Conflict Mediation

Conflict Mediation's Significance to Emerging Governance

Conflict mediation is growing dramatically, threefold or more, as state power declines. New regional, international, and civil society conflict mechanisms reframe global shifts from sovereigns to the international community, confrontation to negotiated collaboration, and control to shared capacities. Present definitions of good governance stress civil society rather than government. They deconstruct political will into articulation of interests, exercise of rights, and mediation of differences. Informal conflict mediation can satisfy many needs and challenges outside the purview of formal governance at all levels of society. For example, the majority of significant global conflict is intrastate and ethnic—beyond international law's mandate. In response, new programs train activists and other members of civil society, along with international diplomats and lawyers, in the skills and attitudes of facilitative conflict mediation.

Contemporary Conflict Mediation

Multilevel analysis is necessary to understand evolving conflict mediation. Traditionally, heads of state and state representatives mediate conflict through exercising their power of authority and promising resources or other support. Distributive bargaining, or negotiating division, has predominated. Conflicts are framed as sovereignty or ethnic self-determination, for example. State-compelled mediation is still prevalent, particularly with a high-profile crisis, but increasingly complemented with more collaborative mediation initiated by civil society and international organizations like the United Nations. Integrative bargaining aims to avoid division through constructing innovative, collective possibilities. Conflict is framed as partnering to search for options that consider all interests—how we might respect sovereignty and ethnic self-determination, for example. Collaborative-governing mediation aspires to increase sustainable (durable) resolution through building civil society cooperation rather than dependence on state oversight. Restorative justice, another evolving global movement exemplified by truth and reconciliation, combines traditional state and emerging civil society mediation.

States and international organizations are attempting to respond to the changing global order by institutionalizing mediation. Transnational corporations are following this lead. As a result, conflict mediation is both centralized in government programs, domestic and international, institutionalized within transnational corporations, and decentralized. Any member of civil society is free to initiate informal, and sometimes formal, mediation. Conflict mediation is institutionalized, yet simultaneously acts as a means for [Page 139]institutional reform, providing an alternative to untrustworthy, nonresponsive, and partial systems.

Some contend that civil society's roles with contemporary governance are providing broad, inclusive public participation and overseeing accountability; business's responsibility is promoting efficient effectiveness and government roles are facilitating rule of law with transparency. However, these lines are increasingly blurred. Civil society, for example, can participate in negotiated rule making and, thus, create rule of law.

Linkages between Conflict Mediation and Governance

Many linkages, explicit and implicit, exist between conflict mediation and the changing nature of governance. Consequently, conflict mediation has the potential to build or erode governance. At its best, democratic mediation bridges legal systems, crosses cultures, promises transparency, and builds relationships rather than destroys them.

...