Should I Stay or Should I Go? Termination as a Tactic and Norwegian Mediation in Sri Lanka
What explains a mediator’s choice of tactic when faced with a situation of crisis? This article focuses on mediation in internal armed conflicts and on one particular mediation tactic: the use of the exit option as a means to pressure the parties to enter into negotiations and make concessions to end the war. We examine the conditions under which the exit option—here referred to as the termination tactic—is likely to be used. Utilizing a cost–benefit approach, we develop a theoretical framework for understanding when mediators will employ the termination tactic. The framework is applied to four crises in the Sri Lankan peace process (2000–2006), during which Norway acted as a mediator. The analysis indicates that the termination tactic is employed when mediators (a) expect few rewards from involvement in the process, (b) deem other tactics as being ineffective, and (c) perceive that the parties have incentives for mediation.
Keywords: mediation, ethnic conflict, tactics, third‐party intervention
How to Cite:
Höglund, K. & Svensson, I., (2011) “Should I Stay or Should I Go? Termination as a Tactic and Norwegian Mediation in Sri Lanka”, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 4(1), 12-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.34891/gjsr-q265