Mediation is a type of negotiation involving third parties. According to Jakob Berkovic, “the provisions of some forms of third-party mediation have recently been discovered in the Amarna letters (referring to the reign of King Amenhotep IV about 3,500 years ago).” References to facilities can be found in the Bible, Iliad Homer , Sophocles’ Ajax, Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet. This method of conflict management was also known in ancient China, in the system of Greek city states, in Renaissance diplomacy, and so forth. During the First Hague Conference of 1899, the Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, article 2, was signed. “In case of disagreement or serious dispute, before the arms appeal, the signatories agree to resort to good offices or mediation to one or more friendly countries, Circumstances “.
In the contemporary legal system, the most important legal basis for this form of conflict management is Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states:” The parties to a conflict, the continuation of which is likely to jeopardize the maintenance of international peace and security, Solution through negotiation, investigation, mediation or fulfillment S arbitration or judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their choice. However, theoretical studies have not shown only in the second half of the twentieth century and the twenty-century atheist. The most prominent mediators who use their work or ideas in this article are Ellen Papeet, John H. Barton, Jacob Berkovic, Melanie J. Greenberg, Margaret E. McGuinness, Jeffrey G. Robin, Lawrence Suskind, Saadia Toffal, and William Zartman. The main difference of opinion regarding the “mature” nature of the dispute for third-party participation and the utility of the use of reward and coercive force discussed in the text is noted on the basis of country experience. With regard to Qatari mediation, the most important research that is critically employed here is the work of Sultan Barakat, Andrew F. Cooper, Mohammed Hass Gass, Hansen, Mehran Kamrava, Halvard Lira, Basma Momani, Sarah Bolam, David B Roberts, and Christian Coates Ulrichsen. The main difference of views on the issues of the reasons for the country mediation and some of its tools and techniques discussed below was found.
Before focusing on Qatari mediation, it is important to recognize several nuances. First, the term “mediation” is used here in the definition by J. Bercovich, id est, “[…] the process of conflict management, which is related but different from the efforts of the parties themselves, where the conflicting parties or their representatives request assistance or accept a offer of assistance, Of an individual, group, state or organization to change, conceive or influence their perceptions or behavior, without resorting to physical force or invoking the power of law. ” Second, since it is derived from the accepted definition, mediation is the process of conflict management, not just a solution to the conflict. The reasons for resorting to this tool may be different; for example, reduce stress. As M. As a mediator, “mediation is necessary, but in and of itself it is not a sufficient element to resolve conflicts”. Mediation is therefore a tool for conflict management and has different forms of implementation depending on the context of the conflict, the nature of the parties, the mediator (intermediaries), etc.
Qatar became independent only in 1971. Long before independence, the Al-Thani dynasty continued to face the dilemma of the so-called small state. Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad Al-Thani has solved this problem by relying on Saudi Arabia’s protection. The situation changed only in 1995 when Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani became a new Emir after the bloody coup. It changed the country’s foreign policy and introduced innovations. In order to understand the role of mediation in foreign affairs, the cornerstone of Qatar’s foreign policy should be discovered. Henry Lira criticizes in his article the approach that explains the application of the Doha foreign policy from the point of security dilemma of a small country as insufficient. “If Qatar has achieved maximum safety, […] we should expect to see a more coherent policy toward both the outside dominant (the United States) and the local superpowers (Saudi Arabia and Iran).”
The author adds, Inter alia, the maintenance of the system for reasons and reasons for foreign policy actions in Doha. Maintaining the regional system of international relations is in line with Qatar’s maximum security. Maintaining the regional order as the principle of state sovereignty as a fundamental principle of international law ensures the security concerns of this lily. Mediation facilitates the enhancement of the image as a peace broker, as the champion of peace. These principles can also serve the purpose of maintaining the regional system. Moreover, the current state of regional balance of power is critical to Qatar’s survival. The Gulf War of 1991 clearly made this conclusion because Kuwait is a small country in the same region. Qatari mediation in Yemen, Lebanon and Darfur can be interpreted as part of the strategy to limit the growth of Iran’s agents. However, it is doubtful to be among the main reasons for such interference. Ensuring security is thus the primary objective of Qatar’s foreign policy.
The other goal of the foreign policy of the march is influence or leadership. The second and third circles of recognition, where Qatar presents itself as “a state working for unity within the Arab world and Muslims”, and the fourth, seeking to be the first among the equals of small States, point to action to achieve this goal. . Doha has the wealth and resources to influence the regional system of international relations. Trying to take advantage of the opportunities available. As a result, you can also get a more secure environment in this way. Mediation can be another tool to achieve this goal. The effect can also be enhanced by soft power. The liberalization of the economy in Qatar has not only facilitated the diversification of the country’s economy and the accumulation of vast amounts of wealth. Political reforms here were top-down, and people were not required to do so.
In 1999, the general suffrage was introduced; in 2000, the ruling family council was established; in 1995, the elections of the Central Municipal Council were announced for women to vote and to vote. However, as S. Williams admits, “it was not until 2003 that a female was elected to CMC” . Because of uncertainty about the results of the Shura elections, the latter was postponed. This means that reforms are aimed at soft power. Mediation can be another means of the latter. Article 7 of the 2003 Constitution provides that Qatar’s foreign policy is “based on the principle of promoting international peace and security by promoting the peaceful resolution of international disputes”. Mediation strengthens the soft power of the libote. In his famous work, “The Art of Negotiating with the Sovereign Sovereigns”, Francois de Cagliere noted that “nothing [other than mediation] is more appropriate to raise the reputation of his power and make it respectable by all nations.” This soft power also contributes to the emirate’s legitimacy in the international arena, its status and standing on the world stage, and thus can enhance Qatari influence and security.
The brand of the state is a strategy to multiply and amplify the Presbyterian efforts in soft power and influence. Qatar publishes its attractive image. The main application for distribution of this image is Al Jazeera, which was founded in 1996 and started broadcasting in English in 2006. Officially, the media network is independent and free from censorship. However, it depends on state funding and therefore, “self-censorship continues to play an important role.”. The regime strengthened its control of the island when its director, Wadah Khanfar, was replaced in 2011 by Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassem al-Thani. In addition, Sheikh Hamad Bin Thamer Al Thani is the President of Al Jazeera Media Network. Thus, the channel provides an image that is important for the emirate’s influence and soft power. The mediation of concrete conflicts is always accompanied by Al Jazeera broadcasts. On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that the main objectives of Qatar’s foreign policy are its security and impact. For the early, the main contributors are their efforts in maneuvering, maintenance of the regional system, economic and financial aspects of survival. For the latter, the emirate uses opportunities and endeavors to obtain soft power that also contributes to its legitimacy and prestige. Mediation is only one tool to achieve these goals and goals. Conflict resolution is not a major driver of mediation. Reducing tension in most cases is sufficient to provide an image of a neutral peace broker, security and influence.
The Qatari mediation experience reveals that dealing with second-tier stakeholders is critical to successful conflict management. This is what Hans Hansen calls window opportunity. In most of its mediation cases, Qatar was not a key option for the facilitator. Only took the floor when other States agreed or were not against it. In Palestine, Doha mediated after Egypt’s failure (pro-Fatah) in 2006, Egypt, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia’s failure in 2008. Friendly relations with the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt) helped to conclude the Doha agreement in 2012. Participation Doha in the conflict between Djibouti and Eritrea It was only possible because “Ethiopia did not have a few levers”. 16. However, the most observable example is Yemen. The results of national efforts in 2008 and 2010 to mediate in the Saada war failed because of Saudi Arabia’s negative attitude toward them, among other things. However, the joint intervention in 2011 led to the admission of a. Valid. Moreover, it is recognized for. Suskind and I. “The mediator must understand the interests of these second-tier parties and consult them during the negotiations.” In Lebanon, only after “the prince telephoned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad … [Hizbullah negotiators] announced their agreement to the terms of the agreement.” 18 Thus, the window of opportunity, the acceptance of the mediation itself and its results by second- Is vital to the success of conflict mediation.
In the literature on mediation, the need to involve a wide range of actors in the mediation process is often stressed. Such integration is important for conflict resolution. However, for conflict management, it is enough to involve the main adversaries, the conflicting parties. In Darfur, failure to deal with the conflict was due, inter alia, to unsuccessful attempts to involve the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), a crucial fight, after signing a deal from the Sudanese government with the Liberation and Justice Movement. The situation of Yemen reveals the need for cohesion of the conflicting parties. Qatar’s failure to involve all tribes in the process contributed largely to the resumption of fighting in 2008.
The question of integrity is one of the most controversial issues. On the one hand, “[…] it seems that the choice of mediator depends on […] more than anything else, neutrality and impartiality”, according to J.H. Barton and M.C. Greenberg. On the other hand, S. Touval and W. Zartman point out that “the only biased mediator […] would be credible in this context”. However, in the latter case, the other party must consider the facilitator to be impartial, or at least not an enemy. In 2011, a. It is good for Qatar to distance itself from the peace process, because it is no longer viewed as neutral and acceptable. Qatari relations with Hamas, Hezbollah and various parts of Sudan mainly through humanitarian relief or other forms of aid have made them acceptable as a facilitator in the future. S.J. Hansen claims that Doha was biased in Lebanon and Palestine. However, it was still acceptable because it maintained positive contacts not only with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran but also with Israel and the US, etc. Mediation will not be possible if Qatar is not accepted as a friend or at least not an enemy by two or more parties. “The third party [Qatar] can be trusted by the parties”, according to Jeffrey R. Peridge. In the conflict between Djibouti and Eritrea, Doha had friendly relations with both countries.
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here.