Structural bias, polarized mediation and conflict resolution failure: a comparative examination of the disputes in Transnistria and Donbas

IF 0.8 2区社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES

Southeast European and Black Sea Studies Pub Date : 2022-07-13 DOI:10.1080/14683857.2022.2101188

Ion Marandici

{"title":"Structural bias, polarized mediation and conflict resolution failure: a comparative examination of the disputes in Transnistria and Donbas","authors":"Ion Marandici","doi":"10.1080/14683857.2022.2101188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Under what conditions does conflict resolution fail? This article identifies several undertheorized factors hindering conflict resolution. It argues that structural bias, inadequate leverage and a polarized mediation format render negotiations ineffective, undermining the peace process. Durable peace settlements are unlikely when mediators become parties to the conflict, patronize the rebels, shape the domestic politics of the parent-states, and promote resolution plans advancing their security interests. The concepts of structural bias and polarized mediation are further explored by employing a structured focused comparison of the conflict management strategies in Transnistria (Moldova) and Donbas (Ukraine). The comparative examination revealed that Russia, as a power mediator, displayed a structural bias towards the rebel side but lacked sufficient leverage to impose a settlement on both parties. It attempted to increase its influence over Ukraine by getting entangled in the Donbas conflict, recognizing the secessionist regions and launching a conventional war against Kyiv.","PeriodicalId":51736,"journal":{"name":"Southeast European and Black Sea Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"89 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southeast European and Black Sea Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2022.2101188","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Under what conditions does conflict resolution fail? This article identifies several undertheorized factors hindering conflict resolution. It argues that structural bias, inadequate leverage and a polarized mediation format render negotiations ineffective, undermining the peace process. Durable peace settlements are unlikely when mediators become parties to the conflict, patronize the rebels, shape the domestic politics of the parent-states, and promote resolution plans advancing their security interests. The concepts of structural bias and polarized mediation are further explored by employing a structured focused comparison of the conflict management strategies in Transnistria (Moldova) and Donbas (Ukraine). The comparative examination revealed that Russia, as a power mediator, displayed a structural bias towards the rebel side but lacked sufficient leverage to impose a settlement on both parties. It attempted to increase its influence over Ukraine by getting entangled in the Donbas conflict, recognizing the secessionist regions and launching a conventional war against Kyiv.

查看原文本刊更多论文

结构性偏见、两极化调解与冲突解决失败——德涅斯特河左岸和顿巴斯争端的比较研究

摘要冲突解决在什么情况下失败？本文指出了阻碍冲突解决的几个理论不足的因素。它认为，结构性偏见、杠杆作用不足和两极分化的调解形式使谈判无效，破坏了和平进程。当调解人成为冲突的当事方，庇护叛军，塑造母国的国内政治，并推动促进其安全利益的解决计划时，持久的和平解决是不可能的。通过对德涅斯特河左岸（摩尔多瓦）和顿巴斯（乌克兰）冲突管理战略进行有针对性的结构化比较，进一步探讨了结构性偏见和两极分化调解的概念。比较研究显示，俄罗斯作为权力调解人，对反叛一方表现出结构性偏见，但缺乏足够的影响力来迫使双方达成和解。它试图通过卷入顿巴斯冲突、承认分离主义地区并对基辅发动常规战争来增加对乌克兰的影响力。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Southeast European and Black Sea Studies AREA STUDIES-

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

19.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The aim of the journal is to establish a line of communication with these regions of Europe. Previously isolated from the European mainstream, the Balkan and Black Sea regions are in need of serious comparative study as are the individual countries, no longer "at the edge" of Europe. The principal disciplines covered by the journal are politics, political economy, international relations and modern history; other disciplinary approaches are accepted as appropriate. The journal will take both an academic and also a more practical policy-oriented approach and hopes to compensate for the serious information deficit on the countries under consideration.