread skepticism, there is
growing evidence that peacekeeping and mediation can
be effective.
1
However, there have only been a few
attempts to disentangle their relative contribut ion, or
to assess the extent to which they influence each other
(Greig & Diehl, 2005; Diehl & Regan, 2015). There-
fore, our research addresses the following specific
questions: (1) how effective are mediation and peace-
keeping at ending conflict, and (2) how do mediation
and peacekeeping shape each other’s effectiveness?
Third-party efforts to end conflict encompass a broad
spectrum of methods, but mediation and peacekeeping,
primarily under guidance of the United Nations (UN),
stand out in terms of their frequency and influence. In
his opening remarks to the High-Level Debate on Peace-
keeping in 2018, the UN Secretary-General Guterres
commented, ‘I call on Member States to sustain your
political engagement and push for political solutions and
inclusive peace processes, including through bilateral
diplomacy and sanctions if necessary. A peacekeeping
operation is not an army, or a counter-terrorist force,
Corresponding author:
govinda.clayton@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
1
The literature is by now extensive; for example, Bercovitch &
Gartner (2006), Clayton (2013), Dorussen (2014), Doyle &
Sambanis (2006), Fortna (2008), Goldstein (2011), Hultman,
Kathman & Shannon (2013, 2014), Kathman & Benson (2019),
Ruggeri, Dorussen & Gizelis (2017), and Wallensteen & Svensson
(2014).
Journal of Peace Research
2022, Vol. 59(2) 150–165
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022343321990076
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
or a humanitarian agency. It is a tool to create the space
for a nationally-owned political solution’.
2
Here, we
examine whether there is indeed such complementarity
between political and ‘militarized’ approaches.
Figure 1 graphs the frequency of mediation and
peacekeeping since 1946 and helps to identify relevant
trends. Both instruments were rarely used until the early
1980s, and mainly in interstate rather than intrastate
wars. From the 1980s onward, and especially in the
post-Cold War period, mediation and peacekeeping in
intrastate wars have become more common (Heldt &
Wallensteen, 2007; Wallensteen & Svensson, 2014).
Mediation is now arguably the most common form of
conflict management during violent periods (Bercovitch
& Gartner, 2006), though peacekeeping has grown dra-
matically in size and significance (Heldt & Wallensteen,
2007; Kathman, 2013). When in 2018 the United
Nations marked 70 years of peacekeeping, it deployed
110,000 personnel serving in 14 peacekeeping missions.
Moreover, over time, peacekeeping has been given
broader mandates and become more robust (Doyle &
Sambanis, 2006; Fortna, 2008). Such so-called transfor-
mative peacekeeping missions have only been deployed
to civil wars.
3
Mediation and peacekeeping present distinct
approaches to conflict management: as ideal types, med-
iation strives to end an ongoing conflict by facilitating a
negotiated settlement, while peacekeeping aims to
guarantee the stability of any agreement reached toreduce
the likelihood of renewed fighting. In interstate conflicts,
we rarely observe mediation during peace periods, or
peacekeeping while fighting is ongoing. UNMOGIP, in
the Kashmir region, is a rare example of a peacekeepi ng
mission operating during interstate conflict, since it
remained deployed during periods of open hostilities
between India and Pakistan. In civil (or intrastate) wars,
any cleandelineation betweenmediation and peacekeeping
is often inappropriate, since mediated agreements in civil
wars regularly fail to halt fighting. Regularly, a ceasefire or
peace agreement excludes potential spoilers with fighting
continuing in parts of the country (e.g. in the Democratic
Republic of theCongo). The situation on theground may
also deteriorate quicklybecause of failures in implementing
the original agreement or unanticipated events (e.g. in
South Sudan or the Central African Republic). Finally,
humanitarianemergencies may necessitate the deployment
of peacekeepersbefore a ceasefire is agreed (e.g. in the case
of Bosnia), and peacekeepers become involved in ongoing
conflicts.As Figure 1 shows, peacekeepersregularly operate
while hostilities are ongoing andmediation efforts are con-
tinuing. This makes it meaningful to inquire into their
relative contribution to halting actual fighting.
Despite both methods being regularly used simulta-
neously, research has rarely evaluated any joint or con-
ditional effects.
4
So far, the key contribution has been
provided by Greig & Diehl (2005), who outline con-
trasting expectations on how peacekeeping could influ-
ence the likelihood and success of mediation. Their
empirical evidence suggests that peacekeeping mainly
undermines mediation attempts. More recently, Beards-
ley, Cunningham & White (2019) consider the relative
impact of diplomacy and peacekeeping on the severity of
conflict, and Joshi & Quinn (2015) and DeRouen &
Chowdhury (2018) examine the interaction of peace-
keeping and mediation in avoiding the recurrence of civil
wars. These studies report positive and complementary
effects. Kathman & Benson (2019) observe that the
deployment of peacekeepers shortens the duration of
conflict until a negotiated, that is, generally mediated,
settlement.
5
Figure 1. Frequency of conflict, mediation and peacekeeping
1946–2013
2
Secretary-General’s remarks to Security Council High-Level
Debate on Collective Action to Improve UN Peacekeeping
Operations, 28 March 2018 (https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/
statement/2018-03-28/secretary-generals-remarks-security-council-
high-level-debate, accessed 29 March 2018).
3
The terms ‘intrastate war’ and ‘civil war’ are used interchangeably.
4
A few studies explore the interactions, interdependencies, and
complementarities between conflict management methods more
generally (see Owsiak, 2014; Diehl & Regan, 2015; Greig, Owsiak
& Diehl, 2019).
5
Kathman & Benson (2019) control for intervention on either the
rebel or government side which is, however, insignificant in all their
models. Interventions can mean offers to mediate, but often include
Clayton & Dorussen 151
To continue reading
Request your trial