Abstract:Purpose This study aims to explore the factors whereby some international organizations (IOs) are more effective than others in international mediation and proposes three types of hypotheses through combining quantitative and qualitative analysis. First, IOs with greater institutional capabilities for gathering, exchanging and disseminating conflict-related information are more likely to mediate effectively. IO bias is another factor of influence in this regard. Second, IOs with greater institutional capabilities for deploying field missions and guaranteeing agreement are more likely to mediate effectively and maintain durable peace. Third, IOs with higher amounts of leverage are more likely to mediate effectively. Design/methodology/approach The study establishes two data sets: one on interstate conflict; the other on intrastate conflict, thus to cover as many research samples as possible and avoid sampling bias. Findings Results of the statistical analysis indicate that no matter interstate or intrastate conflict, IOs with higher institutional capabilities for diplomatic interventions are more likely to bring conflict parties to an agreement and thereafter maintain short-term peace. IOs with higher institutional capabilities for economic sanctions are similarly effective. Furthermore, IOs with greater institutional capabilities for field mission deployment mediate more effectively, whether in facilitating peace agreements or maintaining short-term and long-term peace after the agreement. IO bias and preference, however, have no significant impact on mediation effectiveness. Research limitations/implications This study has made no in-depth explorations of such existing and important research areas as different third-party comparisons of the mediation effect. Practical implications This paper attempts to make some contributions to the topic of mediation effectiveness through applying a bargaining model to the research and performing a statistical analysis based on both an interstate conflict data set and an intrastate conflict data set. Originality/value This paper provides an in-depth causal analysis and thoroughgoing comparison of the effectiveness of IOs in both interstate conflicts and intrastate conflicts.

Patterns of Negotiation in Non-War Disputes

Research On Shared Mental Models In Negotiations Based On Motivated Information Processing

Between indifference and coercion: Third-party intervention techniques in ongoing disputes

Mediation, Military, and Money: The Promises and Pitfalls of Outside Interventions to End Armed Conflicts

Conflict or Cooperation: A Survival Analysis of the Relationship between Regional Trade Agreements and Military Conflict

Globalization and wartime trade

Framing Strategic Conflicts: Redesign of the American Negotiating Style

Stabilizing Civil Wars without Peacekeeping: Evidence from South Asia

Training Foreign Militaries for Peace – U.S. IMET and Militarized Interstate Disputes 1976-2007

The Effectiveness in International Mediation of International Organizations

Building Bridges to Peace: A Quantitative Evaluation of Power-Sharing Agreements

How negotiators get to yes: predicting the constellation of strategies used across cultures to negotiate conflict

Cultural Similarity and Mediation Offers in Interstate Conflicts, 1945–1995

Triangulating War: Network Structure and the Democratic Peace

Negotiating violence in family law mediation

A HistOrical InvestigatiOn On InternatiOnal Dispute Settlement Mechanism

Interaction patterns in crisis negotiations: Persuasive arguments and cultural differences.

Mechanisms for Automated Negotiation in State Oriented Domains

Militarized Conflict, Trade, and Economic Development in a Structural Equation Model With Spatial Considerations

Why do warring parties enter negotiations during an ongoing war? Insights from the 2022 Ukraine–Russia talks

Domestic constraints in crisis bargaining