Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".