Abstract
ABSTRACT This article examines how superpower mediation affects the negotiations, and the resolution, of secessionist wars. The negative role of superpower leverage in mediation, it’s argued, is neglected, and depoliticized in the literature which, consequently, legitimizes foreign intervention and exploitation and perpetuates the imposition of ready-made resolutions. Fostering an indigenous end to secessionist wars by promoting subaltern ontologies and epistemologies in order to challenge the theoretical disposition of superpower hegemony in mediation theory, will, positively, strengthen local ownership of peace processes and foster consensus on indigenous resolutions. Superpower intervention in Sudan’s 2005 peace agreement validates the main arguments of the article.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
