Home  >  Subjects  >  Government / Politics  >  current page My Profile

Civil War Mediation Strategies in the Pre-1900s and AfterResearch Paper

Pages: 15 (6909 words)  |  Style: n/a  |  Sources: 15

Custom Writing

Inclusive v. Exclusive Civil War Mediation Strategies:

What is Inclusive Strategy?

What is Exclusive Strategy?

Civic Society: Including the Voices of the Civilian Public

Benefits of Civil Society

Drawbacks of Civil Society

Civic Society: Excluding the Voices of the Civilian Public

Benefits of Excluding Civil Society

Drawbacks of excluding Civil Society

Elite Driven Peace: What is the purpose?

Governmental Power Sharing

Military power sharing

Stasis in Roman Sicily Case: Example of Exclusive Mediation

Thirty Days War Case: Example of Exclusive Mediation

Bosnia Case: Example of Exclusive Mediation

Libya and Kenya Case: Example of Inclusive Mediation

Colombian case: Example of Inclusive Mediation

Victims

Norway the Mediator

Transitional Justice Framework

Benefits of Victims at Negotiation Table

Drawback at the Negotiating Table in Colombia

Legal Framework for Peace

"Mesa de Conversaciones"

Failed Mediations

Conclusion 22

Bibliography 23

Introduction

Currently, mediations that serve the interest of the individuals are better than those who just assist in the interests of the elites, although the latter may have been more effective in the past. This was because higher power were the ones in control and only handled negotiations among of other elites in power. The common people were less educated and not seen as important, and the settling of civil wars affected the interests of the common people in a lesser degree during the elite era. Because now days, civil wars are looked at as being more deadly and more long-lasting than interstate conflicts, it is argued that inclusive strategies are more appropriate since civil wars effect civilians more than anything. A common strategy in the quest to resolve conflict is the inclusive mediation which involves non-actors and groups from the society. Historically, peace and transition mediations have been exclusive procedures linking military actors and elite state politics. On the other hand ever since the 1990s outreach to and inclusion of non-state armed actors in peace and transition procedures in Civil War situations have become more acknowledged. To account for differences in mediation achievement, scholars for instance Joh (2008) have considered the effects that dissimilar mediation strategies have on mediation results. How do diverse mediators, and their individual mediation flairs, sway the mediation process in civil wars? Even though exclusive, elite-only civil war negotiation strategies have the overall gain in pre-1900 because of their resources, royalism and power that can further mediations, the present conditions of affairs make it difficult for long-term negotiated peace to be attained without engaging the voices of civil society such as war victims and other focus groups made up of civilians. This will help expound how the participation of civil society groups can make the behavior of mediation in civil war and the outcome of an agreement more reasonable for the affected population.

What is Inclusive Strategy?

Inclusive strategy can be defined as a method of negotiation that uses the public or society in a civil war. These are considered to be the more present types of negotiation that involves the power of speech among the civilians in society. As Wanis-St. John (2008, 4) has mentioned, peace discussions must address two differing needs -- they must contain the least number of participants or factions wanted to reach an agreement, and they must obtain the largest possible support from the general public.

What is Exclusive Strategy?

Exclusive strategy involving civilians were largely exiled from the negotiations, which was a problem assuming that a lot of them ended up acting as spoilers to any efforts to reach a negotiated answer. Exclusive strategy can be defined as strategy that involved the monarchy or those that were "cream of the crop" per se. An elite is a small group of individuals who control an unbalanced amount of wealth or political power. Generally, elite means the more powerful group of individuals. An example would be the monarchy or United Nations. All through negotiations of such elite arrangements, those who should debatably be benefiting from peace in the first place, namely citizens, usually do not contribute. It is exactly because such negotiations are inherently elite, and often externally mediated, that it has been argued that civil society groups can become valuable participants in the mediation process.

Civic Society: Including the Voices of the Civilian Public

When it comes to inclusive strategy, engaging the voices of civil society can be very beneficial and has its drawbacks at the same time. Hardly ever do local civil society groups get a seat at the negotiation table for peace accords (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 5). As stated above, the involvement of civil society is said to advance the legitimacy of the negotiations and resultant agreements and the chances of maintainable peace.

Benefits of Civil Society

Using the public it much more effective nowadays when it comes to civil war and modern time peacemaking. In the present time, bringing civilians to the negotiating table has been fruitful. Just as international mediators have devoted their attention to Track I actors, knowledge in worldwide arbitration has historically tended to put emphasis on the roles of governing elites and connections among them. In international and internal conflicts, the scope has broadened to be made up of armed non-state actors who use force with the intention of getting a seat at the negotiation table. But then again other kinds of groups likewise make their presence felt in 6 negotiations of all kinds and theory has been catching up with practice (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 12).

John goes on to make his point by saying that even though excluding civil society groups may modernize peace negotiations that are already complex enough, the absence of their voices and interests at the negotiating table can prove fatal to the peace agreement all through the post conflict peacebuilding stage. From Arusha to Oslo, the emphasis on elite interests in peace negotiations regularly leaves the general public at large without perceived recompenses in the agreed peacebuilding frameworks, weakening the ability of governments and transitional authorities to come to some kind of a sustainable peace (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 13).

Another benefit that John focuses on is that civil society groups can help bring better public representation into arbitration. Civil society, on the other hand, speaks with many voices and stands in the shadow of power by political elites. Civil society is not unchanging; it comes in many organizational procedures, it can have wavering degrees of autonomy from the state, and sometimes it can even function as a standby for the state when governments fail to serve their population's essentials (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 14). Research also shows that in negotiations among democratic elites, civil society can participate successfully by winning over their respective political representatives and these agreements seem to be as long-lasting as those featuring high civil society participation unaided. Lastly, furthermore, civil society activity helps to form and reinforce the structures of the state by providing greater public contribution into government purposes and policymaking and, in doing so, civil society aids to give legitimacy, support and liability to political actors.

Drawbacks of Civil Society

When it comes to the drawbacks, noise from them is a big issue. For example, civil society groups present at the table could upturn the complexity of a mediation to the point that they could decrease the option of reaching some kind of an agreement. This type of complexity could result from sheer numbers, or from the content of demands and material presented by the groups into the mediation. The second drawback is the voices of society can have the lack of coordination. For instance, civil society groups could create implementation difficulties if they are necessarily disorganized and/or hostile or competitive with one another and with the Track 1 parties. Sometimes it could even be lack of expertise or preparation. For example, civil society groups may be unsophisticated negotiators, sidetracking the mediation or forcing the mediator to spend more time coaching the parties. Sometimes an uncivil Society can be a drawback. In other words, not all organizations are well-intentioned, and some could be possible spoilers or fronts for antagonistic features of the political elite (A. W.-S. John, 2008, p. 70).

Civic Society: Excluding the Voices of the Civilian Public

Why would negotiators and mediators seek to prevent representatives of civil?

society from being present at peace consultations? Civil society appears to be opposing its exclusion from elite-driven peacemaking. The go-ahead of exclusion agrees to many needs in negotiation, among them the desire of principals to manage their internal hardliners (Walton & McKersie 1991: 382 -- 391)

Benefits of Excluding Civil Society

Often times, the exclusion of the civil society is done when there is continuing confrontation or violence, they go to extremities of exclusion and take part in secret talks behind clothes doors with the public even knowing. These "secret meetings" are what Henry Kissinger (1979: 138) called "back channel" negotiations (Pruitt 2006) Even though specialists have depend on exclusion and secrecy to achieve what they considered breakthroughs, these do not come without a price. Even though experts have relied on… [END OF PREVIEW]

Download Full Paper (15 pages; perfectly formatted; Microsoft Word file) Microsoft Word File

Civil War Scenes Scene One: An Affair


Civil War Most of Us, No Matter


Civil War the Period Surrounding the U.S.


Civil War Slavery, the Territories, and the


Civil War Influences


View 1,000+ other related papers  >>

Cite This Paper:

APA Format

Civil War Mediation Strategies In The Pre-1900s And After.  (2015, August 23).  Retrieved November 20, 2017, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/civil-war-mediation-strategies-pre-1900s/2632813

MLA Format

"Civil War Mediation Strategies In The Pre-1900s And After."  23 August 2015.  Web.  20 November 2017. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/civil-war-mediation-strategies-pre-1900s/2632813>.

Chicago Format

"Civil War Mediation Strategies In The Pre-1900s And After."  Essaytown.com.  August 23, 2015.  Accessed November 20, 2017.
https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/civil-war-mediation-strategies-pre-1900s/2632813.

Disclaimer