IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v36y2019i2p149-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disentangling bias: national capabilities, regime type, and international conflict mediation

Author

Listed:
  • Frederick R. Chen

Abstract

Existing literature on bias and third-party conflict management mainly focuses on the dichotomy of whether the mediator’s bias as a whole can contribute to mediation onset and outcomes. I argue that we need more specific and disaggregated research on the mediator’s bias because the side on which a prospective mediator’s bias lies may significantly affect the likelihood of mediation onset. Why are some biased mediations initiated by third parties while others are not? By disentangling the mediator’s bias and by distinguishing between different levels of bias, I find that the likelihood of mediation onset tends to increase if the potential mediator shares a closer political relationship with a conflicting state that has greater national capabilities or that is more authoritarian than the counterparty. However, the effect is largely conditional on the levels of the mediator’s bias, where a more obvious level of bias is more likely to facilitate mediation initiation. This article advances our understanding of bias and international conflict mediation.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederick R. Chen, 2019. "Disentangling bias: national capabilities, regime type, and international conflict mediation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(2), pages 149-168, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:36:y:2019:i:2:p:149-168
    DOI: 10.1177/0738894216689560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894216689560
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0738894216689560?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 137-163, January.
    2. Pevehouse, Jon & Russett, Bruce, 2006. "Democratic International Governmental Organizations Promote Peace," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(4), pages 969-1000, October.
    3. Dixon, William J., 1994. "Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 14-32, March.
    4. Andrew Kydd, 2003. "Which Side Are You On? Bias, Credibility, and Mediation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 597-611, October.
    5. Kydd, Andrew H., 2006. "When Can Mediators Build Trust?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(3), pages 449-462, August.
    6. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    7. Molly M. Melin & Isak Svensson, 2009. "Incentives for Talking: Accepting Mediation in International and Civil Wars," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 249-271, August.
    8. Favretto, Katja, 2009. "Should Peacemakers Take Sides? Major Power Mediation, Coercion, and Bias," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(2), pages 248-263, May.
    9. Kelly M. Kadera & Mark J. C. Crescenzi & Megan L. Shannon, 2003. "Democratic Survival, Peace, and War in the International System," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(2), pages 234-247, April.
    10. Zeev Maoz & Lesley G. Terris, 2006. "Credibility and Strategy in International Mediation," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 409-440, December.
    11. J. Michael Greig, 2005. "Stepping Into the Fray: When Do Mediators Mediate?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(2), pages 249-266, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Renato Corbetta & Keith A. Grant, 2012. "Intervention in Conflicts from a Network Perspective," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 314-340, July.
    2. Shawn L. Ramirez, 2018. "Mediation in the shadow of an audience: How third parties use secrecy and agenda-setting to broker settlements," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(1), pages 119-146, January.
    3. Tobias Böhmelt, 2015. "The spatial contagion of international mediation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(1), pages 108-127, February.
    4. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    5. Andrew P. Owsiak, 2015. "Forecasting conflict management in militarized interstate disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(1), pages 50-75, February.
    6. Molly M. Melin & Scott Sigmund Gartner & Jacob Bercovitch, 2013. "Fear of rejection: The puzzle of unaccepted mediation offers in international conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(4), pages 354-368, September.
    7. Eisenkopf, Gerald, 2016. "Communication and Conflict Management," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145634, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. Eisenkopf, Gerald, 2018. "The long-run effects of communication as a conflict resolution mechanism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 121-136.
    9. Scott Wolford, 2020. "War and diplomacy on the world stage: Crisis bargaining before third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(2), pages 235-261, April.
    10. Gerald Eisenkopf, 2015. "Communication and conflict management," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2015-21, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    11. Thomas Zeitzoff, 2018. "Does Social Media Influence Conflict? Evidence from the 2012 Gaza Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(1), pages 29-63, January.
    12. Vanessa A. Lefler, 2015. "Strategic forum selection and compliance in interstate dispute resolution," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(1), pages 76-98, February.
    13. Zeev Maoz & Randolph M. Siverson, 2008. "Bargaining, Domestic Politics, and International Context in the Management of War: A Review Essay," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(2), pages 171-189, April.
    14. Dominic Rohner, 2018. "Success Factors for Peace Treaties: A Review of Theory and Evidence," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 18.08, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    15. Stephen E. Gent & Megan Shannon, 2011. "Bias and the Effectiveness of Third-Party Conflict Management Mechanisms," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(2), pages 124-144, April.
    16. Tobias Böhmelt, 2013. "Failing to succeed? The cumulative impact of international mediation revisited1," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 199-219, July.
    17. Kyle Beardsley & Nigel Lo, 2013. "Democratic Communities and Third-Party Conflict Management," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(1), pages 76-93, February.
    18. Renato Corbetta, 2015. "Between indifference and coercion: Third-party intervention techniques in ongoing disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(1), pages 3-27, February.
    19. Constantin Ruhe, 2021. "Impeding fatal violence through third-party diplomacy: The effect of mediation on conflict intensity," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(4), pages 687-701, July.
    20. Kyle Beardsley, 2013. "The UN at the peacemaking–peacebuilding nexus," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(4), pages 369-386, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:36:y:2019:i:2:p:149-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.