Assessing the Contingency Model of Third-Party Intervention in Successful Cases of Prenegotiation

  • Ronald J. FisherEmail author
Part of the Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice book series (PAHSEP, volume 14)


The theory and practice of third-party intervention in international conflict continue to develop in constructive directions (Bercovitch 2002; Fisher 2001).


Contingency Model Peace Process Peace Agreement Conflict Analysis Reconciliation Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baare, A. (2004). Development aid as third-party intervention: A case study of the Uganda National Rescue Front II peace process. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 2(1), 21–36.Google Scholar
  2. Bercovitch, J. (Ed.). (2002). Studies in international mediation: Essays in honor of Jeffrey Z. Rubin. New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  3. Bercovitch, J., & DeRouen Jr., K. (2004). Mediation in internationalized ethnic conflicts: Assessing the determinants of a successful process. Armed Forces & Society, 30(2), 147–170.Google Scholar
  4. Bloomfield, D. (1995). Towards complementarity in conflict management: Resolution and settlement in Northern Ireland. Journal of Peace Research, 32(2), 151–164.Google Scholar
  5. Bloomfield, D. (1997). Peacemaking strategies in Northern Ireland: Building complementarity in conflict management theory. London, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Burton, J. W. (1969). Conflict and communication: The use of controlled communication in international relations. London, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Crocker, C. A., Hampson, F. O., & Aall, P. (Eds.). (1999). Herding cats: Multiparty mediation in a complex world. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fetherston, A. B. (1994). Towards a theory of United Nations peacekeeping. Basingstoke, England/New York, NY: Macmillan/St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, R. J. (1989). Prenegotiation problem-solving discussions: Enhancing the potential for successful negotiation. In J. G. Stein (Ed.), Getting to the table: The process of international prenegotiation (pp. 206–238). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, R. J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Developing the field of interactive conflict resolution: Issues in training, funding and institutionalization. Political Psychology, 14(1), 123–138.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, R. J. (2001). Methods of third-party intervention. In N. Ropers, M. Fischer, & E. Manton (Eds.), Berghof handbook for conflict transformation (pp. 1–25). Berlin, Germany: Bergh of Center for Conflict Management.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, R. J. (Ed.). (2005). Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, R. J. (2006a). Interactive conflict resolution: A social-psychological approach to resolving violent ethnopolitical conflict. In M. Fitzduff & C. E. Stout (Eds.), The psychology of resolving global conflict: Volume III. Intervention (pp. 41–68). New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
  15. Fisher, R. J. (2006b). Coordination between Track Two and Track One diplomacy in successful cases of prenegotiation. International Negotiation, 11(1), 65–89.Google Scholar
  16. Fisher, R. J., & Keashly, L. (1988). Third party intervention in intergroup conflict: Consultation is not mediation. Negotiation Journal, 4(4), 381–391.Google Scholar
  17. Fisher, R. J., & Keashly, L. (1991). The potential complementarity of mediation and consultation within a contingency model of third party intervention. Journal of Peace Research, 28(1), 29–42.Google Scholar
  18. Glasl, F. (1982). The process of escalation and roles of third parties. In G. B. J. Bomers & R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Conflict management and industrial relations (pp. 119–140). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  19. Kaufman, E., & Sosnowski, S. (2005). The Peru-Ecuador peace process: The contribution of Track Two diplomacy. In Fisher, R. J. (Ed.), Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking (pp. 175–201). Lanham, MD: Lexington.Google Scholar
  20. Kelman, H. C. (1972). The problem-solving workshop in conflict resolution. In R. L. Merritt (Ed.), Communication in international politics (168–204). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kelman, H. C. (1988). The Palestinianization of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Jerusalem Quarterly, 46 (Spring), 3–15.Google Scholar
  22. Kelman, H. C. (1995). Contributions of an unofficial conflict resolution effort to the Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough. Negotiation Journal, 11(1), 19–27.Google Scholar
  23. Kelman, H. C. (2005). Interactive problem solving in the Israeli-Palestinian case: Past contributions and present challenges. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking (pp. 41–63). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  24. Kelman, H. C., & Cohen, S. P. (1976). The problem-solving workshop: A social-psychological contribution to the resolution of international conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 13(2), 79–90.Google Scholar
  25. Kelman, H. C., & Fisher, R. J. (2003). Conflict analysis and resolution. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 315–353). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kriesberg, L. (2003). Constructive conflicts: From escalation to resolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  27. Mitchell, C. (1993). The process and stages of mediation. In D. Smock (Ed.), Making war and waging peace: Foreign intervention in Africa (pp. 139–159). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell, C. (2005). Ending confrontation between Indonesia and Malaysia: A pioneering contribution to international problem solving. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking (pp. 19–40). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  29. Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., & Miall, H. (2005). Contemporary conflict resolution (2nd edn.). Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  30. Rouhana, N. N., & Kelman, H. C. (1994). Promoting joint thinking in international conflict: An Israeli-Palestinian continuing workshop. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 157–178.Google Scholar
  31. Saunders, H. H. (1999). A public peace process: Sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  32. Saunders, H. H. (2001). Prenegotiation and circum-negotiation: Arenas of the multilevel peace process. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Turbulent peace: The challenges of managing international conflict (pp. 483–496). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  33. Saunders, H. H. (2005). Sustained dialogue in Tajikistan: Transferring learning from the public to the official peace process. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking (pp. 127–141). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  34. Webb, K., Koutrakou, V., & Walters, M. (1996). The Yugoslavian conflict, European mediation, and the contingency model: A critical perspective. In J. Bercovitch (Ed.), Resolving international conflicts: The theory and practice of mediation (pp. 171–189). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  35. Williams, A. (1999). Conflict resolution after the Cold War: The case of Moldova. Review of International Studies, 25(1), 71–86.Google Scholar
  36. Williams, A. (2005). Second track conflict resolution processes in the Moldova conflict, 1993–2000: Problems and possibilities. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking (pp. 143–160). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s)  2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Peace and Conflict Resolution, School of International ServiceAmerican UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations