Between principle and practice: the illusion of neutrality in international conflict mediation

Authors

  • Anna D. Cherniak Belarusian State University, 4 Niezaliezhnasci Avenue, Minsk 220030, Belarus

Keywords:

neutrality, international mediation, UN, US, China, conflicts, diplomacy

Abstract

In contemporary international relations, mediator neutrality exists largely as a declarative ideal that conflicts with the realities of political and economic interests. Mediation practices by the UN, the OSCE, the African Union, and states such as Norway, Qatar, Indonesia, the US, and China demonstrate that impartiality is systematically compromised by structural factors. These factors include geopolitical priorities and the mediator’s asymmetrical perceptions of conflicting parties. The analysis contrasts American and Chinese approaches to mediation: while Washington integrates mediation with the promotion of its values, Beijing emphasises economic pragmatism without abandoning engagement. The article examines three dimensions of neutrality (institutional, strategic, and perceptual) revealing its contingent nature. Findings suggest modern mediation functions as a «diplomacy of the possible», where strict neutrality yields to tactical flexibility, and negotiation effectiveness correlates with transparency regarding mediators’ interests.

Author Biography

  • Anna D. Cherniak, Belarusian State University, 4 Niezaliezhnasci Avenue, Minsk 220030, Belarus

    postgraduate student at the department of international relations, faculty of international relations

References

  1. Davies Sh, Engström G, Pettersson T, Öberg M. Organized violence 1989–2023, and the prevalence of organized crime groups. Journal of Peace Research. 2024;61(4):673–693. DOI: 10.1177/00223433241262912.
  2. Bercovitch J, Gartner SS. Is there method in the madness of mediation? Some lessons for mediators from quantitative studies of mediation. International Interactions. 2006;32(4):329–354.
  3. Vuković S. Soft power, bias and manipulation of international organizations in international mediation. International Negotiation. 2015;20:414–443.
  4. Zartman IW. Ripe for resolution: conflict and intervention in Africa. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989. 320 p.
  5. Kydd A. Which side are you on? Bias, credibility, and mediation. American Journal of Political Science. 2003;47(4):597–611.
  6. Touval S, Zartman IW, editors. International mediation in theory and practice. Boulder: John Hopkins University; 1985. 274 p.
  7. Theofilopoulou A. The United Nations and Western Sahara. A never-ending affair. Washington: United States Institute of Peace; 2006. 20 p.
  8. Falk R. Palestine’s horizon: toward a just peace. London: Pluto Press; 2017. 209 p.
  9. de Waal A. Darfur and the failure of the responsibility to protect. International Affairs. 2007;83(6):1039–1054.
  10. Tieku TK. The African Union: successes and failures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019. 25 p. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.703.
  11. Ferim V. African solutions to African problems: the fault line in conflict resolution in Africa. In: Muchie M, Lukhele-Olorunju P, Akpor O, editors. The African Union ten years after: solving African problems with pan-Africanism and the African Renaissance. Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa; 2013. p. 1–19.
  12. Abilov Sh. OSCE Minsk group: proposals and failure, the view from Azerbaijan. Insight Turkey. 2018;20(1):143–163.
  13. Dunay P. The OSCE in Central Asia: engagement, presence, problems. Security and Human Rights. 2022;32:17–27. DOI:10.1163/18750230-bja10013.
  14. Höglund K. Mediating between tigers and lions: Norwegian peace diplomacy in Sri Lanka’s civil war. Contemporary South Asia. 2009;17(2):175–191. DOI: 10.1080/09584930902870792.
  15. Waage HH. Norway’s role in the Middle East peace talks: between a strong state and a weak belligerent. Journal of Palestine Studies. 2005;34(4):6–24.
  16. Barfield T. Afghanistan: a cultural and political history. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2021. 436 p.
  17. Azis AA, Indraswari FV, Khatimah AR, Azzahra AQF. Indonesia’s approach toward Myanmar’s crisis: understanding the different perspectives of the democracy process in Indonesia and Myanmar and the role of the military. Hubungan Internasional. 2023;12(1):63–75. DOI: 10.18196/jhi.v12i1.17997.
  18. Marsetio, Octavian A, Rudiyanto, Duah J, Gibson E, Gunavan K, et al. The South China Sea dispute and regional maritime security: Indonesia’s perspective. International Journal of u- and e- Service Science and Technology. 2017;10(8):111–122. DOI: 10.14257/ijunesst.2017.10.8.11.
  19. Touval S. Mediation in the Yugoslav wars: the critical years, 1990–1995. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2002. 211 p.
  20. Bercovitch J, Schneider G. Who mediates? The political economy of international conflict management. Journal of Peace Research. 2000;37(2):145–165.
  21. Bloomfield D. Peacemaking strategies in Northern Ireland: building complementarity in conflict management theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 1997. 256 p.
  22. Holbrooke R. To end a war. New York: Random House; 1998. 448 p.
  23. Suhrke A. When more is less: the international project in Afghanistan. London: Hurst Publishers; 2011. 293 p.
  24. Pressman J. Visions in collision: what happened at Camp David and Taba? International Security. 2003;28(2):5–43.
  25. Abbink J. Ethiopia – Eritrea: proxy wars and prospects of peace in the Horn of Africa. Journal of Contemporary African Studies. 2003;21(3):407–426. DOI: 10.1080/0258900032000142446.
  26. de Coning C, Peter M, editors. United Nations peace operations in a changing global order. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2019. 359 p.
  27. Нечай АА. Участие КНР в миротворческой деятельности Организации Объединенных Наций. Социально-политические науки. 2022;12(5):96–103. DOI: 10.33693/2223-0092-2022-12-5-96-103.
  28. Черняк АД. Посредничество Китая на Ближнем Востоке. В: Достанко ЕА, редактор. Дипломатия Беларуси в условиях новых вызовов. Материалы Международной научной конференции; 23 марта 2023 г.; Минск, Беларусь. Минск: БГУ; 2023. c. 139–144.
  29. Leksyutina YV. China’s economic diplomacy in the 21st century. Far Eastern Affairs. 2015;43(2):65–81.
  30. Large D. China and South Sudan’s Civil War, 2013–2015. African Studies Quarterly. 2016;16(3–4):35–54.
  31. Small A. The China – Pakistan axis: Asia’s new geopolitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. 288 p.

Downloads

Published

2025-07-11

Issue

No. 1 (2025): Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations

Section

International Relations

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)

How to Cite

Between principle and practice: the illusion of neutrality in international conflict mediation. (2025). Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations, 1, 35-43. https://doi.org/10.33581/2521-6848-2025-1-35-43