Abstract
The dominating peace mediation literature has positioned itself more on positivist theories and focused on mediation as phenomena of rational management. From the positivist research angle, a normative basis of mediation, a definition of mediation success and unintended (negative) impacts of mediation were not regarded to be interesting targets of research. The question of how peace mediation would support peace processes preceding and following the actual mediation situation was omitted as mediation is seen as a particular and targeted form of intervention appropriate solely to a particular stage of the conflict cycle. As liberal peace has been a hegemonic norm of regulating and justifying international (peace) interventions, it is obvious that peace mediation cannot remain outside of this normative basis. Nonetheless, if peace mediation success is evaluated from a broader perspective and the sustainability of peace is emphasized, its track-record does not appear to be as trouble-free as it is usually presented to be, since an increasing number of peace processes have failed to build a sustainable peace. New approaches to the durability of peace have concentrated on focusing how a mediated solution sets premises and enables or, in the worst case, prevents the building of sustainable peace for years onwards. From this perspective, a critique of the belief of rational management and of the depoliticized peace process that has constituted a basis of liberal interventionism holds great relevance to peace mediation practice.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call