Talking peace: why mediation still matters in a world at war

Conflict resolution is an integral component of international relations, both in the academic and general sense. With the war in West Asia entering its second month, discussions around mediation have gained prominence. A significant section of the international community is keen on bringing a resolution to end this war. Although the possibility of mediation in the Iran conflict is shrouded in ambiguity, the debate intensified following reports suggesting a potential role for Pakistan. Without delving into the specifics of Pakistan’s involvement, which still remain unclear, it is more useful to examine what mediation is and why it continues to be a relevant and effective tool for conflict resolution.

Mediation has deep historical roots, with one of the earliest recorded instances dating back nearly 4000 years, when the Sumerian king Mesilim mediated a dispute between the city-states of Lagash and Umma. Despite its long history, mediation remains a complex process, and scholars have offered diverse perspectives on its dynamics. One of the most influential contributions is by Jacob Bercovitch, who developed the Contingency Model of mediation. Based on empirical research, he argued that the success of mediation depends on multiple factors, like the nature of the parties, the characteristics of the dispute, and the role and capabilities of the mediator. He emphasised that effective mediators must possess credibility as well as personal attributes such as communication skills, intelligence, and patience.