The role of norms in international peace mediation has become increasingly prominent, as mediators are not only expected to end conflict, but asked to integrate certain norms into their strategies. However, existing research focuses on contextual conditions and material factors leading to peace agreements rather than the normative frameworks that may inform mediators’ behaviour in the first place. Burgeoning research exploring the normative framework in mediation does not yet account for (1) the diffuse legal and political sources of norms in mediation processes and (2) how these differentiated sources affect the way different types of mediators design and conduct their interventions.
The legal and political sources of relevant norms in mediation are distinct and can stem from legal instruments such as Human Rights Law to political movements such as gender equality. Furthermore, mediators themselves are not homogenous actors, and can be mandated by states, inter-governmental organizations, or non-governmental organizations. This paper argues that the lack of distinction in these two ontological areas can create confusion and contributed to un-nuanced debates on norm diffusion processes in mediation and the ability of mediators to promote norms.
Using document analysis and insights from interviews with a range of mediation actors, this paper attempts to fill these gaps and build a schematic typology of the sources norms in mediation processes that distinguishes between their legal and political origins. This schematic typology also considers the differentiated mandates among mediators, focusing on the sources of norms relevant to mediators mandated by non-governmental organizations. The overall aim of this paper is contribute to academic research on what kind of norms are being diffused in mediation processes and shed light on the agency of mediators.
