Genesis of the Chapter

The idea for this chapter emerged from a deep concern about how, despite the United Nations’ long-standing commitment to peacekeeping, many missions struggle to move beyond the phase of conflict containment to the more challenging terrain of conflict transformation and resolution. The persistence of protracted crises and the recurrence of violence in post-agreement contexts raised an uncomfortable question: Why does peace so often remain fragile, even when the UN has been present on the ground for years? I wanted to explore this puzzle through the lens of mediation—not as an abstract diplomatic art but as a practical, institutional, and strategic tool that sits at the heart of peacekeeping operations.

Revisiting Peacekeeping in a Changing World

My reflections began during a period of growing disillusionment within international policy circles about the effectiveness of traditional peacekeeping models. The changing nature of warfare—shaped by non-state actors, hybrid threats, and intrastate fragmentation—demanded adaptive responses that could not rely solely on military stabilization. I became intrigued by the subtle yet powerful role of mediation within these evolving dynamics.

Mediation had long been perceived as a “soft” instrument, invoked in moments of crisis or negotiation but rarely integrated into the everyday operations of peacekeeping missions. Yet, as I examined various UN field reports and Security Council mandates, I began to see how mediation—when systematically embedded—could influence not just dialogue but institutional learning, coordination, and legitimacy.

Collaborative Inquiry and Methodological Grounding

Collaborating with my co-authors brought a valuable multi-perspective approach to this inquiry. Each of us came with different disciplinary backgrounds—international relations, peace studies, and organizational behavior—and this diversity enriched our analysis. We conducted an extensive review of archival data, Secretary-General’s reports, and lessons-learned documents from missions such as those in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Cyprus.

We also engaged with former UN envoys and members of mediation support units, whose firsthand experiences illuminated the complex interplay between policy, personality, and process in conflict settings. Through these insights, our study evolved from a descriptive account into a critical exploration of mediation as both a philosophy and a set of organizational practices.

Balancing Critique and Constructive Engagement

One of the central challenges in writing this chapter was balancing critique with constructive engagement. It would have been easy to catalogue the failures—the bureaucratic inertia, the fragmented coordination between departments, and the frequent disconnect between headquarters and field missions. However, to make a meaningful contribution, it was essential to highlight not just what was lacking but also what was emerging.

Across several missions, we observed promising shifts: more flexible mandates, early-warning systems tied to mediation frameworks, and efforts to professionalize the role of mediators through capacity-building and institutional memory. These developments signaled that the UN was slowly learning to bridge its normative ideals with operational realities.

Bridging Theory and Practice

Another layer of complexity lay in reconciling theory with practice. Mediation literature often emphasizes interpersonal skills, neutrality, and trust-building, while institutional theory focuses on systems, norms, and structures. In the UN context, these dimensions coexist uneasily. Envoys operate in highly politicized environments where neutrality is constantly tested, and decisions are shaped by competing interests of member states.

By connecting micro-level dynamics of negotiation with macro-level institutional processes, our analysis sought to reveal how the UN’s mediation architecture both enables and constrains peacemaking. We argued that effective mediation is not merely about individuals acting as go-betweens but about creating enabling systems—procedural flexibility, local partnerships, and adaptive learning mechanisms—that sustain peace long after the negotiators leave.

Writing as a Mediating Process

The process of writing itself became an exercise in mediation—between disciplines, data sources, and interpretive frames. As we debated the meaning of “success” in mediation, it became evident that outcomes could not be measured solely by the signing of peace agreements. Durable peace requires sustained engagement with local actors, socio-economic reintegration, and inclusive governance.

Therefore, we positioned mediation as a continuing practice of relationship-building and transformation, extending beyond the formal negotiation table into the social fabric of post-conflict societies.

Methodological Reflections

We also grappled with methodological questions. How does one evaluate mediation when outcomes are contingent, non-linear, and deeply contextual? To address this, we adopted a process-tracing approach that allowed us to examine key decision points and feedback loops within UN missions.

This approach helped us identify patterns—moments when mediation efforts were sidelined by political pressure or, conversely, when they succeeded in preventing escalation through quiet diplomacy. These insights reinforced the importance of institutional reflexivity: the ability of peacekeeping systems to learn from both failures and successes.

Humanizing Peacekeeping

Throughout our research, one theme persisted—the need to humanize peacekeeping. Behind every mission report are individuals navigating immense complexity and moral ambiguity. We encountered mediators who risked their safety to sustain dialogue, local women who acted as informal peacemakers in polarized communities, and field officers who used empathy as a strategic resource.

Their stories reminded us that mediation is not just a procedural mechanism but a profoundly human endeavor rooted in listening, trust, and respect.

Reimagining Multilateralism

The writing of this chapter coincided with renewed global debates on the future of multilateralism. Amid declining trust in international institutions, we felt it was crucial to reassert the value of the UN—not as a perfect organization but as a living institution capable of adaptation.

Our analysis underscored that mediation, when mainstreamed, could serve as a bridge between peacekeeping and peacebuilding, between operational urgency and long-term vision. It has the potential to transform missions from reactive crisis managers into proactive facilitators of social healing.

Concluding Reflections

By the time we completed the chapter, our perspective on peacekeeping had evolved significantly. We no longer viewed mediation as a discrete intervention but as a continuous process woven through every stage of conflict management. Whether embedded in mandate design, local engagement, or institutional reform, mediation offers a framework for transforming how the UN understands and practices peace.

Ultimately, our aspiration through this work is twofold. First, to foreground mediation as the central pillar of sustainable peacebuilding—an approach that integrates dialogue, inclusivity, and institutional learning. Second, to inspire a shift in mindset: from viewing peacekeeping as a technical deployment to understanding it as a human-centered system of relationships.

Sustainable peace, we argue, cannot be engineered; it must be cultivated through continuous negotiation, humility, and shared purpose.

This chapter, therefore, is both an analytical contribution and a moral reflection. It calls for reimagining peacekeeping as an integrative and adaptive enterprise—one that listens as much as it acts, learns as much as it leads, and places people at the heart of its mission. In doing so, we hope to offer a vision of the UN not as a distant bureaucracy, but as a dynamic, learning organization—capable of nurturing peace that is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of justice, dignity, and trust.