To uncover the relationship between bias and effective conflict resolution, we explore the bias of third parties and the techniques they employ in the diplomatic management of river, maritime, and territorial claims. We find that bias increases the likelihood that a third party will engage in unobtrusive techniques like good offices and decreases its propensity to pursue involved mechanisms like arbitration. Additionally, bias is inversely related to the range of issues addressed at a settlement attempt. As such, unbiased third parties are more effective because they are used for the management techniques that have the most potential to resolve conflicts.
Allee, Todd L., and Paul K. Huth .2006. Legitimizing dispute settlement: International legal rulings as domestic political cover. American Political Science Review100(2): 219-234.
2.
Beardsley, Kyle.2010. Pain, pressure and political cover: Explaining mediation incidence. Journal of Peace Research47(4): 395-406.
3.
Beardsley, Kyle C., David M. Quinn, Bidisha Biswas, and Jonathan Wilkenfeld .2006. Mediation style and crisis outcomes. Journal of Conflict Resolution50(1): 58-86.
4.
Bercovitch, Jacob, J. Theodore Anagnoson, and Donnette L. Wille .1991. Some conceptual issues and empirical trends in the study of successful mediation in international relations . Journal of Peace Research28(1): 7-17.
5.
Carnevale, Peter J., and Sharon Arad.1996. Bias and impartiality in international mediation. In Resolving International Conflicts: The Theory and Practice of Mediation, ed. Jacob Bercovitch , pp. 39-53. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner.
6.
Favretto, Katja.2007. Strategic conflict resolution: Major power involvement in international crises, 1945-2003. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
7.
Favretto, Katja.2009. Should peacemakers take sides? Major power mediation, coercion, and bias. American Political Science Review103(2): 248-263.
8.
Fisher, Ronald J.1995. Pacific, impartial third-party intervention in international conflict: A review and analysis. In Beyond Confrontation: Learning Conflict Resolution in the Post-Cold War Era, eds John A. Vasquez, James Turner Johnson, Sanford Jaffe, and Linda Stamato, pp. 39-59. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
9.
Gent, Stephen E.2007. Strange bedfellows: The strategic dynamics of major power military interventions. Journal of Politics69(4): 1089-1102.
10.
Gent, Stephen E, and Megan Shannon. Forthcoming. Decision control and the pursuit of binding conflict management: Choosing the ties that bind. Journal of Conflict Resolution.
11.
Gent, Stephen E., and Megan Shannon.2010. The effectiveness of international arbitration and adjudication: Getting into a bind. Journal of Politics72(2): 366-380.
12.
Hensel, Paul R.2008. General codebook: Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project . University of North Texas.
13.
Hensel, Paul R.2001. Contentious issues and world politics: The management of territorial claims in the Americas, 1816-1992. International Studies Quarterly45(1): 81-109.
14.
Hensel, Paul R., Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Thomas E. Sowers II , and Clayton L. Thyne.2008. Bones of contention: Comparing territorial, maritime, and river issues. Journal of Conflict Resolution52(1): 117-143.
15.
Ireland, Gordon.1941. Boundaries, Possessions, and Conflicts in Central and North America and the Caribbean. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg .2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 347-361.
17.
Kleiboer, Marieke.1996. Understanding the success and failure of international mediation. Journal of Conflict Resolution40(2): 360-389.
18.
Kydd, Andrew.2003. Which side are you on? Bias, credibility, and mediation . American Journal of Political Science47(4): 597-611.
19.
Kydd, Andrew.2006. When can mediators build trust? American Political Science Review100(3): 449-462.
20.
Maoz, Zeev, and Lesley G. Terris .2006. Credibility and strategy in international mediation. International Interactions32(4): 409-440.
21.
Pettiford, Lloyd.2004. Belize-Guatemala. In Border and Territorial Disputes of the World, ed. Peter Calvert, pp. 88-95. London: John Harper.
22.
Princen, Thomas.1992. Intermediaries in International Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
Pruitt, D.G.1981. Kissinger as a traditional mediator with power. In Dynamics of Third Party Intervention: Kissinger in the Middle East , ed. J. Z. Rubin.New York: Praeger.
24.
Rauchhaus, Robert W.2006. Asymmetric information, mediation and conflict management . World Politics58(2): 207-241.
25.
Savun, Burcu.2008. Information, bias, and mediation success. International Studies Quarterly52(1): 25-47.
26.
Schmidt, Holger.2005. When (and why) do brokers have to be honest? Impartiality and third party support for peace implementation after civil wars, 1945-1999 . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 7-10.
27.
Signorino, Curtis S., and Jeffrey M. Ritter .1999. Tau-b or not tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly43(1): 115-144.
28.
Simmons, Beth.2002. Capacity, commitment, and compliance: International institutions and territorial disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution46(6): 829-856.
29.
Singer, J. David, Stuart Bremer, and John Stuckey.1972. Capability, distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820-1965. In Peace, War and Numbers, ed. Bruce Russett, pp. 19-48. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
Svensson, Isak.2007. Bargaining, bias and peace brokers: How rebels commit to peace. Journal of Peace Research44(2): 177-194.
31.
Svensson, Isak.2009. Who brings which peace? Neutral versus biased mediation and institutional peace arrangements in civil wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution52(3): 446-469.
32.
Touval, Saadia, and I. William Zartman .1985. Introduction: Mediation in theory. In International Mediation in Theory and Practice, eds Saadia Touval and I. William Zartman, pp. 7-17. Boulder, CO: Westview.
33.
Young, O.R.1967. The Intermediaries: Third Parties in International Crises . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
Zartman, I. William.1995. Dynamics and constraints in negotiations in internal conflicts . In Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil War, ed. I. William Zartman, pp. 3-29. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
