IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v30y2018i1p119-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mediation in the shadow of an audience: How third parties use secrecy and agenda-setting to broker settlements

Author

Listed:
  • Shawn L. Ramirez

Abstract

How does mediation work? Uncertainty is one of the main rationalist explanations for war. When a leader faces domestic pressure and mediation involves secrecy and agenda-setting, mediation by a third party in crisis bargaining can reduce the risk of war by reducing uncertainty and locking in concessions. As a result, mediation improves the prospects for peace at the price of costlier settlements, and should talks fail, the leader and her audience are more likely to win in any ensuing war. The theory holds implications for mediation, audience costs, and democracies in showing that an enemy with no audience costs can demonstrate resolve credibly in mediation. The argument is also closely related to the delegation literature, in showing that when a principal faces external pressure, she can reduce her risk of worse outcomes by delegating to an uninformed agent who, with considerable discretion, can extract credible information from an adversary.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:30:y:2018:i:1:p:119-146
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629817729227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629817729227
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629817729227?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. Powell, Robert, 1987. "Crisis Bargaining, Escalation, and MAD," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(3), pages 717-735, September.
    2. Jacob Bercovitch & Scott Sigmund Gartner, 2006. "Is There Method in the Madness of Mediation? Some Lessons for Mediators from Quantitative Studies of Mediation," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 329-354, December.
    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. Levenotoäžlu, Bahar & Tarar, Ahmer, 2005. "Prenegotiation Public Commitment in Domestic and International Bargaining," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 419-433, August.
    5. Weeks, Jessica L., 2012. "Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian Regimes and the Initiation of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 326-347, May.
    6. Scott D. Bennett & Allan C. Stam III, 1998. "The Declining Advantages of Democracy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(3), pages 344-366, June.
    7. Russett, Bruce & Oneal, John R. & Davis, David R., 1998. "The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for Peace: International Organizations and Militarized Disputes, 1950–85," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(3), pages 441-467, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Craig Volden, 2002. "Delegating Power to Bureaucracies: Evidence from the States," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 187-220, April.
    10. Keohane, Robert O. & Moravcsik, Andrew & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 2000. "Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(3), pages 457-488, July.
    11. Stasavage, David, 2004. "Open-Door or Closed-Door? Transparency in Domestic and International Bargaining," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(4), pages 667-703, October.
    12. Allee, Todd L. & Huth, Paul K., 2006. "Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 219-234, May.
    13. James A. Wall Jr, 1981. "Review Section : Mediation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(1), pages 157-180, March.
    14. Jeffrey K. Staton & Georg Vanberg, 2008. "The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 504-519, July.
    15. J. Michael Greig & Paul F. Diehl, 2006. "Softening Up: Making Conflicts More Amenable to Diplomacy," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 355-384, December.
    16. In-Koo Cho & David M. Kreps, 1987. "Signaling Games and Stable Equilibria," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(2), pages 179-221.
    17. Bawn, Kathleen, 1997. "Choosing Strategies to Control the Bureaucracy: Statutory Constraints, Oversight, and the Committee System," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 101-126, April.
    18. Gartner, Scott Sigmund, 2008. "The Multiple Effects of Casualties on Public Support for War: An Experimental Approach," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 95-106, February.
    19. Bendor, Jonathan & Meirowitz, Adam, 2004. "Spatial Models of Delegation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 293-310, May.
    20. Thomas Romer & Howard Rosenthal, 1978. "Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 27-43, December.
    21. 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.
    22. Dixon, William J., 1996. "Third-party techniques for preventing conflict escalation and promoting peaceful settlement," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 653-681, October.
    23. Branislav L. Slantchev, 2004. "How Initiators End Their Wars: The Duration of Warfare and the Terms of Peace," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(4), pages 813-829, October.
    24. John Ferejohn, 1986. "Incumbent performance and electoral control," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 5-25, January.
    25. Kyle Beardsley, 2009. "Intervention Without Leverage: Explaining the Prevalence of Weak Mediators," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 272-297, August.
    26. 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.
    27. Huth, Paul K. & Croco, Sarah E. & Appel, Benjamin J., 2011. "Does International Law Promote the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes? Evidence from the Study of Territorial Conflicts since 1945," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 415-436, May.
    28. 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.
    29. Sean Gailmard, 2002. "Expertise, Subversion, and Bureaucratic Discretion," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 536-555, October.
    30. Smith, Alastair, 1998. "International Crises and Domestic Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(3), pages 623-638, September.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Kyle Beardsley, 2008. "Agreement without Peace? International Mediation and Time Inconsistency Problems," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 723-740, October.
    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. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    7. Govinda Clayton & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, 2014. "Will we see helping hands? Predicting civil war mediation and likely success," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(3), pages 265-284, July.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Renato Corbetta & Molly M. Melin, 2018. "Exploring the Threshold between Conflict Management and Joining in Biased Interventions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(10), pages 2205-2231, November.
    11. Randall J. Blimes, 2011. "International Conflict and Leadership Tenure," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Ian R Turner, 2017. "Working smart and hard? Agency effort, judicial review, and policy precision," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 69-96, January.
    16. 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.
    17. David Quinn & Jonathan Wilkenfeld & Pelin Eralp & Victor Asal & Theodore Mclauchlin, 2013. "Crisis managers but not conflict resolvers: Mediating ethnic intrastate conflict in Africa," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(4), pages 387-406, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Molly M. Melin, 2015. "Escalation in international conflict management: A foreign policy perspective," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(1), pages 28-49, February.
    20. Bernd Beber, 2012. "International Mediation, Selection Effects, and the Question of Bias," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(4), pages 397-424, 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:jothpo:v:30:y:2018:i:1:p:119-146. 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: .

    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.