Great Power Mediation and Bias : Investigating how bias in great mediation affects post-conflict levels of violence

Abstract: It has long been argued in scholarly research that powerful third parties make excellent third parties due to their superior economic and military capabilities, yet surprisingly little scholarly attention has been paid to superpower mediation and bias, and how it affects post-conflict levels of bias. While it is expected that powerful mediators, with their leverage and ability to enforce peace agreements with military force will be biased mediators, cases of mediation by superpowers shows this is often not the case. By exploring the phenomenon of post-conflict levels of violence and how it is correlated with great power mediation bias, this study focuses on specific cases of superpower mediation, while allowing for the idiosyncracies of each conflict to be integrated. Guided by previous empirircal findings, this study argues that levels of post-conflict violence will be lower in countries mediated by biased superpowers due to the leverage, influence and credibility they bring to the mediation process, and ability to 'deliver their side' in negotiations. This study will employ a structured focused comparison to provide a systemic comparison to test the hypothesis on three selected conflicts, the 2001/02 India-Pakistan standoff, the Dayton Agreement and Oslo peace process.