MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157471658 · doi:10.1163/19426720-01602004

Introduction: The SRSGs and the Management of Civil Wars

2010· article· en· W2157471658 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy D. Sisk

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Governance A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePeacekeepingMediationNegotiationCivil societyContext (archaeology)Public administrationPoliticsLawSpanish Civil WarTransformative mediationCorporate governanceSociologyAlternative dispute resolutionManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that mediation by special representatives of the Secretary-General (SRSGs) in civil wars involves a distinctly clear strategic purpose: by conducting international mediation and managing international assistance, SRSGs structure the incentives for parties in conflict to exchange the battlefield with a reformed, renewed, or created state. The article offers a substantive introduction to a special-focus section of this issue of Global Governance on the role of the SRSGs in mitigating civil wars. The introduction describes the often conflicted and multilayered role that these individuals play in managing the mediation process, serving as the principal for large-scale UN peacekeeping or political missions, in navigating within the Secretariat and in relation to the Security Council, and in coordinating on-the-ground a panoply of international organizations, regional organizations, donor agencies, and humanitarian or other nongovernmental organizations. The article concludes with three principal issues that consideration of SRSG roles in civil war termination raises: choice, context, and conduct In sum, for more effective leadership management of efforts to end civil wars, the roles and functions of the SRSGs need to become more institutionalized. KEYWORDS: civil wars, mediation. United Nations, peace negotiations. ********** THREE CRITICAL, POLICY-RELEVANT FINDINGS EMERGE FROM THE LITERATURE on sustainable war termination in civil wars. First, the parties cannot do it on their own: protagonists in civil wars need reassurances throughout the transition from war to peace, and they are more likely to succeed if a robust third-party force helps consolidate the peace. (1) The second finding is that mediation must continue well into the postconflict phase, as countries emerging from war are deeply vulnerable to recurring conflict, or new crises and disputes that threaten the peace. (2) The third finding is that the process involves close, careful, and sometimes coercive stewardship of the political process by a third-party mediator to carefully design ongoing negotiation through often violent transitional moments and years beyond a peace settlement. (3) The continuity between the war termination phase, or peacemaking, and the postsettlement agreement phase, or peacebuilding, means that international mediation is inherently long-term engagement and that context-specific leadership from the highest levels of the United Nations--typically by a special representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) (4)--is essential for bringing today's civil wars to an end. Moreover, it is clear that the choice, preparation, conduct, and efficacy of the SRSG are deeply complex processes and issues, often involving negotiation of interest-based preferences from key member states and other disruptions from below. Surprisingly, the academic literature on SRSGs as such is relatively thin, despite the critical role these individuals play in the global management of civil wars, arguably the most directly injurious security threat the world faces. These special focus articles present research conducted under the auspices of the Sustainable Peacebuilding Project, a joint endeavor of the Center for Sustainable Development and International Peace at the Josef Korbel School of the University of Denver and Center for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa. The project was sponsored by the Program in International Peace and Security of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The research was the subject of collective consideration at a seminar in New York on 19 February 2009. The project addressed three critical questions on the roles and challenges of the SRSGs, with the aim of bridging the gap between research and policy in this critical area. One conclusion emerged strongly that finds its way throughout the essays that follow. SRSG mediation in civil wars involves a distinctly clear strategic purpose: by harnessing international mediation and managing international assistance, SRSGs provide the opportunity, and structure the incentives, for parties in conflict to exchange the uncertainty and cost of the battlefield and to reach an agreement by which the conflict on the battlefield is arbitrated in a reformed, renewed, or created state. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Governance A Review of Multilateralism and International OrganizationsSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207