Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T16:10:44.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A case study of mediation as a method of International conflict resolution: the Camp David experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Jacob Bercovitch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper purports to contribute to the development of a theory of international mediation by considering, in some detail, the experience at Camp David and more specifically the role of President Carter. The uniqueness of this event cannot of course be ignored, but even unique cases can contribute to theory development especially if they are considered as one of a class of events. Single cases can provide a powerful impetus to the development of a general explanation as long as they are historically grounded and their description is not couched in purely idiosyncratic terms.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 43 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For a discussion of the logic of this approach see George, A., ‘Case studies and theory development: The method of structured focused comparison’, in Lauren, P. G. (ed.), Diplomacy (New York, 1979), pp. 43–68Google Scholar.

2. On the conditions influencing the course of conflict, see Deutsch, M., The Resolution of Conflict (New Haven, 1973)Google Scholar.

3. Resolution is a special form of conflict termination that is associated with supportive techniques and a change in the parties’ attitudes and perceptions. It is particularly important in the work of Burton and Doob. See Burton, J. W., Conflict and Communication (London, 1969)Google Scholar; Doob, L. (ed.), Resolving Conflict in East Africa: The Fermeda Workshop (New Haven, 1970)Google Scholar. On conflict outcomes in general see Boulding, K., Conflict and Defense (New York, 1962)Google Scholar and Kriesberg, L., Social Conflicts (Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ, 1982)Google Scholar.

4. Holsti, K., ‘Resolving International Conflict: A Taxonomy of Behaviour and Some Figures on Procedure’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 10(3), 1966, pp. 272–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Zacher, M., International Conflicts and Collective Security (New York, 1979)Google Scholar.

6. Butterworth, R. L., Managing Interstate Conflicts, 1945–1974 (Pittsburgh, PA, 1976)Google Scholar.

7. I refer in particular to the work of Burton, op. cit. and Deutsch, op. cit. Also to Fisher, R., ‘Third Party Consultation: A Method for the Study and Resolution of Conflict’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16(1), 1972, pp. 67–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rubin, J. Z. (ed.), Dynamics of Third Party Intervention: Kissinger in the Middle East (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; Walton, R., Interpersonal Peacemaking: Confrontations and Third Party Consultation (Reading, MA, 1969)Google Scholar; Young, O. R., The Intermediaries: Third Parties in International Crises (Princeton, NJ, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rubin, J. Z., ‘Experimental Research on Third Party Intervention in Conflict’, Psychological Bulletin, 87(3), 1980, pp. 379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wall, J., ‘Mediation: An Analysis, Review and Proposed Research’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25(2), pp.157–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Bercovitch, J., Social Conflicts and Third Parties: Strategies of Conflict Resolution (Boulder, CO, 1984)Google Scholar.

9. See Burton, op. cit., Doob, op. cit. See also , Burton, ‘Resolution of Conflict’, International Studies Quarterly, 16(1), 1972, pp. 5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; , Doob and Foltz, , ‘The Belfast Workshop: An Application of Group Techniques to a Destructive Conflict’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17(4), 1973, pp. 489–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, S., et al., ‘Evolving Intergroup Techniques for Conflict Resolution’, Journal of Social Issues, 33(2), 1977, pp. 165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Kelman, H., ‘The Problem Solving Workshop in Conflict Resolution’, in Merritt, R. L. (ed.), Communication and International Relations (Urbana, IL, 1972), pp. 168–204Google Scholar.

10. See J. Bercovitch, op. cit.

11. This is known as the problem of transference or re-entry (how to transfer changed attitudes and perceptions to the policy process). On this issue see Bercovitch, , ‘Resolving the Middle East Conflict: A Non-Traditional Approach to International Conflict’, International Problems, 16(2), 1977, pp. 89–99.Google Scholar

12. A third party strategy that proves effective at a relatively low level of intensity may prove ineffective or even counterproductive in a high-density conflict. See Rubin (1980), op. cit.

13. Stevens, C., Strategy and Collective Bargaining Negotiations (New York, 1963), p. 123Google Scholar.

14. Schelling, T., The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, MA, 1960), p. 44Google Scholar.

15. These characteristics are discussed further in Bercovitch, , ‘Problems and Approaches in the Study of Bargaining and Negotiation’, Political Science, 36(2), 1984, pp. 125–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. Ibid. See also Shea, G., ‘The Study of Bargaining and Conflict Behaviour’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(4), 1980, pp. 706–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Sawyer, J. and Guetzkow, H., ‘Bargaining and Negotiation in International Relations’, in Kelman, H. (ed.), International Behaviour: A Social Psychological Analysis (New York, 1965), pp. 466–520Google Scholar.

18. Druckman, D., Human Factors in International Negotiations: Social-Psychological Aspects of International Conflict (Beverly Hills, CA, 1973).Google Scholar

19. Bercovitch, op. cit.

20. Wall, op. cit., p. 158.

21. For an account of the negotiations at Camp David see Zion, S. and Dan, W., ‘The Untold Story of the Middle East Talks’, New York Times Magazine, 21 January 1979Google Scholar.

22. Key decision makers with a strong and secure power-base tend to negotiate more cooperatively than delegates. See Hermann, M. and Kogan, N., ‘Negotiation in Leader and Delegate Groups’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 12(3), 1968, pp. 332–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Lamm, H. and Kogan, N., ‘Risk Taking in the Context of Intergroup Negotiation’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6(3), 1970, pp. 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. See Carter, J., Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President (London, 1982)Google Scholar and Sadat, A., In Search of Identity: An Autobiography (London, 1978)Google Scholar.

24. See International Herald Tribune, 8 September 1978.

25. Brzezinski recounts how distressed and agitated Carter would be after his meetings with Begin and also how adept he was at breaking protocol (e.g. talk to Weizman and Barak rather than to Begin) in a manner that would upset Begin. See Brzezinski, Z., Power and Principle (New York, 1983)Google Scholar.

26. Text of Begin's speech at the White House, The Jerusalem Post, 22 September 1978.

27. Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 255.

28. See The Times, 4 September 1978.

29. See Carter, op. cit., pp. 359–364.

30. See Brzezinski, op. cit., pp. 256–258.

31. See Touval, S., The Peace Brokers: Mediators in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948–1979 (Princeton, NJ, 1982), p. 298Google Scholar.

32. For a review of the effects of these factors in international negotiation see Ikle, F., How Nations Negotiate (New York, 1964)Google Scholar.

33. See Carter, op. cit., p. 338.

34. See Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 253.

35. Ibid.

36. See The Jerusalem Post, 13 May 1977.

37. Financial Times, 14 August 1978.

38. For an analysis of Soviet objectives in the Middle East see Freedman, R., Soviet Policy Toward the Middle East Since 1970, 3rd Ed. (New York, 1982)Google Scholar, and Steele, J., The Limits of Soviet Power (London, 1984)Google Scholar.

39. See Carter, op. cit., pp. 353–355.

40. Begin's belief in this respect is supported by Fisher's notion of fractionating conflict. See Fisher, R., ‘Fractionating Conflict’, in Fisher, R. (ed.) International Conflict and the Behavioral Sciences (New York, 1964), pp. 91–110Google Scholar.

41. The Guardian, 1 September 1978.

42. See Carter, op. cit., pp. 352–355.

43. Providing parties with the opportunities to communicate does not necessarily produce effective communication. Strong role factors and commitment to one's group impair the ability to communicate effectively. See Deutsch, M. and Krauss, R., ‘Studies of Interpersonal Bargaining’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16(1), 1962, pp. 52–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. See Ikle, op. cit. See also Nicolson, H., Diplomacy (Oxford, 1969)Google Scholar and Harrimann, W., ‘Observations on Negotiating’, Journal of International Affairs, 29(1), 1975, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar

45. Carter, op. cit., p. 318.

46. Ibid., p. 402.

47. See Hirst, D. and Beeson, I., Sadat (London, 1981), pp. 302–305Google Scholar.

48. See the Sunday Times, 24 September 1978.

49. For an account of these successive drafts see The Jerusalem Post, 26 September 1978.

50. It is interesting to note that Begin and his advisers were convinced that Carter's control over communication and his understanding of details was due to the American ‘bugging’ of the cottages at Camp David. See Dayan, M., Breakthrough: A Personal Account of the Egypt-Israel Peace Negotiation (London, 1981), p. 178Google Scholar. This was, of course, denied by American officials. See Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 254.

51. Carter, op. cit., p. 349.

52. For an interesting account of Carter's direct and active mediation see Vance, C., Hard Choices (New York, 1983)Google Scholar.

53. Dayan, op. cit., p. 193.

54. Brzezinski, op. cit., pp. 271–272.

55. See The New York Times, 16 February 1979.