NEGOTIATING by Mikkel Gudsøe

Thesis - Third Party Intervention

Negotiating - theory and practicePosted by Mikkel Gudsøe Sunday, October 07 2007 20:11:25

Dear Readers,

In the forth coming weeks you can enjoy parts of a Thesis: Third Party Intervention in International Political Conflicts.

The Thesis was written by Stephan Christophersen - a good friend of mine - as part of him finishing the law study af the University of Copenhagen - School of Law.

The Thesis and the posted parts are - as well as all other text posted on this website - subject to protection by the relevant copyright laws and all rights are reserved.

Best regards,

Mikkel Gudsøe

THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL CONFLICTS

- the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

By Stephan Christophersen

Before you is a thesis written for the course, “Negotiation and Dispute Resolution in Theory and Practice”, taught at the University of Copenhagen. It deals with dispute resolution in international political conflicts, and explores different types of roles that a third party can play in such conflicts (1).

A lot of the literature on intervention by third parties solely mentions the role of a mediator. It seems like several of the authors believe that all the techniques that the intervening party can play can be summed up under that category. My opinion is different. I believe that it is imperative for the theory on resolution of conflicts that different roles are treated differently. By subsuming the roles under the same tag, some of the differences are lost and with them the characteristics that make each role stand out. This can make us loose sight of the special opportunities that each role provides a third party with, thus rendering it with a lesser ability to adapt its approach to the special circumstances of the conflict at hand.

This is the reason behind my wish to write such a paper. I focus on the roles that have been played by third parties in the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. For a long time, this conflict has been, and it continues to be, a very important item on the international agenda, and it has been the object for much studying. It is not my errand to pronounce my own verdict on the merits of the conflict, nor is it to advance either side’s positions. But this conflict does offer a special opportunity to examine the factors that a third party has to take into consideration in order to provide the contending parties with the most effective of services.

From a brief description of the common characteristics of the kind of intervention that is legally non-binding, and after describing four different roles that a third party can play, I will proceed to examine previous third party intervention in the conflict. This will lay a foundation for recognizing and understanding some of the factors that influence the third party in its choice of roles and their influence on the conflict.

My focus mainly rests on the involvement of the United States of America. This nation, by far, has been the most active outside influence on the parties in the conflict and, therefore, it deserves special attention (2). I will briefly describe the American involvement under selected presidents, and finish off that section with a closer look at two summits convening the parties to the conflict on US soil. Norway has also been involved in the conflict, and the Norwegian approach in the early 1990s is rewarded special attention as it gives, perhaps, the best example of one of the described roles in action. The order, in which the previous interventions are described, will be chronological.

After having read that far, the reader will have been equipped with a basic knowledge of what it means to play the role of a third party in such a conflict and of the functions of the different roles in practical reality. And to present an overview of the context into which the third party has to incorporate its function, the analysis of some of the determining factors will give the impression that, most often, more is needed to resolve such a conflict than the capabilities to play just one of the roles. This will take the reader into the final section of the thesis where I propose my own view of the roles of a third party.

As a paper of this kind presents certain constraints on the amount of pages available to me, I have tried to write this paper in the spirit of brevity while still relaying what I think is needed to create a satisfying understanding of the topic. Even so, there is much more to be debated. The following is my contribution to that debate.

Since political and other evaluations are necessary for an analysis of the factors that influence a third party in an international political conflict, this paper inevitably contains elements of a political nature in addition to the elements directly related to the legal disciplines of conflict management and dispute resolution.

(1) The term “third party” as used here describes one that is not directly involved in the conflict, but intervenes in it as an outsider. (For a discussion of the third party as an insider, as well, see William Ury, “Third Side”, pp. 19-20.) The parties to the conflict, who are directly involved, will be called the “contending parties” or just “the parties”.

(2) See e.g. Gilead Sher, “Within Reach”, p. 63 on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s view and Dennis Ross, “The Missing Peace”, p. 622 on Yasser Arafat’s view of Clinton summed up in the statement, “No one was like Clinton”.

• Comments(2)

Fill in only if you are not real

Author:

Code:

The following XHTML tags are allowed: <b>, <br/>, <em>, <i>, <strong>, <u>. CSS styles and Javascript are not permitted.