Mediation on the international stage

Part 1: introduction.

In the first few years of my legal training, my exposure to mediation has been limited. While I have an awareness of mediation as a means of resolving commercial disputes between parties, I have never fully considered the role that it plays during resolution of international conflicts.

The ongoing crisis in Gaza has brought to light the role that mediation, and specific state mediators, play in resolving international conflict. In particular, the involvement of Qatar as a key mediator between Hamas and Israel. My preconception of the country, considering their reputation on issues such as discrimination against women and LGBTQI+ communities as well as migrants rights, had led me to not consider them high on the list of renowned international mediators. However, their involvement in the Hamas and Israel mediations led me to question this.

Before I could try to understand why Qatar was so well suited to this role, I thought it may be useful to consider why mediation was being utilised as the preferred approach. 

Part 2: mediation in international conflict.

"Mediation as a process of conflict management, related to but distinct from the parties' own negotiations, where those in conflict seek the assistance of, or accept an offer of help from, an outsider (whether an individual, an organization, a group, or a state) to change their perceptions or behaviour, and do so without resorting to physical force or invoking the authority of law" (Bercovitch, 1991).

I considered the above quote as my starting point, which led me to understand that mediation is one of the oldest and most common conflict resolution mechanisms and when applied correctly, it can help manage or settle conflicts. Though why is it so well-suited to international conflicts? This seems to stem from some of the characteristics of mediation itself.

Firstly, mediation as a voluntary process, taking place when the disputants seek the assistance of third parties. The right to either accept or reject an offer of mediation, or a mediation outcome, rests entirely with the disputants.

Secondly, the outcome of mediation is non-binding distinguishing it from other forms of external intervention, such as arbitration and adjudication. In mediation, third parties have no authority over disputant's compliance with a mediated outcome and this non-binding nature may influence the disputants to agree to mediation in the first place, given they are not bound to an outcome of the process.

These two characteristics mean that the outcome of mediation attempts seem to depend entirely on the disputant's willingness to resolve their conflict. In other words, mediation cannot be successful if the disputants do not see any reason to resolve the conflict quickly, or if they refuse to adhere to the terms of an outcome.

Mediation is, therefore, most useful in protracted conflicts, where disputants have reached an impasse though still have desire to end their fighting and are willing to compromise to do it. Traditionally, mediators intervene out of humanitarian interests. However, many other motives seem to play a role in their decision, including, amongst others, the desire to affect history, to spread their own ideas, to limit the conflict's impact on their own (national) interests and to extend their own influence.

Part 3: Qatar's role.

So, why Qatar? I understand that mediation lies at the heart of Qatari foreign policy and represents an attempt to mark the country as an independent and progressive international actor.

This approach was adopted in April 2003, where it was stated that Qatari foreign policy "is based on the principle of strengthening international peace and security by means of encouraging peaceful resolution of international disputes". Mediation would mark Qatar as distinct from its neighbours, which went hand in hand with the carving of an independent and innovative foreign policy. Qatar's two-year seat on the UN Security Council in 2006-2007, which coincided with several regional conflicts, including in Yemen, Lebanon, and Darfur, offered a high-profile platform for Qatari mediatory policies.

Qatar has been a strong supporter of the Palestinians as well as regional Islamist movements and has maintained ties with Hamas going back nearly two decades, whilst also keeping low-level relations with Israel at a time when other Gulf nations were firmly opposed to any outreach.

Qatari mediation itself therefore seems to owe its appeal to both its foreign policy and the emirates peculiar network of regional and global relations. Largely aligned with US policy in the Middle East, and at the same time, hosting senior Hamas officials whose government in Gaza it finances in full coordination with Israel. It would be assumed, especially considering the level of Qatari involvement, that the disputants must trust the small country.

Amid international calls for a ceasefire, it is undeniable that Qatar is playing a crucial role in negotiations to secure the release of hostages on both sides. Though this led me to question what Qatar is gaining from these mediations. In considering this, I came across articles noting that the employment of soft power initiatives could be viewed as part of the country's strategy to enhance its global influence and distinguish it from neighbouring rivals - whilst also providing a safeguard against criticism it faces for supporting groups considered terrorist organisations by western nations.

Part 4: impartiality as a cornerstone of mediation.  

When trying to understand more about the role of mediators in international conflict and whether any separate motivations may influence this involvement, the phrase "impartiality is a cornerstone of mediation" came up. This relates to mediators adopting an impartial role - if the mediation process is perceived to be biased, it can undermine any meaningful progress to resolve the conflict. A mediator should be able to run a balanced process that treats all actors fairly and should not have a material interest in the outcome, also requiring the mediator to be able to talk to all actors relevant in resolving the conflict.

What I found interesting though, is this being caveated with "impartiality is not synonymous with neutrality". In a situation like this, with a significant imbalance of power between the disputants, the relationship being, arguably, entirely non-existent, and Qatar's ongoing relationship with Hamas, could Qatari mediations in this conflict ever truly exist in an impartial vacuum? While Qatari mediators are still perceived as relatively impartial, it has been noted that Qatar may struggle to maintain its reputation as an impartial mediator in the future, and there may be limits to Qatar's diplomatic reach.

The country is also faced with significant constraints on the policy effectiveness of Qatari mediation, arguably lacking the administrative and on-the-ground resources to translate initial agreements into sustainable resolution – its diplomatic service perhaps too small to follow up on implementation once negotiations end. Leading me to question whether these constraints suggest that perhaps Qatar is trying to do to much with too little resource.  

Part 5: closing thoughts.

The narrative surround Qatari involvement appears to be that Qatar likes to make itself useful, and in the process display its values to the larger surrounding powers. These mediations may arguably be the country's greatest test yet, but they may be unlikely to be the last.

Considering ongoing mediations in this crisis, and specifically Qatar's involvement, has challenged my preconceptions on mediation and Qatar itself. While at this time there are plenty of differing schools of thought on this, it is undeniable that there is a role for Qatar as a state mediator in this conflict.

Nikki Forde, Trainee Solicitor