This article argues that similar conflict characteristics form links between crises, which signal the relevant actors – that is, the belligerents and the potential mediator(s) – that a comparable approach in terms of third-party mediation could be suitable across these disputes – even if the relevant parties are not the same. Specifically, demand (antagonists) and supply-side actors (mediators) are likely to employ the heuristic of learning from and emulating the mediation behavior in similar crises. The empirical analysis, using data from the International Crisis Behavior project, shows that comparable patterns in violence, arguably the most visible and salient conflict characteristic, are associated with mediation traveling across crises; other dispute characteristics incorporated into spatial lags are not, however. Hence, particularly as domestic/unit-level (monadic) influences are controlled for, the effect of common exposure is taken into account, and different estimation strategies are used, the results emphasize that there is a genuine diffusion process via common levels of violence in the context of international mediation.
BakakiZorzetaBöhmeltTobiasBoveVincenzo (2015) Barriers to coordination? Examining the impact of culture on international mediation occurrence and effectiveness. Political Studies. DOI 10.1111/1467-9248.12199.
2.
Balch-LindsayDylanEnterlineAndrew (2000) Killing time: The world politics of civil war duration, 1820–1992. International Studies Quarterly44(4): 615–642.
3.
BaumeisterRoyBratslavskyEllenFinkenauerCatrinVohsKathleen (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology5(4): 323–370.
4.
BeardsleyKyle (2008) Agreement without peace? International mediation and time inconsistency problems. American Journal of Political Science52(4): 723–740.
5.
BeardsleyKyle (2011) The Mediation Dilemma. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
6.
BeardsleyKyleGreigMichael (2009) Disaggregating the incentives of conflict management: An introduction. International Interactions35(3): 243–248.
7.
BeckNathanielGleditschKristian SkredeBeardsleyKyle (2006) Space is more than geography: Using spatial econometrics in the study of political economy. International Studies Quarterly50(1): 27–44.
8.
BennettColin (1991) What is policy convergence and what causes it?British Journal of Political Science21(2): 215–233.
9.
BercovitchJacobHoustonAllison (2000) Why do they do it like this? An analysis of the factors influencing mediation behavior in international conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution44(2): 170–202.
10.
BercovitchJacobLangleyJeffrey (1993) The nature of the dispute and the effectiveness of international mediation. Journal of Conflict Resolution37(4): 670–691.
11.
BercovitchJacobAnagnosonTheodoreWilleDonnette (1991) Some conceptual issues and empirical trends in the study of successful mediation in international relations. Journal of Peace Research28(1): 7–17.
12.
BöhmeltTobias (2013) Failing to succeed? The cumulative impact of international mediation revisited. Conflict Management and Peace Science30(3): 199–219.
13.
BöhmeltTobias (2015) The spatial contagion of international mediation. Conflict Management and Peace Science32(1): 108–127.
14.
BrecherMichaelWilkenfeldJonathan (2010) Codebook for ICB1 – International crisis behavior project. System-level dataset – July 2010. ICPSR Study #9286 – Version 10.0 (http://sites.duke.edu/icbdata/).
15.
BuhaugHalvardGleditschKristian Skrede (2008) Contagion or confusion? Why conflicts cluster in space. International Studies Quarterly52(2): 215–233.
16.
CrescenziMarkKaderaKellyMitchellSara McLaughlinThyneClayton (2011) A supply side theory of mediation. International Studies Quarterly55(4): 1069–1094.
17.
DolowitzDavidMarshDavid (2000) Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance13(1): 5–24.
18.
DorffCassyWardMichael (2013) Networks, dyads, and the social relations model. Political Science Research and Methods1(2): 159–178.
19.
DorussenHanGartzkeErikWesterwinterOliver (2016) Networked international politics: Introduction. Journal of Peace Research53(3): 283–291.
20.
ElkinsZacharySimmonsBeth (2005) On waves, clusters, and diffusion: A conceptual framework. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598(1): 33–51.
21.
EllisGlynnMitchellSara McLaughlinPrinsBrandon (2010) How democracies keep peace: Contextual factors that influence conflict management strategies. Foreign Policy Analysis6(4): 373–398.
22.
FranzeseRobertHaysJude (2007) Spatial econometric models of cross-sectional interdependence in political science panel and time-series–cross-section data. Political Analysis15(2): 140–164.
23.
GaleDouglasKarivShachar (2003) Bayesian Learning in Social Networks. New York: New York University Press.
24.
GartnerScottBercovitchJacob (2006) Overcoming obstacles to peace: The contribution of mediation to short lived conflict settlements. International Studies Quarterly50(4): 819–840.
25.
GilardiFabrizio (2012) Transnational diffusion: Norms, ideas, and policies. In: CarlsnaesWalterRisseThomasSimmonsBeth (eds) Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 453–477.
26.
GreigMichael (2005) Stepping into the fray: When do mediators mediate?American Journal of Political Science49(2): 249–266.
27.
GreigMichael (2015) Nipping them in the bud: The onset of mediation in low-intensity civil conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution59(2): 336–361.
28.
GreigMichaelReganPatrick (2008) When do they say yes? An analysis of the willingness to offer and accept mediation in civil wars. International Studies Quarterly52(4): 759–781.
29.
HaysJudeKachiAyaFranzeseRobert (2010) A spatial model incorporating dynamic, endogenous network interdependence: A political science application. Statistical Methodology7(3): 406–428.
30.
HoffPeterWardMichael (2004) Modeling dependencies in international relations networks. Political Analysis12(2): 160–175.
31.
KahnemanDanielFrederickShane (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: GilovichThomasGriffinDaleKahnemanDaniel (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49–81.
32.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47(2): 263–291.
33.
KahnemanDanielSlovicPaulTverskyAmos, eds (1982) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
KathmanJacob (2010) Civil war contagion and neighboring interventions. International Studies Quarterly54(4): 989–1012.
35.
KathmanJacob (2011) Civil war diffusion and regional motivations for intervention. Journal of Conflict Resolution55(6): 847–876.
36.
KaufmannChaim (1996) Possible and impossible solutions to ethnic conflicts. International Security20(4): 136–175.
KhongYuen Foong (1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
LeeChang KilStrangDavid (2003) The international diffusion of public sector downsizing: Network emulation and theory-driven learning. International Organization60(4): 883–909.
40.
LengRussellReganPatrick (2003) Social and political cultural effects on the outcomes of mediation in militarized interstate disputes. International Studies Quarterly47(3): 431–452.
41.
MasonT DavidFettPatrick (1996) How civil wars end: A rational choice approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution40(4): 546–568.
42.
McDermottRose (1998) Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
43.
McDermottRoseFowlerJamesSmirnovOleg (2008) On the evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences. Journal of Politics70(2): 335–350.
44.
MelinMolly (2011) The impact of state relationships on if, when and how conflict management occurs. International Studies Quarterly55(3): 691–715.
45.
MelinMolly (2015) Escalation in international conflict management: A foreign policy perspective. Conflict Management and Peace Science32(1): 28–49.
46.
RaymondGregory (1994) Democracies, disputes, and third-party intermediaries. Journal of Conflict Resolution38(1): 24–42.
47.
ReganPatrick (2002) Third-party interventions and the duration of intrastate conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution46(1): 55–73.
48.
ReganPatrickStamAllan (2000) In the nick of time: Conflict management, mediation timing, and the duration of interstate disputes. International Studies Quarterly44(2): 239–260.
49.
SimmonsBethElkinsZachary (2004) The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review98(1): 171–189.
50.
SørbøGunnarGoodhandJonathanKlemBartNissenAda ElisabethSelbervikHilde (2011) Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian Peace Efforts in Sri Lanka, 1997–2009. Oslo: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.
51.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science185(4157): 1124–1131.
52.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In: KahnemanDanielSlovicPaulTverskyAmos (eds) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–22.
53.
WallensteenPeterSvenssonIsak (2014) Talking peace: International mediation in armed conflicts. Journal of Peace Research51(2): 315–327.
54.
WardHughCaoXun (2012) Domestic and international influences on green taxation. Comparative Political Studies45(9): 1075–1103.
55.
WeylandKurt (2005) The diffusion of innovations: How cognitive heuristics shaped Bolivia’s pension reform. Comparative Politics38(1): 21–42.
56.
WilkenfeldJonathanYoungKathleenAsalVictorQuinnDavid (2003) Mediating international crises: Cross-national and experimental perspectives. Journal of Conflict Resolution47(3): 279–301.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
