Democratic and Legal Obstacles to Mediator-imposed Peace Plans

This contribution to a symposium discussing James Ker-Lindsay's "The Emergence of 'Meditration' in International Peacemaking" (2009, this issue) considers the question of what international mediators should do if neither or only one of the parties in conflict accepts the sug...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEthnopolitics Vol. 8; no. 2; pp. 239 - 242
Main Author Noel, Sid
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Routledge 01.06.2009
Subjects
Arbitration
Crisis Intervention
International Conflict
Mediation
Peacekeeping
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This contribution to a symposium discussing James Ker-Lindsay's "The Emergence of 'Meditration' in International Peacemaking" (2009, this issue) considers the question of what international mediators should do if neither or only one of the parties in conflict accepts the suggested resolution of the mediator. Generally, either the matter is tabled or the mediators try a more "interventionist" approach, such as that proposed by Ker-Lindsay. In the recent cases of Cyprus & Kosovo, interventionist peace settlements were submitted for popular endorsement through referendums in the case of Cyprus & ratification by the UN Security Council in that of Kosovo. This paper discusses the democratic & legal obstacles faced. It also considers other cases, including that of Northern Ireland & the approach taken by George Mitchell in mediating the peace negotiations, which the author contends merits closer attention. Adapted from the source document.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1744-9057
1744-9065
DOI:10.1080/17449050902908720