EU/US as Mediators in Bosnia A Comparative Case Study

Reina Zenelaj

Nimet Beriker

Emre Hatipoglu

Sabanci University, Istanbul

IACM 2012 - Stellenbosch, SA

Overview

• Aim: What determines mediation success/failure?

• Focused comparison (Bosnia 2009):

• EU/US mediation attempt

• Turkish mediation attempt

• Partial mediation combined with facilitative strategies produced more tangible outcomes.

The study's contribution

• Focuses on mediation in post-conflict environment.

• Examines an interesting case: coterminious mediation attempts in Bosnia.

• A less traveled road: combining mediator bias with strategy employed.

Bosnia: A post-conflict environment

• Post-Dayton: Institutional paralysis

• Legitimacy problem

• Risk of reemergence and spill-over of conflict in the region.

• Both mediations attempts' aim: To maintain Bosnia's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Dependent Variable: Success in mediation

• A plethora of definitions for mediation success; e.g.,

• Achieving fairness, efficiency• Clarifying issues• Expanding the range of options• Reestablishing trust, etc.

• Success operationalized as parties formally committing to (signing) an agreement.

Main explanatory variables:Partiality and strategy

Characteristics of the party

Nature of the dispute

Characteristics of the mediator

Mediation strategies

• Bercovitch & Houston (2000)

Context Processes Outcome

Mediation in a post-conflict environment

• Hypothesis 1:• Partial mediators are likely to be more

successful

• Hypothesis 2:• Facilititative strategies are likely to be

more effective

Two attempts, one country: Bosnia

• Most similar systems design (Mill 1843)

Conclusion

• Partiality works in post-conflict mediation

• Face saving to the closer party

• Trust: big brother involved

• Facilitation works in post-conflict mediation

• Establishes trust among the parties.