Fritz, Jan Marie --- "Increasing the Number of Women Mediators in Peacemaking Initiatives" [2020] IntJlCrimJustSocDem 6; (2020) 9(1) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 68

University of Cincinnati, United States; University of Johannesburg, South Africa

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy

Abstract

Mediation refers to one or more individuals facilitating a negotiation among disputants to help them try to resolve, to their satisfaction, an issue or issues of concern. There is increasing interest in using mediation in a wide variety of circumstances (e.g., divorce, child custody, family disagreements, small claims issues, business matters, community problems, environmental issues and intrastate violent conflicts). Although professional women mediators in many countries are often involved in certain kinds of mediations as mediators or as members of mediation teams, this is not always the case. Examined here is the fact that few women mediators are involved as lead mediators or members of mediation teams in conflict zones - areas that are often large, involve complex issues and have been, or continue to be, violent. This article first discusses the concepts of inclusive peacebuilding and inclusive peacemaking.^[1] This is followed by a short discussion about mediation, and then further information is provided about women mediators. Finally, suggestions are made to increase the number of women mediators in complex, large-scale conflicts.

Keywords

Women; mediation; conflict; peacebuilding; peacemaking; Track 1.

Fritz, JM (2020) Increasing the number of women mediators in peacemaking initiatives. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 9(1): 68-79. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v9i1.1466

Inclusive Peacebuilding

The term “peacebuilding” first appeared in Johan Galtung’s 1976 essay Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking and Peacebuilding. According to Tschirgi (2011: 2), the concept was quickly accepted ‘by peace studies and practitioners of conflict transformation’, but it only was used frequently after the release of An Agenda for Peace (1992), the report of the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

John Paul Lederach (1997), writing in the late 1990s, offered a broad definition of peacebuilding. He indicated that peacebuilding is ‘more than post-accord reconstruction; the term encompasses, generates, and sustains the full array of processes, approaches and stages needed to transform conflict toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships’ (Lederach 1997: 20).

A broad definition of peacebuilding is also used here. Inclusiveness is emphasized as is work at all stages of a country’s development (including post-conflict) in support of a just peace. Peacebuilding involves both the high and low-profile efforts involved in peacekeeping and peacemaking. It also should be noted that “inclusive peacebuilding” is primarily “context specific” because issues concerning people in one geographic area can be similar but still distinct from those concerning people in other locations (Etchart and Baksh 2005: 31). As such, inclusive peacebuilding, as the term is used here, takes into account the underlying structural, relational and cultural roots of conflict in an all-encompassing way (e.g., including women as well as men, different ages, different ethnicities) in order to achieve sustainable continuity and transform people’s lives in a particular setting (e.g., in a community, city, nation or region).

Even though inclusivity is being stressed by policymakers and analysts, the word “inclusive” is emphasized here because it is still not always seen as an essential part of peacebuilding. By explicitly including inclusivity in the term and in the definition, it becomes easier to remember that for peacebuilding to be effective, it must be inclusive.

Peacebuilding can occur before, during and after conflict. It includes approaches such as prevention; promotion of stability and justice; capacity building; humanitarian assistance; establishment of peace zones; reconciliation; peacekeeping; and informal as well as official peacemaking.

Inclusive Peacemaking

Peacemaking has been defined (Fisher et al. 2000:14) as ‘interventions designed to end hostilities and bring about an agreement using diplomatic, political and military means.’ The inclusion of the word “military” seemingly alludes to violent conflicts, while the word “diplomatic” probably refers to intrastate or interstate conflicts that would require national and/or international diplomatic approaches. The term “peacemaking” is usually used in relation to conflicts that are large, violent and systemic, often involving factions and affecting a community, nation or region, but the term also has been used for disputes involving individuals and/or small groups. The definition needs to cover activities as varied as peacemaking in the Navajo Nation of the US (e.g., Nielsen, Zion and Hailer 2018); John Winslade’s (2009: 560) discussion of his mother as a peacemaker with his father and the peacemaking activities of young children and chimpanzees (Verbeek and Peters 2008).

Peacemaking is defined here as interventions that are based on principles -- such as equality, harmony, inclusion and restorative justice -- that aim to end difficulties between parties and bring about an agreement. This definition covers violent intrastate conflicts as well as disputes involving individuals. Inclusive peacemaking means that peacemakers will see that any peacemaking process is all encompassing with all perspectives being represented, and that peacemakers and their teams will represent a variety of backgrounds.

Peacemaking in relation to intrastate violent conflicts is usually complicated and difficult. Some of the approaches used in the “official” peacemaking processes are well known - e.g., third-party mediation; official and unofficial diplomacy; negotiation or bargaining - while others - e.g., problem-solving workshops, citizen diplomacy, economic incentives, mediation training, conflict transformation education, attention-getting activities – are less well known. Women peacemakers often are involved in activities that are associated with and have led to peace negotiations (informal peacemaking).^[2] Women also may be participants in peace negotiations and lead mediators or members of lead mediation teams facilitating peace agreements (formal peacemaking).

Mediation

Mediation^[3] is a rights-based, humanistic and creative process in which one or more impartial individuals help parties (disputants) discuss an issue or issues that concern one or more of them, with their consent (Fritz 2014b:3). For a mediation to occur, the parties must agree to allow a third party (the mediator or mediation team) to be involved, and recognize that the third party does not have the authority to make a binding resolution (Wilkenfeld et al. 2019). The mediation process is sometimes referred to as facilitated negotiation. Rights-based mediation takes into account everyone’s human rights. A rights-based approach means that the mediation is concerned with achieving at least a minimum standard of wellbeing for parties, and those they represent, as a right of all people. Mediations should not undermine the interests of the vulnerable. A broad definition of “humanism” is used in regard to mediation. Humanistic mediation extends beyond being anthropocentric (human centred) and biocentric (moral consideration for all living things) as it also includes respect for the natural environment. In terms of mediation being “creative”, mediation can generate new concepts, ideas or associations. Creative thinking requires openness, listening, risk-taking, trust, and collaboration. Mediations are creative as well as rights-based and humanistic; they should allow and encourage all these characteristics in order to foster new analysis and decisions.

The mediator or mediation team establishes an open, trusting setting in which parties are encouraged to discuss facts as well as their personal feelings about the issue or issues that brought them to the discussion. After all parties have been identified and included, mediation is usually conducted as a flexibly-structured process and can be free flowing or more controlled.

Stage models are often used by mediators when working with disputes and conflicts. The stages are often not distinct and will differ depending on factors such as culture, mediator choice, party preference, type of mediation and complexity of the situation. In a complex situation such as a violent intrastate conflict, mediation can occur at any point beginning with the earliest point of a developing conflict. This complex kind of mediation may have moved from negotiating rather limited ceasefire agreements to involving many levels and many stakeholders to manage ceasefires as well as the root causes of the conflicts (Inclusive Peace & Transition Initiative n.d.) Many of the mediation stages may occur before an actual discussion of the central issues takes place. A great deal of time in the early stages may be spent identifying who will take part in the discussion and the procedures and processes that will be used. Several peace processes may be going on at the same time, and they may be introduced at different stages with different kinds of agreements made as a process continues (Chinkin 2003). If the outcome of any process is an agreement, it would be shaped by the parties and satisfactory to them.

The word ‘inclusive’ is being increasingly used by authors writing about mediation, including international mediations in areas of armed conflict (e.g., Dudouet et al. 2018; Jayasundara-Smits 2018). This is due to a number of factors, including that in 2009, the Council of the European Union adopted a “Concept on Strengthening EU Mediation and Dialogue Capacities” that aimed for both mediation and dialogue to be holistic and inclusive (Dudouet et al. 2018: 1). Other reasons include sustainable development goal 16 in the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015), as well as the fact that inclusivity is stressed in three 2015 UN review processes (Dudouet et al. 2018:3).

The UN has issued strong statements about the need for mediation and taken some action. The push for mediation has included the establishment of a Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisers. The Standby Team (UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs n.d.) is:

Team members can be advisers about topics such as the design and conduct of mediations, constitution design, security, gender, inclusion, power-sharing and wealth-sharing. These advisers are provided at no charge to requesting parties. In 2018, team members provided advice in the Central African Republic, Yemen and South Sudan (UN Secretary-General 2018) and, in 2019, advice was offered to Afghanistan, South Sudan, Papua New Guinea and Syria (UN Secretary-General 2019b).

In August 2018, UN Secretary-General António Guterres addressed the UN Security Council and said the UN must be ‘bold and creative’ in supporting mediation (United Nations Security Council 2018: 2). He noted:

Mediation is now a developed professional field in many countries.^[4] There are many degree programs, training opportunities as well as certification possibilities. While mediation is a profession, the word “mediator” is sometimes used in a much more general way to refer to those involved in many different kinds of peacebuilding activities (Inclusive Peace & Transition Initiative n.d.). Someone who might not have the skills and experience might be involved in some way in trying to resolve a problem and the term mediator might be used for that person. This article is about professional mediators, those with considerable training, well-developed skills and a great deal of experience.

A professional mediator or mediation team trying to help resolve large-scale conflicts should have substantial training in mediation and be very experienced in dealing with large-scale conflicts. Unfortunately, “high-level” mediators often are chosen by political appointment on the basis of diplomatic standing rather than their mediation skills and experience (Economic & Social Research Council et al. 2018).^[5] Professional mediators should be expected to make a difference in the design, participation and outcomes of these kinds of conflicts. There is very little literature discussing or evaluating the effectiveness of mediation,^[6] much less comparing professional mediation to other mediation efforts. It certainly seems worthwhile to try professional mediation for dealing with large-scale intrastate and interstate conflicts, as just, lasting settlements have been very difficult to obtain.^[7]

Institutionalised patriarchal and militarised systems are continuing barriers to women’s effective participation in conflict reduction processes (UN Women 2018). Women are under-represented or not represented at all even when international rules/standards indicate that women should be centrally included in official peace proceedings. It has been found, however, that women’s participation as signatories in post-war peace negotiations contributes to the quality as well as the durability of peace (Krause et al. 2018). The researchers concluded that ‘including women directly in peace negotiations with voice is not only a matter of justice but also of effectiveness, quality, and sustainability of peace’ (Krause et al. 2018: 985). Women should be signatories, but they also must be included as high-level mediators.^[8]

Since 2010, there have been several important initiatives that encourage the selection of women as lead mediators or part of lead mediation teams. For instance, in 2010, the Group of Friends of Mediation (n.d.) was formed by the efforts of Finland and Turkey.^[9] It consisted of 48 UN Member States, the UN and 7 regional organisations. The group has initiated four General Assembly resolutions that strengthened the role of mediation. The general aims of the group include ‘raising awareness of the need for and utility of mediation’, engaging ‘more women in mediation’ and highlighting ‘the importance of the full and effective participation of women at all stages and at all levels of peace processes as well as the crucial role of gender expertise in mediation’ (Group of Friends of Mediation n.d.: 1).

Since 2013, “High-Level Seminar(s) on Gender and Inclusive Mediation Processes” have been organized by the UN Department of Political Affairs (DPA), the Crisis Management Initiative (CMI) and the Governments of Norway and Finland in cooperation with the PRIO Centre on Gender, Peace and Security located in Norway (PRIO 2018). According to PRIO (2018: 1), the main goal of the seminars is to promote ‘women’s effective participation and build ... inclusive, gender-sensitive mediation capacity at international, regional and national levels.’

In 2017, the UN Secretary-General established a High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation to provide him with advice about mediation efforts and back specific mediation initiatives around the world. The initial board was composed of 18 current and former national leaders and senior officials of organizations.^[10] Among the members were the President of Chile; a 2011 Nobel Peace laureate; a former UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, a member of the Jordanian Senate; a former President of Kyrgyzstan; and a former President of Nigeria. In 2019, the UN Secretary-General announced that Michelle Bachelet and José Manuel Ramos-Horta were being replaced by Sima Sar (Chairperson of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and a former UN Special Rapporteur) and Juan Gabriel Valdés (Chile’s former Permanent Representative to the UN and, most recently, Ambassador to the United States) (United Nations Secretary-General 2019a). In 2018, a board member travelled to Liberia at the request of the UN Secretary-General (UN Secretary-General 2018) and, in 2019, board members ‘provided discreet counsel ... on various political processes’ to the Secretary-General and his representatives (UN Secretary-General 2019b).

Even with all the endorsements of mediation and the organizational support for women mediators, there is a very low number of women who are involved in international mediation efforts. Recent studies that analysed the major peace processes between 1992 and 2017 concluded that three per cent of mediators were women, that 3 per cent of the witnesses and signatories were women and only 9 per cent of the negotiators were women (Council on Foreign Relations 2019; Economic and Social Research Council et al. 2018). Also, a report by UN Women (2012) indicated that only 12 of 585 peace agreements referred to women’s needs during rehabilitation and reconstruction. Aggestram and Svensson (2018) presented a list of 36 women who have acted as mediators at some point between 1991 and 2014 in 24 different conflicts. However, the authors defined mediation in a broad sense, including hosting formal negotiations, conducting shuttle diplomacy, facilitating discussions, acting as formal witnesses and being signatories. While the authors classified 36 women as mediators, others would not consider some of these positions necessarily as mediators (though the roles might be part of something that mediators would do), and there is no information about how many had considerable training and experience as mediators.

A number of women’s mediator networks have been established. According to information provided by the Inclusive Peace & Transition Initiative^[11] (Bramble, personal communication 2019, March 18), twelve of the networks are:

Not included in the above list is the Women’s Network for Peace and Dialogue. This group includes 534 mediators working throughout Burundi and has received support from the UN Peacebuilding Fund since 2015. The group indicates it addressed more than 5,000 conflicts at the local level in 2015 (UN Women 2016).

The Mano River Women’s Peace Network, a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that promotes peace as well as development in the Mano River region - Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea - was formed in 2000 (Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance n.d.). Two of the other organizations were established in 2010, seven were founded between 2012-2015 and the other three were established in 2017 or 2018.

While most of the organizations mention mediation or mediator in the title of the network, those involved often could be characterized as peacebuilders working on conflict prevention, resolution or reconciliation in a variety of ways rather than as groups of professional mediators. A representative of one of the networks indicated that the network did not know how many of its members are professional (well-trained and experienced) mediators.

There are many positive comments about the establishment of these women mediation groups (Poutanen, personal communication 2019, March 11). The general thought and hope is that they will be effective in increasing the numbers of women involved in all stages of the conflict intervention process. According to Mahmoud (2018 para. 3), ‘FemWise–Africa,^[12] not unlike other newly created women mediators’ networks, has rightly put emphasis on unleashing the leadership potential of women at the community and grassroots levels who tend to be the custodians of peace, even amid devastation.’ Mahmoud (2018 para. 4) goes on to say ‘it is critical, however, that efforts like FemWise–Africa go beyond celebrating the heroic efforts of these local mediators and utilize their knowledge and expertise to influence ‘track 1’^[13] mediation processes both at the national and global levels.’

Advice about mediation processes^[14] as well as the inclusion of women is available for those selected as mediators and for all those involved in conflicts (e.g., parties to a conflict, community organizations, governments, individual citizens). Some of this advice, however, does not appear to be directed to professional mediators. For example, here is an example of advice given during a UN Security Council meeting in 2018 (para. 13) ‘Timing is important said Switzerland’s delegate. Mediation must be attempted when the time is right for settlement.’

And Katia Papagianni (2011), head of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue’s Mediation Support Programme, has written that mediators have to understand that they have to ‘build robust political processes and not simply “strike deals”... and they should resist drawing up hastily-drafted, and unrealistic, agreements.’ Youssef Mamhoud (2018) indicated that:

A question needs to be raised about what kind of mediators are being given this advice. It seems that this advice is directed to those appointing high-level mediators to deal with complex conflicts and to those who have been selected as lead mediators, when those being selected as lead mediators are not professional mediators. Professional mediators - those with extensive training, high-level skills and considerable experience - would not need this kind of advice.

If professional mediators are not being selected to address track 1 deliberations in conflict or post-conflict zones, what can be done to increase the appointment of professional mediators -both women and men? And is there special advice needed to increase the appointment of professional women mediators?

The following suggestions are among many excellent ideas (see, for instance, Chinkin 2003 and Turner 2018) to increase the number of and support for women who may be selected as lead mediators:

1. Committed leadership at all levels (e.g., community, nation, international, regional) must call attention to the problem of so few professional women mediators and put appropriate quotas in place. Male leaders, including traditional and religious leaders (Lorentzen, Toure and Gaye 2019), need to be spokespersons and take action on issues of women’s inclusion.

2. Women’s regional networks have been formed including, for example, the Nordic Women Mediators Network, FemWise–Africa and the Mediterranean Women Mediators Network). The networks have continued discussion about developing additional networks as well as an alliance of regional women mediator networks. These networks need to be influential on the national and international levels in addition to their important local and regional work. The networks need support and promotion; they already have requested support for training women mediators.

3. Organizations of mediators and facilitators must speak up about the importance of having professional mediation as well as inclusive mediation. The organisations should speak directly about the importance of having minimum quotas (at least for a specified period of time) for women as professional mediators.

4. Professional mediation organizations, women’s mediation networks as well as peace and reconciliation organizations - with the support of UN Member States, the UN and business groups – need to offer mediation training, mentorship and traineeship opportunities to women so that more women may become professional mediators.

5. Seminars and training (Lorentzen, Toure and Gaye 2019: 27) about inclusive peacebuilding at all levels need to be offered to men and women, particularly those ‘who are not active in associations and organizations, work in public offices or belong to a social elite.’ It could be particularly important to include the family members of professional women mediators, as well as those training for this role, to increase support for the mediation work. Sessions need to include information about all relevant legal support for this effort, including UN Security Council Resolution 1325^[15] and its supporting resolutions.

6. If the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation is holding a board meeting, consider adding one or more representatives of professional mediation organizations to take part in all or part of the discussion.

7. There need to be gender advisers in any offices that deal with conflict facilitation or mediation.

8. Mediations should include addressing problems facing women (e.g., personal safety, inclusion in peace processes, land reform, ownership of property, central inclusion in all major areas of a society).

9. Gender needs to be included in post-conflict needs assessments, and there should be gender budgeting and audits. Professional mediators would know to make this part of any agreements, but additional training in these areas is always helpful.

10. Funding to support women’s participation at various levels of a mediation process (including post-conflict activities) may be required. For instance, some or all women may not have personal resources to travel, participate in mediation processes and/or monitor an agreement.

11. There needs to be a continuing analysis of why mediation processes (including the role of professional mediators) are effective or not effective (Mahmoud 2018).

In August 2018, UN Secretary-General António Guterres ended his remarks to the UN Security Council by saying:

Hasn’t the time come for the UN, heads of state and leaders of regional governmental organizations to put more trust in professional mediation practices? Isn’t it time for professional mediators - women as well men - to be lead mediators? Shouldn’t these professionals be running the process rather than being, in some cases, advisers to those who were selected to be mediators by heads of state, but are not professional mediators?

As Mahmoud (2018:1) noted, ‘today’s conflicts involve a lethal mix of state and non-state actors whose world views and ideologies do not easily lend themselves to a mediated settlement.’ It is true that professional mediators will not necessarily develop a comprehensive peace settlement that is just and endures, but the chances of that happening - in full or in part - can be increased by having professionals leading the high-level mediations.

We are beyond the time where we need to keep saying that women’s groups must speak up, demand or lobby for change. They have already done so. The UN has put a number of important support mechanisms in place for mediation, but we now need to use stronger words than Member States being “encouraged” or “urged” to change. Government and UN leaders must act now. If there is still a distrust of professional approaches, using professional mediators to design and implement processes for resolving smaller disputes and conflicts in a specified geographic region can help build trust in professional processes.

It is time for professional mediation and time for the inclusion of quotas for professional women mediators. These could be important components of the ‘effective use of mediation’ called for by the UN Secretary-General (2018).

Correspondence: Jan Marie Fritz, Professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg; University of Cincinnati, School of Planning, PO 210016; Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, USA. Email: jan.fritz@uc.edu

References

Aggestam K and Svensson I (2018) Where are the women in peace mediation? In Aggestam K and Towns A (eds) Gendering Diplomacy and International Negotiation: 149–168. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillian/Springer.

Dhiaulhaq A, de Bruyn T and Gritten D (2015) The use and effectiveness of mediation in forest and land conflict transformation in Southeast Asia: Case studies from Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand. Environmental Science & Policy 45: 132-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.009

Dudouet V, Eshaq A, Basilaia E and Macharashvili N (2018) From policy to action: Assessing the European Union’s approach to inclusive mediation and dialogue support in Georgia and Yemen. Peacebuilding 6(3): 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2018.1491279

Etchart L and Baksh R (2005) Applying a gender lens to armed conflict, violence and conflict transformation. In Baksh R, Etchart L, Onubogu E and Johnson T (eds) Gender Mainstreaming in Conflict Transformation: Building Sustainable Peace: 14-33. London: The Commonwealth

Fisher S, Abdi DI, Ludin J, Smith R, Williams S and Williams S (2000) Working with Conflict: Skills and Strategies for Action: 20. London/New York: Zed Books.

Fritz J (2014a) UN Security Council resolution 1325, inclusive peacebuilding and countries in transition. In Fritz J (ed) Moving Toward a Just Peace: The Mediation Continuum. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.

Fritz J (2014b) Introduction. In Fritz J (ed.) Moving Toward a Just Peace: The Mediation Continuum. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.

Galtung J (1976) Three approaches to peace: Peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding. Peace, War and Defence: Essays in Peace Research. 2: 282-304.

Inclusive Peace & Transition Initiative (n.d.) International mediation networks research project: Observations and food for thought paper. IPTI is an initiative of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. (Unpublished).

Jayasundara-Smits S (2018) Bracing the wind and riding the norm life cycle: Inclusive peacebuilding in the European capacity building mission in Sahel–Mali (EUCAP Sahel–Mali). Peacebuilding 6(3): 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2018.1491683

Krause J, Krause W and Branfors P (2018) Women’s participation in peace negotiations and the durability of peace. International Interactions 44(6): 985–1016 https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2018.1492386

Lederach JP (1997) Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace.

Nielsen MO, Zion J and Hailer J (2018) Navajo Nation gang formation and intervention initiatives. In Hazelhurst K and Hazelhurst C (eds) In Gangs and Youth Subcultures: 141-164. New York: Routledge.

Papagianni K (2011) Can Mediation Transform Societies? Issues Emerging from the Oslo Forum. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. Geneva.

PRIO Centre on Gender, Peace and Security (2018) Ninth High-Level Seminar on Gender and Inclusive Mediation Processes, Oslo, Norway, 3 October 2018. Available at https://gps.prio.org/news/item/?x=1131 (accessed 15 September 2019).

Sugh ET and Ikwuba A (2017) Women in mediation and conflict resolutions: Lessons, challenges, and prospects for Africa. Journal of Humanities and Social Science 22(1): 1–6. DOI: 10.9790/0837-2201020106.

United Nations Security Council (2018) United Nations must be “Bold and Creative” in using mediation to broker peace, Secretary-General tells Security Council. Available at https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13475.doc.htm (accessed 15 September 2019).

United Nations Secretary-General (2018) Urging Greater Investment in Diplomacy for Peace, Secretary-General Highlights UN’s Mediation Tools, Successes, during Security Council Debate. Available at https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sgsm19182.doc.htm (accessed 15 September 2019).

Verbeek P and Peters B (2008) Peace ethology. Behaviour 145(11): 1497–1524. http://doi.org/10.1163/156853908786131270

Wilkenfeld J, Beardsley K and Quinn D (2019) Research Handbook on Mediating International Crises. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.

^[2] See, for instance, the discussion of women peacemakers in Somalia and Kenya in Sugh and Ikwuba (2017).

^[3] This section is based, in part, on information found in Moving Toward a Just Peace: The Mediation Continuum edited by Jan Marie Fritz (2014b).

^[4] The expectations or requirements for mediators can be different for the different kinds of disputes or conflicts (e.g., family disputes or intrastate war) and in different countries (e.g., the United States and Burundi). Some countries will have advanced training possibilities easily available and others will not. One would expect that complex intrastate or interstate conflicts would require mediators with extensive training and experience.

^[5] Catherine Turner, the deputy director of the Durham Global Security Institute, has called for transparency in the nominations process for high-level mediators and indicated the nomination process should have selection criteria that are skills-based and inclusive.

^[6] See, for instance, Dhiaulhaq, de Bruyn and Gritten (2014), Kichaven (2009) and Martinez-Pecino et al. (2008).

^[7] In Afghanistan, for instance ‘All efforts at resolving the current conflict through negotiations have ended without success. These initiatives of the past seventeen years include high-level talks with the Taliban, reintegration programs, track-2, and track-1.5 diplomatic interactions, and local peace agreements’ (Sadr 2018). Track 2, as it is defined here, involves non-governmental organizations and informal approaches, while track 1.5 involves non-governmental organizations, offers consultation and is not settlement-oriented, but also involves the informal participation of decision-makers and government representatives. Track 1 refers to decision-makers being in direct contact with each other.

^[8] As the UN Secretary-General (2019b) has noted, ‘Progress on women’s participation in formal peace processes is still lagging.’ And UN Women (2018: 3) reported there are ‘ongoing failures to include women mediators and peacebuilders who stand ready to participate.’

^[9] The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey organized the Fifth Istanbul Conference on Mediation in November 2018. The second of three sessions was about “inclusivity for mediation.” It was noted that ‘the broad participation of women in mediation processes, as civil society actors, peacemakers, signatories of peace agreements is key for the sustainability of peace deals’ (2018: 6).

^[10] The members in 2019 were Radhika Coomaraswanmy (Sri Lanka), Leymah Gbowee (Liberia), Jean-Marie Guéhenno (France), Tarja Halonen (Finland), David Harland (New Zealand), Noeleen Heyzer (Singapore), Nasser Judeh (Jordan), Ramtane Lamamra (Algeria), Graҫa Machel (Mozambique), Asha-Rose Migiro (Tanzania), Raden Mohammad Marty Muliana Natralegawa (Indonesia), Olusegun Obasanjo (Nigeria), Roza Otunbayev (Kyrgystan), Michèle Pierre-Louis (Haiti), Gert Rosenthal (Guatemala), Sima Samar (Afghanistan), Juan Gabriel Valdés (Chile) and Justin Welby (United Kingdom). See United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (n.d.).

^[11] The Inclusive Peace & Transition Initiative (n.d.), with support from the Wihuri Foundation, has developed an international mediation networks research project. The project maps the networks and reviews their ‘mandates, membership, structures, and objectives.’

^[12] The African Union (AU) Assembly of Heads of State and Government established the Network of African Women Mediators (FemWise–Africa) (Mahmoud 2018).

^[13] Track 1 diplomacy refers to official contact - direct government or decision-making contact between parties.

^[14] See, for instance, the UN publication, “Guidance on Gender and Inclusive Mediation Strategies” (United Nations Department of Political Affairs 2017).

^[15] UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 Women and Peace and Security was adopted unanimously by the Security Council on October 31, 2000. It highlights the terrible consequences of violent conflict on women and girls, as well as women’s important role in the peacebuilding processes. It calls for ‘women’s equal participation in all stages of the prevention and resolution of conflict’ (Krause et al. 2018). UNSCR 1325 is particularly important because it mandates UN member States to take action to address the difficult situation of women and girls. Catherine Turner (2018: 1) noted that only since the passing of UNSCR 1325 has ‘women in peace and security ... been on the agenda of the international community.’

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IntJlCrimJustSocDem/2020/6.html

International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy

Fritz, Jan Marie --- "Increasing the Number of Women Mediators in Peacemaking Initiatives" [2020] IntJlCrimJustSocDem 6; (2020) 9(1) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 68

Inclusive Peacebuilding

Inclusive Peacemaking

Mediation

Correspondence: Jan Marie Fritz, Professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg; University of Cincinnati, School of Planning, PO 210016; Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, USA. Email: jan.fritz@uc.edu

References