ÇATIŞMA ÇÖZÜMÜ

Third-party intervention refers to the involvement of a third-party, which may be states, international organizations, or local leaders, into an ongoing conflict to manage and resolve it. B is the correct answer.

Non-governmental organizations, generally act more freely than states and other types of intermediaries can. Because of their transnational identities, they can hold the world public interests above national interests in ways that neither the nation-states nor even the UN itself can do. A is the correct answer.

In a generic sense, peacekeeping in international conflicts is an activity that involves the interposition of military and police forces between conflicting groups, either to stop the violence or to prevent it. C is the correct answer.

Conciliation is an alternative out-ofjurisdiction conflict resolution instrument. It
is a process whereby the conflicting parties use a conciliator that meets with the parties both separately and together in an attempt to resolve their differences. D is the correct answer.

difference between conciliation and mediation is that at some point during the conciliation, the conciliator is asked by the parties to provide them with a non-binding settlement proposal. A mediator, by contrast, in most cases and as a matter of principle, avoids making such a proposal. E is the correct answer.

Arbitration is a binding way of conflict resolution outside the courts or legal procedures. The conflict is decided by one or more persons, the arbitrator(s), and is legally binding on both sides. E is the correct answer.

Perhaps the most common and well-known type of third-party intervention in terms of making peace in conflict settings is mediation, and that is why mediation calls for special attention. Mediation differs from other types of third-party intervention in that it is not based on the direct use of force. It aims to bring the conflict to a settlement acceptable to both sides voluntarily. A is the correct answer.

A mediator should have a low level of direct interest in the eventual outcome of the conflict. In other words, the aim of the mediator should not clash or directly clash with the aim of the parties. The intervention of mediators is often legitimized by the goal of conflict resolution. In reality, however, the desire to prevent conflict and make peace as the only motive is hardly the case. Mainly nation-states frequently use mediation as a foreign policy instrument. B is the correct answer.

An internationallyrecognized expert on mediation, Christopher W. Moore identifies several problem areas that often deadlock negotiations as follows: 

1. substantive problems, such as too few or too many favorable options,
2. procedural problems, such as an absence of process or the wrong process, and
3. relational problems, such as strong emotions, stereotypical labeling, or miscommunication.

Thus, A is the correct answer.

The mentioned writer is Gordon W. Allport. B is the correct answer.

The most common types of third parties in conflict resolution are states, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local actors.

At the international level, the most visible form of third-party intervention, especially in violent international conflicts, involves the installation of
peacekeeping forces.

Arbitration, on the other hand, is a binding way of conflict resolution outside the courts or legal procedures. The conflict is decided by one or more persons, the arbitrator(s), and is legally binding on both sides.

Some of the significant benefits of conciliation
can be summarized as follows:

:::::::First, conciliation may ensure party
autonomy. That is, the parties can choose
the timing, language, place, structure, and
content of the conciliation proceedings.
:::::::::Second, the parties are free to select their
conciliator. A conciliator does not have to
have a specific professional background.
The parties may base their selection on
criteria such as experience, professional
and/or personal expertise, availability,
language, and cultural skills. A conciliator
should be impartial and independent.
::::::.:Third, conciliation is time and cost-efficient.
Due to the informal and flexible nature of
conciliation, it can be conducted in a time
and cost-efficient manner.
:::::::Last, conciliation ensures confidentiality.
The parties usually agree on confidentiality.
Thus, disputes can be settled discreetly,
and secrets remain confidential (Dispute
Resolution Hamburg.com, n.d.).

The legitimizer, helping the parties to recognize the rights and interests of others to be involved in negotiations.

The leader, taking the initiative to move the negotiations forward by procedural
or substantive suggestions

That aside, while it is a welcoming development that the use of third-party interventions has grown tremendously in the post-Cold War era, several developments still need to occur for third-party interventions to achieve even broader utilization:
• First, politicians and the public need to be informed about third-party interventions and their benefits. Despite their increasing use, third-party interventions are still underutilized, not because of their lack of applicability, but because those involved in a conflict are often not aware of their benefits.
• Second, third-party interventions themselves require more research to become a more effective tool of international conflict resolution. Research is especially needed on how third-party interventions enable parties to manage intense emotional multi-party conflicts, imbalances of power, and cultural variations in the intervention process.
• Third, international mediation must become more institutionalized. Mediation, at the international level, has long been conducted basically on an ad-hoc basis. For
tremendous success, professional mediation services should be readily available.
• Finally, funding must be developed to promote the growth of third-party interventions at the international level. Obviously, the stronger the budget, the
more likely the third-party interventions can be successful, as interventions, especially multitrack interventions, mostly require high amounts of expense.

Non-governmental organizations, on the other hand, generally act more freely than states and other types of intermediaries can. Because of their transnational identities, they can hold the world public interests above national interests in ways that neither the nation-states nor even the UN itself can
do. They can operate with longer-term time horizons than states and usually have a better historical memory for issues. Thus, many peacebuilding
activities that require time, effort, and patience can be better dealt with by NGOs. Besides, while states and even most intergovernmental organizations are mostly motivated by the desire to extend their influence, NGOs tend to operate independently of power politics. Hence, they are likely to be trusted by the parties in conflict. What is more, an explicit moral message of NGOs against international conflicts may enable local people to articulate their opposition. This possibility may particularly offer new opportunities for NGOs to ensure that their
interventions have a positive impact on conflicts
(Yılmaz, 2008: 130-131).

In a generic sense, peacekeeping in international conflicts is an activity that involves the interposition of military and police forces between conflicting groups, either to stop the violence or to prevent it. The groups to be kept apart could be state agents, paramilitaries, militia, guerrilla groups, or even mobs. What they share is a desire to use violence against the other side as a way of conducting their conflict.

Third parties can assume especially four types
of roles in this process of peacebuilding. These
include:
• the provision of humanitarian relief to
people in emergencies,
• rehabilitation functions,
• peacemaking activities,
• sustaining peace through multitrack
interventions.