Cooking Peace? : Authoritative mediators' formulation in the Aceh conflict 2004-2005 and the Kosovo conflict 2005-2007

Many mediators exercise power across borders, facilitating talks, formulating agendas and manipulating interests of hostile parties. However, the problem of how mediators justify their use of power and how the terms of this justification legitimate mediators’ strategic conduct has not been systematically theorized and tested in the leverage literature yet. A configurational theory can provide varied combinations of mediator authority types and strategy. Two types, legal-rational authority and expert authority, will be conceptualized in relation to formulation strategy. The theory hypothesizes that an authoritative mediator’s acceptable formulation suppresses strategic bargaining and nurtures principled bargaining, propitious for agenda-based mediation success. The theory will be tested by an empirical puzzle. UN mediation on Kosovo (2005-2007) and NGO mediation on Aceh (2004-2005) have both been conducted by a directive approach but negotiations failed in the former case and succeeded in the latter. While the general co-variation supports the hypothesis from authoritative formulation, tracing the causal mechanism reveals that the theory cannot explain agenda-based mediation success in Aceh. Among other questions, a new puzzle suggests the viability of mediators’ varied speech acts as a fruitful research problem.