| This dissertation argues that Arab mediation is distinctive from mediation that occurs in countries in other parts of the world in terms of the likelihood of Arab countries choosing it as a method of conflict resolution, in terms of the manner or process by which it is conducted, and in terms of the outcomes of mediation. two clusters of independent variables are responsible for the distinctive nature of Arab mediation: those linked with Arab political regimes and those linked with Arab culture.;This topic is important both practically and theoretically. It is of practical importance because of the geopolitical significance of the region and the high incidence of domestic and international conflict that has occurred in the region in the post-war period. Presumably, a better understanding of Arab mediation would lead to more peaceful resolution of conflict in the region. It is of theoretical significance because I will identify variables important to mediation that have generally been ignored by other scholars. These variables, as indicated above, include those linked with political regimes and those linked with culture. Previous scholarly research, such as that of Bercovitch, identifies sets of variables linked with context, process, and outcomes of mediation, but ignores other variables that arguably are as important if not more important, particularly in the Middle East.;Method. Bivariate, multivariate and logistic regressions were employed in this study. Data on mediated conflicts were taken from Dr. Jacob Bercovitch Data set (1997). My approach involves the specification of hypotheses related to the processes and outcomes of mediation; and the analysis of cases to determine whether or not those cases are consistent with the hypotheses. Two units of analysis are used; namely, the dispute and mediation efforts. Two cases represent Arab-Arab disputes at the domestic level (Yemen civil war, 1962--1968), and at the regional level (Kuwait-Iraq crisis, 1958--1961). Moreover, three case studies represent Arab-non-Arab disputes at the domestic and international level. Sudan I (Addis-Ababa agreement of 1972), and Sudan II after Addis-Ababa, which is the case representing failure of mediation efforts. The last case-study (Egypt-Israel Camp David mediation effort) features the study of mediation success at the international level. All these cases are analyzed within the framework of the contingency approach to mediation success developed by Jacob Bercovitch and James Lamare (1993). They hypothesized that the outcomes of mediation efforts and disputes are contingent upon a number of contextual and process variables. The study concludes with a set of characteristics and recommendations regarding mediation in Middle Eastern disputes. |
