Advertisement

Introduction

  • Julian BergmannEmail author
Chapter
  • 283 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)

Abstract

Mediation has evolved into an important instrument of EU foreign and security policy. This introductory chapter makes the case for studying the EU’s effectiveness as international mediator and explains the overall rationale and approach of the book. It traces the emergence of the EU as an actor in international mediation as well as the development of EU mediation capacities since the 1990s. Based on a conceptualisation of EU mediation, it explains how the book addresses significant research gaps both in mediation research and EU foreign policy studies. Following the presentation of the research design and methodological approach of the book, the chapter concludes by introducing the three cases of EU mediation that are further examined in the case study chapters.

Keywords

EU mediation Mediation effectiveness EU foreign and security policy 

References

  1. Adebahr, C. (2012). The EU Special Representatives as a capability for conflict management. In R. G. Whitman & S. Wolff (Eds.), The European Union as a global conflict manager (pp. 155–168). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Adebahr, C. (2017). Europe and Iran: The nuclear deal and beyond. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beardsley, K. (2011). The mediation dilemma. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, A. (2008). Process tracing: A Bayesian perspective. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 702–721). Oxford, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2015a). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (2015b). Process tracing: From philosophical roots to best practices. In A. Bennett & J. T. Checkel (Eds.), Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool (pp. 3–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bercovitch, J., Anagnoson, J. T., & Wille, D. L. (1991). Some conceptual issues and empirical trends in the study of successful mediation in international relations. Journal of Peace Research, 28(1), 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergmann, J. (2018a). A bridge over troubled water? The Instrument Contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) and the security-development nexus in EU external policy (Discussion Paper 6/2018). German Development Institute/ Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/DP__6.2018.pdf. Accessed 9 January 2019.
  10. Bergmann, J. (2018b). Same table, different menus? A comparison of UN and EU mediation practice in the Kosovo-Serbia conflict. International Negotiation, 23(2), 238–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bergmann, J., & Niemann, A. (2015). Mediating international conflicts: The European Union as an effective peacemaker? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(5), 957–975.Google Scholar
  12. Bergmann, J., Haastrup, T., Niemann, A., & Whitman, R. (2018). Introduction: The EU as international mediator—Theoretical and empirical perspectives. International Negotiation, 23(2), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bieber, F. (2015). The Serbia-Kosovo agreements: An EU success story? Review of Central and East European Law, 40(3–4), 285–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a global actor. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, R. (2015, July 16). The philosophy of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. European Western Balkans. https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2015/07/16/sir-robert-cooper-the-philosophy-of-the-belgrade-pristina-dialogue/. Accessed 20 April 2016.
  16. Coppieters, B., Emerson, M., Huysseune, M., Kovziridze, T., & Noutcheva, G. (Eds.). (2004). Europeanization and conflict resolution: Case studies from the European periphery. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
  17. Council of the European Union. (2008, December 11). Report on the implementation of the European security strategy. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/104630.pdf. Accessed 9 January 2019.
  18. Council of the European Union. (2009, November 10). Concept on strengthening EU mediation and dialogue capacities. Brussels. http://www.eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/cfsp/conflict_prevention/docs/concept_strengthening_eu_med_en.pdf. Accessed 9 January 2019.
  19. da Conceicao-Heldt, E., & Meunier, S. (2014). Speaking with a single voice: The EU as an effective actor in global governance? Special Issue of Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), 961–979.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, L. (2014). EU foreign policy, transitional justice and mediation: Principle, policy and practice. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, L. (2018). The EU as a multi-mediator: The case of the Democratic Republic of Congo. International Negotiation, 23(2), 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eckstein, H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science: Strategies of inquiry (pp. 79–135). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Economides, S., & Ker-Lindsay, J. (2015). Pre-accession Europeanization: The case of Serbia and Kosovo. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(5), 1027–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elgström, O., Chaban, N., Knodt, M., Müller, P., & Pardo, S. (2018). Perceptions of the EU’s role in the Ukraine-Russia and the Israel-Palestine conflicts: A biased mediator? International Negotiation, 23(2), 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. European Council. (2001). EU programme for the prevention of violent conflicts. Gothenburg: European Council. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9537-2001-REV-1/en/pdf. Accessed 9 January 2019.
  26. European External Action Service. (2013, May). EU mediation support team: Factsheet. Brussels: European external action service. http://eeas.europa.eu/cfsp/conflict_prevention/docs/2013_eu_mst_factsheet_en.pdf. Accessed 19 February 2015.
  27. European Union. (2016, June). Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe—A global strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. http://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/global-strategy-foreign-and-security-policy-european-union. Accessed 20 December 2016.
  28. Fonck, D. (2018). Parliamentary diplomacy and legislative-executive relations in EU foreign policy: Studying the European Parliament’s mediation of the Macedonian political crisis (2015–17). Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(6), 1305–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Forsberg, T., & Seppo, A. (2010). The Russo-Georgian War and EU mediation. In R. E. Kanet (Ed.), Russian foreign policy in the 21st century (pp. 121–137). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Friis, K. (2007). The referendum in Montenegro: The EU’s ‘postmodern diplomacy’. European Foreign Affairs Review, 12(1), 67–88.Google Scholar
  31. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Girke, N. C. (2015). A matter of balance: The European Union as a mediator in Yemen. European Security, 24(4), 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greig, J. M. (2001). Moments of opportunity: Recognizing conditions of ripeness for international mediation between enduring rivals. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(6), 691–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Greig, J. M., & Diehl, P. F. (2012). International mediation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  36. Grono, M. F. (2010, March). Georgia’s conflicts: What role for the EU as mediator? Brussels: Initiative for Peacebuilding, Mediation Cluster.Google Scholar
  37. Gross, E., & Juncos, A. (Eds.). (2011). EU conflict prevention and crisis management: Roles, institutions and policies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Gschwend, T., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2007). Introduction: Designing research in political science—A dialogue between theory and data. In T. Gschwend & F. Schimmelfennig (Eds.), Research design in political science: How to practice what they preach (pp. 1–18). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gündüz, C., & Herbolzheimer, K. (2010, December). Standing united for peace: The EU in coordinated third-party support to peace processes. Brussels: Initiative for Peacebuilding. http://www.c-r.org/sites/c-r.org/files/StandingUnitedForPeace_IFP_201012_ENG.pdf. Accessed 9 January 2019.
  40. Herrberg, A. (2018). Effective mediative diplomacy and its seven virtues: The case of the European Union. Peace & Change, 43(3), 292–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Herrberg, A., Gündüz, C., & Davis, L. (2009, May). Engaging the EU in mediation and dialogue: Reflections and recommendations (Synthesis Report). Brussels: Initiative for Peacebuilding, Mediation Cluster.Google Scholar
  42. Higgins, N. (2012). EU mediation activities outside Europe: The case of Aceh. In T. Tamminen (Ed.), Strengthening the EU’s peace mediation capacities: Leveraging for peace through new ideas and thinking (pp. 45–52). Helsinki: The Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA).Google Scholar
  43. Ilievski, Z., & Taleski, D. (2010). Was the EU’s role in conflict management in Macedonia a success? Ethnopolitics, 8(3–4), 355–367.Google Scholar
  44. Jørgensen, K. E., Oberthür, S., & Shahin, J. (2011). Introduction: Assessing the EU’s performance in international institutions—Conceptual framework and core findings. Journal of European Integration, 33(6), 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kapiszewski, D., MacLean, L. M., & Read, B. L. (2015). Field research in political science: Practices and principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keukeleire, S., & Delreux, T. (2014). The foreign policy of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lucarelli, S. (2000). Europe and the breakup of Yugoslavia: A political failure in search of a scholarly explanation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  48. Natorski, M. (2018). EU mediation practices in Ukraine during revolutions: What authority as a peacemaker? International Negotiation, 23(2), 278–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Niemann, A., & Bretherton, C. (2013). EU external policy at the crossroads: The challenge of actorness and effectiveness. Special Issue of International Relations, 27(3), 261–275.Google Scholar
  50. Niemann, A., Haastrup, T., & Bergmann, J. (2018a). Motives, roles, effectiveness and the future of the EU as an international mediator. International Negotiation, 23(2), 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Niemann, A., Bergmann, J., Haastrup, T., & Whitman, R. G. (2018b). The European Union as international mediator: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Special Issue of International Negotiation, 23(2), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nitoiu, C., & Sus, M. (2016). The European Parliament’s diplomacy—A tool for projecting EU power in times of crisis? The case of the Cox-Kwasniewski Mission. Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Norwegian Nobel Committee. (2012, October 12). Announcement speech of the Chairman of Norwegian Nobel Committee on the Award of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. Oslo. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2012/prize-announcement/. Accessed 9 January 2019.
  54. Pifer, S. (2007). European mediators and Ukraine’s orange revolution. Problems of Post-communism, 54(6), 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pinfari, M. (2018). EU mediation in Egypt: The limits of reactive conflict management. International Negotiation, 23(2), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Regan, P. M., & Stam, A. C. (2000). In the nick of time: Conflict management, mediation timing, and the duration of interstate disputes. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Richter, S. (2018). Missing the muscles? Mediation by conditionality in Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Negotiation, 23(2), 258–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rohlfing, I. (2012). Case studies and causal inference: An integrative framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schimmelfennig, F. (2015). Efficient process tracing: Analyzing the causal mechanisms of European integration. In A. Bennett & J. T. Checkel (Eds.), Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool (pp. 98–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schneckener, U. (2002). Developing and applying EU crisis management: Test case Macedonia (ECMI Working Paper 14). Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues.Google Scholar
  61. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sherriff, A., & Hauck, V. (2012, December 31). EEAS mediation support pilot project: Evaluatory review. Brussels: European External Action Service. http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/EEAS-Mediation-Support-Pilot-Project-Evaluatory-Review-2012.pdf. Accessed 19 February 2015.
  63. Sherriff, A., Hauck V., & Rocca, C. (2013). Glass half full: Study on EU lessons learnt in mediation and dialogue (Study submitted to the European External action service by ECDPM through the AETS Consortium—Cardno). Maastricht: European Centre for Development Policy Management.Google Scholar
  64. Tocci, N. (2007). The EU and conflict resolution: Promoting peace in the backyard. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tocci, N. (2013). The Middle East quartet and (in)effective multilateralism. The Middle East Journal, 67(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Touval, S., & Zartman, I. W. (1985). Introduction: Mediation in theory. In S. Touval & I. W. Zartman (Eds.), International mediation in theory and practice (pp. 7–17). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  67. Whitman, R. G., & Wolff, S. (Eds.). (2012a). The European Union as a global conflict manager. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Whitman, R. G., & Wolff, S. (2012b). The EU as a global conflict manager: Reflections on the past, perspectives for the future. In R. G. Whitman & S. Wolff (Eds.), The European Union as a global conflict manager (pp. 211–220). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Youngs, R. (2009). ‘A door neither closed nor open’: EU policy towards Ukraine during and since the Orange Revolution. International Politics, 46(4), 358–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations