Are Mediators Norm Entrepreneurs? Exploring the Role of Mediators in Norm Diffusion

Mediators are expected to include or uphold a growing number of norms in their interventions. For instance, inclusivity, gender equality, transitional justice, democracy promotion and the implementing instruments that accompany them are increasingly incorporated into the strategies of international and regional organizations, states and non-state actors that mandate mediation missions in conflicts around the world. This working paper takes one step back and asks whether mediators actually can, or have the agency to, promote these norms. It presents the analytical framework of a three-year multi-case research project on the role of mediators in norm diffusion. It examines what norms form part of the framework for mediation processes, if mediators promote these norms and how and what norms are internalized in the peace process. Through process-tracing, the research project will apply this analytical framework to mediation processes in Syria, South Sudan and Myanmar

Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions

This article focuses on the dilemmas and trade-offs that third parties face when mediating violent political conflicts. Should they ignore human rights violations because pushing the issue could jeopardize relationships with political actors who grant access for humanitarian aid? Will bringing moderates and hardliners together help the peace process or radicalize moderate actors? What should dialogue facilitators do when the act of identifying non-mainstream groups to be included into dialogue increases division and polarization? The activity of peacemaking is inherently characterized by such process and strategy dilemmas where two equally compulsory imperatives seem not to be attainable at the same time. The article proposes a framework to break out of either-or thinking in these situations. We argue that: 1) making oneself aware of how a decision is perceived, and 2) systematically exploring a set of different strategies for creating new unexpected options helps to ease these decisions and avoid rotten compromises. The model reworks and combines existing problem-solving strategies to create a new explorative option generation approach to peacemaking dilemmas and trade-offs. Some of these strategies, such as sequencing and incrementalization, are already well-established in peacemaking. Others, such as compartmentalization and utilization, are rather unconsciously used. All identified strategies, however, are not yet systematically employed to manage third parties’ own dilemmas and trade-offs. Under the suggested framework, these strategies can act in complement to synthesize creativity and strategic thinking with surprising ease. Using examples from the authors’ peacemaking activities and observations in Myanmar, Thailand, and Ukraine, the article demonstrates the real-world benefits of the framework in terms of decision assessment and optional thinking

We do negotiate with terrorists: navigating liberal and illiberal norms in peace mediation

The normative framework in mediation processes is growing. Mediators are increasingly expected by their mandate-givers to incorporate liberal norms such as inclusivity into their overall strategy. However, in the wake of the terrorist attacks that took place on 11 September 2001, and the policy shifts that accompanied the “Global War on Terror”, mediators find themselves simultaneously pressured to design mediation processes actively excluding armed groups proscribed as terrorists and consequently incorporating this illiberal norm of “exclusivity”, barring proscribed groups’ access to negotiations. This article asks what consequences this development has on the normative agency of mediators, based on if and how they incorporate proscribed armed groups into their mediation strategies. It argues that the dichotomy between liberal and illiberal norms has important consequences on a mediator’s normative agency. First, the dichotomy constrains mediators to a single normative standard, rendering only liberal and illiberal views possible. Second, the assumption that liberal norms are “good” and illiberal norms are “bad” engenders a double dichotomy that greatly constrains a mediator’s normative agency. Third, these constraints on a mediator engender new mediation practices such as outsourcing and risk-sharing in an attempt to salvage normative agency. The article contributes to scholarship on norms, terrorism and mediation through providing a more nuanced view of normative parameters in mediation practice

Promoting Peace or Selling Norms? NGO Mediators and “All-Inclusiveness” in Myanmar’s Peace Process

Peace mediators are no longer only tasked with brokering ceasefires between negotiating parties in conflict situations but are also increasingly expected to promote international norms such as gender equality, transitional justice, democracy and inclusivity to the parties. Their shifting role from peace broker to peacebuilder is well documented in policy documents and a growing body of peace research literature on the role of peacemaking actors in promoting norms. In particular, the onus of designing inclusive peace processes in which non-armed actors such as civil society organizations are represented in peace negotiations or in peace agreement clauses has also increasingly fallen on the shoulders of mediators. If mediators are increasingly pressured to promote these norms to the negotiating parties, what agency do they have to do so in the first place? In this dissertation, I analyse to what extent mediators can promote the inclusivity norm to negotiating parties to shed theoretical and empirical light on this development in peace mediation. I draw from norm entrepreneurship and norm localization theory in international relations literature, and adapt it to peace mediation to conceptually examine this question. Recognizing the heterogeneity of mediators, I focus my analysis on nongovernmental (NGO) mediators, professionalized conflict resolution NGOs that take on public facilitation or mediation functions or activities among and between negotiating parties in a peace process. As NGO mediators possess limited political or material leverage on the negotiating parties in mediation processes, I analyse to what extent varied forms of soft power comprise their normative agency in promoting the inclusivity norm to negotiating parties. Using a qualitative approach rooted in constructivist ontology, I employ a combination of case study and process tracing methodology to understand the extent of NGO mediators’ normative agency in the ongoing peace process in Myanmar. The country’s historical resistance to outside involvement in conflict resolution render it an interesting case to test the limits of the agency of actors without formal mandates or political leverage, and analysing it contributes to critical peace research scholarship related to peace mediation. The Myanmar case illustrates the limits of normative agency in mediation processes. The increasingly salient discourse around inclusivity only reified existing notions about inclusion and exclusion in ethnic politics as Myanmar negotiating parties localized the inclusivity norm as per their own interpretations. This resulted in an impasse between the parties in terms of which key armed actors and non-armed actors were ultimately excluded. Thus, while NGO mediators do possess the agency to act as norm entrepreneurs, the Myanmar case serves as a cautionary tale of promoting a so-called universal norm into a given locale and expecting a certain outcome without understanding how an external norm interacts with existing normative frameworks. However, despite the growing normative framework in mediation, the voices of national peace process actors themselves are often pushed to the wayside. As armed conflicts become more protracted and peace processes become more complex, the need to understand the role norms play in a specific context remains imperative. This dissertation was written in the framework of the 2015-2018 Swiss National Science Foundation-funded project, “Are mediators norm entrepreneurs?,” which focused on three case studies: United Nations mediators in Syria, intergovernmental mediators in South Sudan, and NGO mediators in Myanmar

The Role of Norms in International Peace Mediation

This report analyzes norms in international peace mediation and attempts to provide orientation for mediators on how to manage them. Based on in-depth interviews with 22 mediators and mediation experts, it assesses three main questions. First, it looks at the connection between normative frameworks and mediation processes, and how it has changed over the past 25 years. Second, it examines the often implicit prioritization of norms. Third, it analyzes the role of mediators in dealing with different norms influencing mediation practice. The report finds that the normative framework in mediation has grown, making mediation considerably more complex. Based on the interview findings, the report offers ideas of how mediators could address this framework more systematically through the categorization and explicit prioritization of norms. It sheds light on how different norms are prioritized through sequencing, and moves the discussion from a focus on dilemmas towards one of challenges that can be managed. Given the complexity of mediation processes today, views on categorization and prioritization can vary greatly between different actors involved in a mediation process. The report therefore sheds light on the perceptions surrounding the role of the mediator in the promotion of norms. In conclusion, it argues for a more explicit approach to norms in mediation in order to move peace processes forward most effectively