Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Mediation: Definitions and approaches
The scholarship on mediation makes some critical observations in the definition of mediation, in this regard, Moore (2003: 08) argues that mediation is an extension or elaboration of the negotiation process that involves the intervention of an acceptable third party who has limited or no authoritative decision-making powers, similarly, as with negotiations, mediation leaves the decision making power primarily in the hands of the parties involved in the conflict. Accordingly, Zartman (2009: 322) states that negotiation is the process of combining conflicting positions into a joint agreement, which is synonymous with conflict resolution and is the most common (although not the only) way of preventing, managing, resolving, or transforming conflict. The study of mediation has become a separate discipline within peace studies. In this regard, a growing body literature dealing with a broad range of aspects and issues related to mediation approaches is divided into three categories. First, the definitions of mediation; second, types of mediation; and the functions of mediation. Mayer (2000: 191), Mayer (2004:82), Zartman (2008: 155) and Crocker et al. (2009: 496) define mediation as an approach to conflict resolution in which a third party helps disputants arrive at a resolution to the conflict. The functions of mediation have evolved with time, in this regard, Ramsbotham et al. (2011: 180) observe that the field of international mediation has included a variety of agencies in the recent past, such as international organisations, states, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), individuals, political leaders, elites and grassroots structures. These groups employ different instruments in their mediation engagements, ranging from soft power to coercive power. In turn, Bercovitch (2009: 343) defines mediation as a process of conflict management, related to but distinct from the parties’ own negotiations, where those in conflict seek the assistance of, or accept an offer to assist from, an organisation, a group, or a state to change their perceptions or behaviour, and to do so without resorting to physical force by invoking the authority of law. Therefore, mediation is, at least structurally, the continuation of negotiations by other means. Mediation is also defined as a political process with no advance commitment from the parties to accept the mediator’s ideas. In this respect, it differs from arbitration, which employs judicial procedures and issues a verdict that the parties have committed themselves beforehand to accept (Touval & Zartman, 2001: 427). Mediation is generally defined as the intervention in a egotiation or a conflict by an acceptable third party who has limited or no authoritative decision-making power and who assists the involved parties to reach a mutually acceptable settlement of the issues in dispute voluntarily (Moore, 2003: 15). Similarly, Zartman (2008: 155) describes mediation as a form of third-party intervention in a conflict and states that it differs from other forms of third-party intervention in conflicts in that it is not based on the direct use of force and it is not aimed at helping one of the participants to win. Its purpose is to bring the parties to a settlement that is acceptable to both sides and consistent with the third-party’s interest in the resolution of the conflict. Mediation is essentially a dialogue or negotiation with the involvement of a third-party (Moore, 2003: 16). According to Moore (2003:20) the field of mediation has a long and varied history in almost all cultures of the world. Moore (2003) adds that “Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, and many indigenous cultures all have extensive and effective traditions of mediation practice.” Mayer (2004: 87) argues that mediation demands a commitment of time, emotional energy, intellectual efforts, and financial resources. Hence, these demands of mediation have facilitated a broader stakeholder engagement in the mediation field, which has facilitated success and challenges in some instances. The intellectual capacity of the mediator is fundamental when diagnosing underlying causes of the conflict, because causes are often obscured and clouded by dynamics of the parties’ interactions. According to Mayer (2000) mediation is viewed as a central tool of peaceful conflict resolution. The use of mediation has grown significantly in many countries and cultures, to this end, mediation is used in both traditional and modern African societies, with practice varying from tribe to tribe and region to region (see Moore, 2003: 23&38).
Though coercive mediation remains an option in the process of conflict resolution, the approach has its own limitations. Mayer (2004), Ramsbotham et al. (2011) and Crocker et al. (2009) suggest hat mediators change the structure of the conflict when they bring pressure to bear on any party to the conflict and they become actors in the conflict. Hampson (2001:389) observes that hard realists see coercive force and balance of power as a key tool in the resolution of ethnic and intercommunal disputes. The above mentioned scholars observe that, generally, mediators with coercive force are powerful states, and are engaged in mediation in pursuit of a national or foreign policy interests.
Touval and Zartman (2001: 428); Zartman (2008: 163); and Bercovitch (2009: 344) also see mediation by states in conflict situations as an instrument of diplomacy and foreign policy projection and advancement. They conclude that states fundamentally engage in mediation to advance their foreign policy objectives.
The civil militia phenomenon
Francis (2005) and Yoroms (2005) argue that the term “militia” has a Latin origin meaning ‘soldiery’, from the word “miles” meaning soldier. The term has evolved over time to mean an auxiliary or reserve military force. Bristow (in Yoroms, 2011) classifies militias under public as well as private organisations. He notes that legitimate militia units are essentially public in character and well-regulated under state discipline. According to Thorning (2005: 89), civil militia groups are also referred to as neighbourhood watch or vigilante groups. In effect, militia groups have become an integral part of the Westphalian state system and they perform different functions. A popular definition of civil militia presents the view that it is men between the ages of sixteen and sixty who perform occasional mandatory military service to protect their country, colony or state. However, it also refers to armed and trained bands of locals who could arm themselves on short notice for their own defence (Francis 2005: 1; Yoroms 2005: 33). Vinci (2009: 74) argues that in most cases, militias exist on a continuum with a mixture of clan and personal loyalty. However, in extreme cases such as in the case of Somalia, a war leader completely monopolises the loyalty of fighters and uses the militia for non-clan based ambitions, and Vinci (2009) defines such men as warlords.
Duvenger (in Francis, 2005) defines a militia group as a kind of private army whose members are enrolled on military lines, are subjected to the same discipline and the same training as soldiers, and like soldiers, wearing uniforms and badges, ready like them to meet the enemy with weapons in physical combat. But these members remain civilians, in general, they are not permanently mobilised nor maintained by the organisation, they are simply obliged to meet and drill frequently. Conceptually, the historiography of militia could be placed within the framework of the theory of social contract and the formation of the state system. In this regard, Yoroms (2005: 31) mentions that Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Grotius believed that insecurity in the state of nature that compels man to seek security in social organisations where individuals give up their partial freedom for the secured freedom provided by the state. Francis (2005: 3) explains that the terms “ethnic militia,” “armed vigilante group,” “religious militia,” “civil defence force” and “separatist militia” have been used to describe the phenomenon of civil militias in Africa. These labels are unhelpful because they do not reflect the origins of and motivation or rationale for their creation, nor their modes of operation, activities and socio-political objectives. Yoroms (2005: 32) claims that the theory of social contract, therefore, is taken as a security contract. Hence, the sovereign state is empowered to defend, protect and provide for its citizens. The state uses the services of civil militias to perform its function of protecting its citizens, and details of militia formations are later explored in this chapter, including militia groups that are challenging the state’s monopoly regarding the use of force. The concept of ‘civil militia’ is not necessarily a threat to the state monopoly on the use of violence, depending on the purpose and creation of a particular militia group as we shall later explore in this chapter. It is in this light, that from the Weberian theory, the state is endowed with the legitimate monopoly of coercion, to police society impartially. (See also, Rotberg, 2006: 6; Francis, 2011: 1; Schuppert, 2011: 65; Zartman,1995: 5).
Chapter one Introduction
1.1 Identification of the research theme
1.2 Literature review
1.3 Research problem, research questions, research objectives and key assumptions
1.4 The contribution of this study
1.5 Structure of the study and the research methodology
1.6 Chapter division
Chapter two Theoretical concepts
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Understanding the state conceptual framework and functions of the state
2.3 Defining state failure, state collapse and state disintegration
2.4 Defining the causes of state failure
2.5 Concepts of ‘ethnicity’
2.6 The concept of ‘an intractable conflict’
2.7 Negotiation: Definitions and approaches
2.8 Mediation: Definitions and approaches
2.9 The civil militia phenomenon
2.10 Conclusion
Chapter three Historical perspective of the Somali political system
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Somalia and its people
3.3 Somali legal and religious values
3.4 Democratic Somalia (1960 – 1969)
3.5 The military rule (1969-1991)
3.6 The collapse of the Somali state (1991)
3.7 The emergence of warlords
3.8 Conclusion
Chapter four Anatomy of the Somali conflict
4.1 Introduction
4.2 From the Ogaden War (1977–1978) to the fall of Siad Barre (1991)
4.3 The post- Siad Barre conflict
4.4 Emergence of civil militia groups
4.5 The UN factor in the Somali conflict
4.6 Religious values in the Somali conflict
4.7 Conclusion
Chapter five Anatomy of the Somali peace process
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Djibouti Peace Conference (1991)
5.3 The Addis Ababa Peace Conference (1993)
5.4 The Cairo Peace Conference (1997)
5.5 The Arta Peace Conference (2000)
5.6 The Mbagathi Peace Conference (2004)
5.7 Conclusion
Chapter six Conclusion: Findings and recommendations
6.1 Scope and rationale
6.2 Key findings
6.3 The importance of the study and the significance of its application
6.4 Areas for further research
7. Bibliography
