As a means of non-violent reaction to conflict, the intervention of a third party into a dispute between two or more adversaries occurs frequently in international conflicts.

The goal of this paper is to give a general description of mediative skills. It will be asked what the characteristics of the mediation process are and what kind of mediation tasks are non military staff on international missions likely to apply? The paper highlights the following aspects:

1. In order to give a definition of mediation it is necessary to outline the main characteristics of the mediation process:

-the goals of the mediation process and the role of the mediator

-major steps being taken in a mediation

2. To define the actual skills needed to carry out a mediation the key instruments to generate integrative negotiations will be named and explained.

3. A draft definition is to be found of those mediaton skills which are required in conflicts prevented or resolved by the personell on international missions.

In this text I assume that ‘parties’ or ‘negotiators’ are synonymous with the persons or group representatives directly affected by a conflict. I do not assume that parties/negotiators are represented by outsiders of the conflict.

Mediation can be defined as negotiation carried out with the assistance of a third party. Mediation is based on four main principles

1. Neutrality of the mediator
2. Confidentiality of the mediator
3. Voluntary participation by the parties
4. Autonomy of the parties

The goal of mediation is to let the conflicting parties work out a solution on their own without having a final decision being imposed upon them by a judge or an arbitrator. This goal is based on the assumption that a solution to a conflict is most sustainable when the affected parties define this solution autonomously.

Central to the process is to find out who can provide which resources for a mutually beneficial outcome for the future rather than to find out „who is to blame for what" in the past. To bring about a mutually beneficial solution the goal of mediation is to generate integrative negotiations and to avoid distributive negotiations. Distributive Negotiations consist in a win-lose-strategy, in which only one solution seems possible and in which the parties struggle to gain the biggest share of that solution. At best they gain a fifty fifty-share, but mostly one party gains what the other party looses. In contrast, an integrative win-win-strategy creates alternative options to a solution, so parties gain benefits without having to struggle about the biggest share in a single solution.

Alternative options are best created by identifying all the interests and needs of the parties. Often, these needs are not directly expressed but underly the positions put forward by the negotiators. In order to satisfy these underlying interests and needs an important goal of the mediation is to create a whole range of alternative solutions to a problem. Expanding the scope of action also increases the chances for a cooperative search for possible solutions.

Correspondingly to the goals of mediation, the role of the mediator is to (re-) establish comunication between the conflicting parties thus enabling them to negotiate and to shape a solution for their problem that is sustainable in the future. The mediator has no power to impose an outcome on the disputing parties. Depending on what seems to be impeding agreement, the mediator may attempt to

-encourage exchanges of information

-provide new information

-help the parties to understand each others‘ views

-let them know that their concerns are understood

-promote a productive level of emotional expression

-deal with differences in perceptions and interests between negotiators and

constituents

-help negotiators realistically assess alternatives to settlement

-encourage flexibility

-shift the focus from the past to the future

-stimulate the parties to suggest creative settlements

-learn (often in seperate sessions with each party) about those interests the parties are reluctant to disclose to each other

-invent solutions that meet the fundamental interests of all parties

The mediation process can be split into three different phases:

1. Preparation
2. Materialization
3. Implementation

Materialization as the main negotiation phase during the process can be split again into three steps:

1. Identification and definition of the problem
2. Generation of multiple options for a solution
3. Creation of a specific solution out of these options

Each of the mediation phases and the steps listed above can be split into further particular aspects of the whole strategy which are applied dependent on what the respective conflict requires.

Likewise the range of possible steps being taken in the mediation process the key instruments of the mediator to generate integrative solutions are multiple. In a more general view on the posibilities to guide parties on the track of integrative strategies the techniques applied by the mediator consist mainly in inquiry and interviews.

1. Problem definition:

   Paraphrasing: The mediator repeats briefly in his/her own words the content of the statements made by the party. Paraphrasing is an important technique to show each party that its views and needs are payed attention to and that everything is understood correctly. This avoids misunderstandings.

   Promoting the expression of pesonal conflict experiences: The mediator can ask the parties to focus on their personal conflict experiences. Rather than attempting to explain the factual situation of a conflict or to explain the role of the other actors involved in the conflict, the parties may express what their personal views, feelings, impressions in the conflict are. Information about the respective personal situation in a conflict often reveals information about underlying interests useful for an integrative strategy.

   Laddering interview: In order to get a maximum amount of information about the interests, values or fears involved in a conflict the mediator can ask for the reasons and occasions which have lead to a certain position. Starting from a certain position expressed by the negotiator the mediator asks why this position is importantant for the party. The reasons given provide aspects which can be inquired again by the mediator for their importance for the party. After several rounds of inquiry there evolves a much cleared picture of which values and interests are involved.

2. Generation of multiple options for a solution:

   Caucuses: For the generation of multiple options it can be very helpful for the mediator and each party to meet seperately (caucus). Caucuses are necessary in the following aspects: New options for cooperation are often more likely to be named by parties without the pressure of the presence of the other party. Parties also give more detailed reasons for a certain behavior without the presence of their counterparts. It gives the mediator the chance to built up more trust with a party and to collect confidential information for a possible solution.

   Brainstorming: For the integrative strategy to be successful parties must invent multiple alternatives to a problem. A technique to promote this step is to do a collective brainstorming. All the parties produce as much options for a solution as possible. These options are then visualised (anonimously) in front of the group. The mediator supports the creativity of the parties and sets the rules for the brainstorming (e.g. nobody has to legitimatize his/her proposals, there is no critique expressed, quantity is more importantant than quality, already exsiting ideas can be refined or expanded, etc).

   Roleplays: Roleplays are applied in order to vary the view of the parties on the given problem and thus promote the finding of alternative options for a solution. By simulating a negotiation of the past parties can learn about each other‘s thoughts and interests and develop mutual understanding. For this purpose it is even helpful to change roles. Unorthodox and creative options can be discussed without real life consequences. By playing not only past experiences but also by testing future actions and momenti in the negotiation, new alternatives of a solution are developed. As in the brainstorming sessions, the mediatior sets the groundrules for the roleplay and is in charge of its supervision, direction and analysis.

3. Creation of a specific solution out of the alternative options:

Reframing: The willingness to agree upon a certain solution to a problem might depend on the framing, i.e. the perception of this problem by the parties. For example, people are more eager to cooperate if they see a chance to increase their gains. In contrast, they tend not to cooperate if negotiations are about cutting their losses. The mediator can incentivate cooperation by reframing and altering the conflicting views and perceptions and by reinterpreting the statements made by the parties. Further, the strategy of reframing can consist in stressing the commonalties between the parties and focussing on superordinated goals.

PMI- Scheme: The different options can be categorized by different ‘scores‘: P(Plus), M (Minus) and I (Interesting). Each option is examined by discussing its positive aspects and its aspired effects (P). Then the respective option is examined according to its unwanted side effects and consequences (M). Finally all yet unknown but possible effects and aspects of materialization of this option are being listed (I). This scheme allows a sound and more detailed examination and evaluation of the given options. The parties can determine which otpion is most convenient for them.

One-Text-Method: The more parties there are in a mediation the more and different final drafts for a solution will exist. The mediator can avoid a situaton in which there are new quarrels emerging about the plans for a solution by elaborating a single draft which has to be approved by all parties. Each party can make suggestions which are added to the text. The draft is completeted over several rounds of modification which can result in renewed negotiations, but still it is one text on which everyone has to agree.

The above overview of techniques and skills are required for a mediator in a variety of conflicts, such as in the environmental or commercial area. On international missions there might be only some of these aspects applicable, given the protracted and lethal nature of these conflicts. Mediation is most successful on a specific level of conflict escalation, which limits its significance as preventive instrument at the low end of escalation as well as a means to intervene in a hot violent conflict at the high end of escalation.

But baring in mind the above mentioned order of steps and range of possible means to built communication and some degree of trust, personell on international missions could be prepared to act at a very early state of negotiation, mainly during fragile pre-negotiations. Their skills could help to:

- identify all parties involved in a conflict and establish communication with them

- achieve the acceptance of the mediator and some kind of mutual acceptance

between the parties for the sake of communication (with or without bringing the

parties to the mediation table)

- develop an exchange of information

- achieve an exchange of actions on a humanitarian basis (e.g. free passage for food

aid in combat zones)

- maintain a constant contact with all parties involved

Clearly, this section of this paper is to be specified and a definition of the conflict setting encountered by personell on international mission still to be worked out. Due to the draft character of the paper more details are needed to be known about the fields of activities of the trainees, as well as the chances for interdisciplinary work between AA-trainers or any interactions with practitioners in the field of mediation on international missions.

Bercovitch, Jacob (1995): Mediation in der Staatenwelt: Bedingungen für Erfolg oder Scheitern internationaler Vermittlungsbemühungen, in: Ropers, Norbert/ Debiel, Tobias (Hrsg.): Friedliche Konfliktbearbeitung in der Staaten- und Gesellschaftswelt. Stiftung Entwicklung und Frieden, Bonn, Pp. 89-111

Goldberg, Stephen B.; Sander, Frank E. A.; Rogers, Nancy H. (1999): Dispute Resolution. Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes. 3^rd Ed., Aspen Law & Business, Gaithersburg, New York

Kessen, Stefan and Troja, Markus (1998): Effektive Wirtschaftsmediation- als Verfahren außergerichtlicher Konfliktbearbeitung. MEDIATOR- Zentrum für Umweltkonfliktforschung und –management GmbH, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg

Lewicki, Roy J./ Litterer, Joseph A. et al (1985):Strategy and Tactics of Integrative Negotiation, in: Negotiation, 2^nd Ed., Homewood, Ill., R.D.Irvin, Pp. 80-108

Liebe, Frank/ Gilbert, Nadja (1996):Intercultural Mediation: A Difficult Brokerage. Berghof Report Nr.2, Berghof Forschungszentrum für konstruktive Konfliktbearbeitung, Berlin

Maringer, Eva/ Steinweg, Reiner (1997): Konstruktive Haltungen und Verhaltensweisen in institutionellen Konflikten. Erfahrungen, Begriffe, Fähigkeiten. Berghof Report Nr.3, Berghof Forschungszentrum für konstruktive Konfliktbearbeitung, Berlin