INSTITUTIONALMEDIATION OF THE CONFLICTS IN THE CAUCASUS
Abstract
The peaceful settlement of international conflicts has gained strong support and recognition as one of the fundamental principles of international relations. Different means and methods of mediation have been used by practitioners over the years. As a form of conflict management and peaceful settlement, mediation is very much in line with contemporary international relations. In the present-day interconnected multistate system, which includes a lot of broken agreements and unstructured conflicts, prevention or taking only one side may lead to a future struggle, or states may act only in their own interests and not always agree to enter negotiations. In such situations, mediation may be the only viable option for the sides are willing to accept.
Conflicting parties usually face two questions: should they accept mediation and, if yes, whose mediation should they accept? Parties agree to mediation, expecting that it will work in their interests. One of the most widespread motives, in our opinion, is the expectation that the mediator can reach a better result than the one that might ensue if the conflict continues.
In this article, we propose a classification of mediation based on the principle of subjectivity. World history and mediation practice have proven that, in most situations, the main factor influencing the decision to accept or not accept mediation is the individuality of the mediator and its subjectivity. We provide a classification based on whether the mediator is an individual, state, or international organization. In this particular article, we will talk only about institutional mediation through the prism of peaceful settlement of the conflicts in Caucasian states—Georgia and Azerbaijan. Institutional mediation is mediation initiated by an international organization or institution.
Nowadays this type of mediation is the most developed for a number of objective and subjective reasons. The subjective reasons include perception of the international organization as an impartial, even neutral side that represents the opinion of many countries and does not follow its own interests, except for the attempt to restore peace and security in the region. The objective reasons are the availability of more instruments of persuasion, mechanisms of mediation, and re-sources for fulfilling the mediation mission, as well as international legal and institutional consolidation of the mission. Moreover, as practice has shown, the specific features of the international organization’s work do not have a decisive influence on the effectiveness of the mediation efforts.
Downloads
References
See: “United Nations Mission in Georgia,” available at [http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unomig/
ackground.html].
B. Coppieters, “Introduction,” in: Federal Practice, ed. by B. Coppieters, D. Darchiashvili, N. Akaba, VUB Press,Brussels, 2000, p. 16.
See: N. Tocci, The EU and Conflict Resolution: Promoting Peace in the Backyard, Routledge, London, 2007, p. 129.
See: K. Barseghyan, Z. Karaev, “Playing the Cat-and-Mouse: Conflict and Third Party Mediation in Post-Soviet Space,” The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, Fall 2004, p. 201, available at [http://www.
rinstitute.org/ojpcr/6_1n-k.pdf].
See: “OSCE Mission to Georgia,” available at [http://www.osce.org/georgia/33133.html].
See: “OSCE Mission to Georgia,” available at [http://www.osce.org/georgia/16289.html].
See: “Minsk Process,” available at [http://www.osce.org/item/21979.html].
See: K. Barseghyan and Z. Karaev, op. cit., p. 202.
See: M. Mooradian, D. Druckman, “Hurting Stalemate or Mediation? The Conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, 1990-95,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1999, pp. 709-727.
See: B. Ba er, “Third Party Mediation in Nagorno-Karabakh: Part of the Cure or Part of the Disease?,” Journal of Central Asian and Caucasian Studies (JCACS), Vol. 3, No. 5, 2008, p. 93.
B. Coppieters, “Conclusions: The Caucasus As a Security Complex,” in: Contested Borders in Caucasus, ed. by B. Coppieters, VUB University Press, Brussels, 1996, p. 202.
See: B. Ba er, op. cit., p. 94.
Conflict Resolution in the South Caucasus: The EU’s Role, International Crisis Group, Europe Report No. 173,20 March, 2006.
Council Joint Action 2006/121/CFSP of 20 February, 2006 appointing the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus, OJ 2006 L 49/14.
See: M. Merlingen, R. Ostrauskaite, “EU Peacebuilding in Georgia: Limits and Achievements,” Centre for the Law of EU External Relations, CLEER Working Papers, 2009/6, p. 18.
See: M. Bardakç , “EU Engagement in Conflict Resolution In Georgia: Towards A More Proactive Role,” Caucasian Review of International Affairs, Vol. 4 (3), Summer 2010, available at [http://cria-online.org/12_2.html - pp. 214-236].
See: Conflict Resolution in the South Caucasus: The EU’s Role, . 2.
See: N. Popescu, “The EU’s Conflict Prevention Failure in Georgia,” CACI Analyst, 14 October, 2009.
See: Ibidem.
See: M. Merlingen, R. Ostrauskaite, op. cit., p. 10.
The 8 September, 2008 agreement, detailing the implementation of the 12 August, 2008 six-point plan, available at [http://ambafrance-us.org/IMG/pdf/mise_en_oeuvre_plan_12_aout_2008.pdf].
See: M. Merlingen, R. Ostrauskaite, op. cit., p. 23.
See: Ibid., p. 13.
See: M. Frichova Grono, “Georgia’s Conflicts: What Role for the EU as Mediator?,” IfP Mediation Cluster, Inter-national Alert, March 2010, p. 20.
See: A. Herrberg, “Perceptions of International Peace Mediation in the EU,” The Crisis Management Initiative,November 2008, p. 9.
See: M. Merlingen, R. Ostrauskaite, op. cit.
See: Ibid., p. 9.
See: A. Herrberg, op. cit., p. 14.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2012 AUTHOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
