This paper aims on applying Zartman & Touval’s (1985) typology of mediator roles on the Norwegian mediation attempt in Sri Lanka between 1999 and 2008. Its purpose is to test if the concept helps understanding the case and the negotiation outcome.
The case of Sri Lanka was selected because it offers various insights for international negotiation scholars due to its long duration and strong intensity, involving different mediators, and various conflict resolution attempts, which mostly failed. I focus on the timeframe between 1999 and 2008 as this reflects the time of the official Norwegian engagement as a mediator in Sri Lanka. In this paper, I will first briefly introduce the concept of mediator roles by Zartman & Touval.
Following, I conceptualize the approach into a research design applied in this paper. The chapter on analysing the case is divided in a mere descriptive part of the Norwegian mediation activities in Sri Lanka and an analytical part where the role of the mediator is identified and discussed. In the final conclusions I will summarize the insights and discuss their relevance for the Sri Lankan case.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Mediators’ Roles Typology
3. Methodology
4. Analysis
4.a. Norway in Sri Lanka
4.b. Mediator Roles
5. Conclusions
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the role of Norway as a mediator in the Sri Lankan conflict between 1999 and 2008, specifically applying Zartman & Touval’s (1985) typology of mediator roles—the Communicator, Formulator, and Manipulator—to evaluate whether this framework aids in understanding the mediation process and its eventual outcome.
- Application of the Zartman & Touval mediator role typology.
- Evaluation of Norway’s diplomatic engagement in Sri Lanka (1999-2008).
- Analysis of the transition between different mediator strategies.
- Assessment of the effectiveness of mediation roles in resolving the conflict.
- Reflection on the challenges and shortcomings of applying established negotiation theories to complex civil war cases.
Excerpt from the Book
Mediators’ Roles Typology
In the following chapter I will provide a brief overview on the concept of Mediators’ Roles introduced by Zartman & Touval (1985, p. 38-39). In the original article the authors introduce three different roles – the Communicator, the Formulator, and the Manipulator, which are not mutually exclusive - that a mediating third party can use to help the negotiating parties in resolving their conflict. Mediation is defined as: “a form of third-party intervention in a conflict with the stated purpose of contributing to its abatement or resolution through negotiation.” (Zartman & Touval, 1985, p. 31). This definition states some underlying assumptions that have implications for the description of mediator roles and should briefly be highlighted. Firstly, it leaves out how the third party and the conflict parties get involved in the process of mediation. This immediately leads us to why parties, in particular the mediator, get involved in the conflict and try to solve them. Secondly, Zartman & Touval (1985, p. 31) explicitly name negotiations as vehicle of mediation and define conflict resolution as the goal of mediation. This conflicts with parts of their later description of mediator roles, where conflict management strategies like confidence building or developing a framework of understanding play an important part although they do not necessarily involve negotiation between the parties. We should therefore be aware, that the authors assume those tools to be always aimed at the abatement or resolution of the conflict through negotiations.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the research, focusing on the application of Zartman & Touval’s mediator roles to the Norwegian engagement in Sri Lanka from 1999 to 2008.
2. Mediators’ Roles Typology: Defines the three distinct roles of a mediator—the Communicator, the Formulator, and the Manipulator—based on their functions and level of influence.
3. Methodology: Sets the research framework, establishing the hypotheses that Norway acted in various capacities and defining indicators to identify these roles in practice.
4. Analysis: Provides a historical overview of Norway’s activities in Sri Lanka followed by an evaluation of which mediator roles were observed during the peace process.
5. Conclusions: Summarizes the findings, suggesting that Norway lacked a coherent strategy by switching roles, and critiques the applicability of the theoretical framework to this specific case.
Keywords
Norway, Sri Lanka, Mediation, Conflict Resolution, Zartman, Touval, Communicator, Formulator, Manipulator, Ceasefire Agreement, LTTE, GoSL, Peace Process, Negotiation, Diplomacy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on analyzing Norway's role as a mediator in the Sri Lankan conflict between 1999 and 2008 using the theoretical framework of mediator roles developed by Zartman & Touval.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include international negotiation theory, the practical implementation of mediation strategies, the evolution of the Sri Lankan peace process, and the complexities of third-party intervention in civil wars.
What is the main goal or research question?
The core research question is which specific mediator role Norway applied in Sri Lanka and how these roles impacted the success or failure of the peace negotiations.
Which scientific methodology does the author utilize?
The author employs a qualitative analysis, defining indicators for the Communicator, Formulator, and Manipulator roles and testing them against the historical record of the Norwegian mediation efforts.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the conceptual definitions of mediator roles, a descriptive timeline of the Norwegian engagement, and an analytical section assessing the application of these roles.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The study is best characterized by terms such as International Mediation, Mediator Typology, Sri Lankan Civil War, Norwegian Peace Policy, and Negotiation Outcome.
How does the author evaluate Norway's performance?
The author concludes that Norway performed tasks associated with all three roles but failed to maintain a coherent mediation strategy, which likely contributed to the eventual breakdown of the peace process.
Does the author consider the theoretical framework sufficient for this case?
The author expresses doubts, noting that the roles are often too intertwined in practice, and suggests that the framework should be refined to better differentiate between mediation strategies.
What specific incidents are highlighted in the analysis?
The analysis includes significant events like the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA), the establishment of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), and various donor conferences that influenced the negotiation dynamics.
Why did the mediation efforts ultimately fail according to the author?
While acknowledging multiple factors, the author argues that the lack of a consistent mediator approach and the transition toward a "Manipulator" role complicated the trust and neutrality required for sustained peace talks.
- Citation du texte
- Johannes Wander (Auteur), 2015, Norwegian Mediation in Sri Lanka (1999-2008). Applying Zartman & Touval’s typology of mediator roles, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/341496
