Patterns of third-party and disputant-initiated mediation inmilitarized interstate disputes, 1946-1992

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/280606
Title:
Patterns of third-party and disputant-initiated mediation inmilitarized interstate disputes, 1946-1992
Author:
Frazier, Derrick V.
Issue Date:
2004
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
In this dissertation, I seek to explain mediation initiation in militarized interstate disputes. In large part this purpose serves to bridge an important gap in the mediation literature between the onset of mediation and its outcome. Specifically, I examine how various dispute, disputant and third party traits interact to foster a mediation attempt. In doing so, I focus on answering three related questions. First, what are the differences between third party and disputant initiated mediation? Second, why are the two types different? Third, what are the implications of these differences? A new dataset on third party intermediary interventions is utilized for this study, covering the post World War II period from 1946 to 1992. During this period, there are 1137 militarized interstate disputes, with 379 mediation attempts by third party actors. After a thorough description of the data and the manner in which the dataset was compiled, I empirically test various hypotheses concerning both third party and disputant initiated mediation as they relate to the conflict and mediation literatures. In doing so, I distinguish between three dimensions of a militarized dispute: power, severity and regime type. Additionally, I incorporate a triadic model of conflict management behavior that takes into account third party characteristics and linkages to disputants to explain mediation initiation. Finally, I disaggregate disputant initiated mediation to determine if different conditions lead to one or both disputants initiating mediation efforts. My results suggest that the conditions leading to third party initiation are rather different than those leading to disputant initiation. Most notable are how dispute factors such as territory, multilateral disputes and power asymmetry affect the likelihood of either type of initiation. Additionally, the role of third party characteristics like major power status and linkages such as trade and alliance ties are also found to be important in determining when third parties will initiate mediation. Such results on the whole suggest a further need to re-evaluate our observations about mediation outcome and mediation theory in general.
Type:
text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Keywords:
Political Science, General.; Political Science, International Law and Relations.
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Graduate College; Political Science
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Dixon, William J.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titlePatterns of third-party and disputant-initiated mediation inmilitarized interstate disputes, 1946-1992en_US
dc.creatorFrazier, Derrick V.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFrazier, Derrick V.en_US
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractIn this dissertation, I seek to explain mediation initiation in militarized interstate disputes. In large part this purpose serves to bridge an important gap in the mediation literature between the onset of mediation and its outcome. Specifically, I examine how various dispute, disputant and third party traits interact to foster a mediation attempt. In doing so, I focus on answering three related questions. First, what are the differences between third party and disputant initiated mediation? Second, why are the two types different? Third, what are the implications of these differences? A new dataset on third party intermediary interventions is utilized for this study, covering the post World War II period from 1946 to 1992. During this period, there are 1137 militarized interstate disputes, with 379 mediation attempts by third party actors. After a thorough description of the data and the manner in which the dataset was compiled, I empirically test various hypotheses concerning both third party and disputant initiated mediation as they relate to the conflict and mediation literatures. In doing so, I distinguish between three dimensions of a militarized dispute: power, severity and regime type. Additionally, I incorporate a triadic model of conflict management behavior that takes into account third party characteristics and linkages to disputants to explain mediation initiation. Finally, I disaggregate disputant initiated mediation to determine if different conditions lead to one or both disputants initiating mediation efforts. My results suggest that the conditions leading to third party initiation are rather different than those leading to disputant initiation. Most notable are how dispute factors such as territory, multilateral disputes and power asymmetry affect the likelihood of either type of initiation. Additionally, the role of third party characteristics like major power status and linkages such as trade and alliance ties are also found to be important in determining when third parties will initiate mediation. Such results on the whole suggest a further need to re-evaluate our observations about mediation outcome and mediation theory in general.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.subjectPolitical Science, General.en_US
dc.subjectPolitical Science, International Law and Relations.en_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePolitical Scienceen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorDixon, William J.en_US
dc.identifier.proquest3145067en_US
dc.identifier.bibrecord.b47212494en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.