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


The concluding chapter of the book draws together the empirical findings of the three case studies and compares them across cases. The cross-case comparison suggests two main conclusions. First, the findings demonstrate the plausibility of the analytical framework, providing strong support for the empirical relevance of the hypothesised conditions of EU mediation effectiveness. Second, the latter vary in terms of their explanatory power. Conflict parties’ willingness to compromise and EU mediation strategy stand out as necessary conditions of EU mediation effectiveness, strongly interacting with each other. Overall, the findings highlight the mutual importance of EU- and conflict-related conditions influencing the effectiveness of EU mediation and the variety of factors that need to be taken into account to develop a comprehensive understanding of EU mediation effectiveness. The chapter then situates these findings in relevant research fields and reflects on key policy implications of this book, before pointing to potential avenues for future research.


EU mediation Mediation effectiveness Stabilisation EU foreign and security policy 


  1. Bercovitch, J., & Houston, A. (2000). Why do they do it like this? An analysis of the factors influencing mediation behavior in international conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(2), 170–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann, J. (2018). 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
  3. Bergmann, J., & Niemann, A. (2013). The European Union as an effective mediator in peace negotiations? Conceptual framework and plausibility probe (Mainz Papers on International and European Politics (MPIEP) 01/2013). Mainz: Chair of International Relations, Johannes Gutenberg University.Google Scholar
  4. BIG DEAL (2015, April). Lost in stagnation: Civic oversight of the Kosovo-Serbia agreement implementation (Report 2). Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, Internews Kosova and Centre for Research Transparency and Accountability. Accessed 6 June 2016.
  5. 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
  6. Council of the European Union. (2009, November 10). Concept on strengthening EU mediation and dialogue capacities. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Accessed 9 January 2019.
  7. Crisis Group. (2011, August 8). Georgia-Russia: Learn to live like neighbours (Europe Briefing 65). Tbilisi, Moscow, Istanbul, Brussels: International Crisis Group. Accessed 2 November 2016.
  8. da Conceição-Heldt, E., & Meunier, S. (2014). Speaking with a single voice: Internal cohesiveness and external effectiveness of the EU in global governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), 961–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Economides, S., & Ker-Lindsay, J. (2015).‘Pre-accession Europeanization’: The case of Serbia and Kosovo. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(5), 1027–1044.Google Scholar
  10. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grono, M. F. (2010, March). Georgia’s conflicts: What role for the EU as mediator? Brussels: IfP Mediation Cluster. Accessed 6 February 2019.
  12. Hellmüller, S., Palmiano Federer, J., & Zeller, M. (2015). The role of norms in international peace mediation. Swisspeace & NOREF. Accessed 9 January 2019.
  13. Herrberg, A. (2018). Effective mediative diplomacy and its seven virtues: The case of the European Union. Peace & Change, 43(3), 292–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howard, L. M., & Stark, A. (2018). How civil wars end: The international system, norms, and the role of external actors. International Security, 42(3), 127–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Missiroli, A. (2001). European security policy: The challenge of coherence. European Foreign Affairs Review, 6(2), 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Niemann, A., & Bretherton, C. (2013). Introduction: EU external policy at the crossroads. International Relations, 27(3), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Noutcheva, G. (2012). European foreign policy and the challenges of Balkan accession: Sovereignty contested. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Richmond, O. P. (2018). Human rights and the development of a twenty-first century peace architecture: Unintended consequences? Australian Journal of International Affairs, 1–19. Accessed 9 January 2019.
  20. Scalera, J. E., & Wiegand, K. E. (2018). The motivation of European Union mediation in civil conflicts. European Security, 27(4), 434–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Sisk, T. D. (2009). International mediation in civil wars: Bargaining with bullets. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith, M. E. (2008). Researching European foreign policy: Some fundamentals. Politics, 28(3), 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Solana, J. (2001, November 27). EU pressures Montenegro against independence (Quoted by Associated Press). Associated Press International.Google Scholar
  25. Svensson, I. (2007). Mediation with muscles or minds? Exploring power mediators and pure mediators in civil wars. International Negotiation, 12(2), 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tannam, E. (2013). The EU’s response to the International Court of Justice’s judgment on Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Europe-Asia Studies, 65(5), 946–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomas, D.C. (2012). Still punching below its weight? Coherence and effectiveness in European Union foreign policy*. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(3), 457–474.Google Scholar
  28. van der Borgh, C., Martin, M., & Bojicic-Dzelilovic, V. (2017, May 31). EU capabilities in conflict prevention and peacebuilding: Challenges, strengths and opportunities of a Whole-of-Society approach (WOSCAP Research Report). Accessed 13 February 2019.
  29. Whitman, R. G., & Wolff, S. (2012a). 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
  30. Whitman, R. G., & Wolff, S. (2012b). The European Union as a global conflict manager: Capabilities and context in an interdependent world. In R. G. Whitman & S. Wolff (Eds.), The European Union as a global conflict manager (pp. 3–20.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations