ULUSLARARASI ARABULUCULUKTA TARAFSIZLIĞIN ETİĞİ: BAĞLAMA DUYARLI BİR YENİDEN DEĞERLENDİRME

Abstract

Tarafsızlık, arabuluculuk kuramı ve pratiğinin temel yapıtaşlarından biri olarak görülmüş olsa da, günümüz çatışma ortamlarında hem etik hem de pratik değeri giderek daha fazla tartışmaya açılmaktadır. Bu makale, arabulucunun tarafsızlığına ilişkin ikilemleri ele almakta; katı biçimde anlaşılan tarafsızlığın bazı durumlarda yapısal eşitsizlikleri görünmez kıldığını ve adaletsiz güç ilişkilerini farkında olmadan pekiştirebildiğini savunmaktadır. Barış Çalışmaları, Çatışma Çözümü ve eleştirel Uluslararası İlişkiler kuramlarından hareketle tarafsızlık, mutlak bir ahlaki ilke olmakla birlikte; adalet, kapsayıcılık ve çatışmanın özgül dinamiklerine bağlı, bağlama duyarlı bir pratik olarak yeniden kavramsallaştırılmaktadır. Çalışma, normatif–kavramsal bir çözümleme ortaya koymakta ve arabuluculuk etiği literatürü tartışmaları ile seçili vaka incelemelerine dayanmaktadır. Bosna iç savaşı sürecinde yürütülen arabuluculuk girişimleri ile İsrail ve Filistin Kurtuluş Örgütü arasındaki Oslo süreci örnekleri, tarafsızlığa katı biçimde bağlı kalınmasının nasıl saldırganlığı meşrulaştırabildiğini veya yapısal eşitsizlikleri pekiştirdiğini göstermektedir. Bu örnekler, asimetrik çatışma koşullarında bağlamdan bağımsız tarafsızlığın, çatışmayı besleyen koşulları yeniden üretebilme riskine işaret etmektedir. Makale, bu tür bağlamlarda arabulucuların, savunmasız grupları koruyan ve yapısal adaletsizlikleri dikkate alan daha katılımcı bir duruş benimsemeleri gerektiğini; bunu yaparken de etik bağlılıklarını şeffaf biçimde ortaya koymalarının önemini vurgulamaktadır. Bağlama duyarlı tarafsızlık olarak kavramsallaştırılan bu yaklaşım, geleneksel tarafsızlık değerini korurken, adalet ve kapsayıcılık gibi normatif gereklerle dengelenmesini amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın katkısı iki yönlüdür: İlk olarak, klasik tarafsızlık anlayışının etik ve pratik sınırlarını ortaya koymakta; ikinci olarak ise, arabulucuların tarafsızlık, adalet ve etkinlik arasındaki gerilimleri daha bilinçli biçimde yönetmelerine imkân tanıyan kavramsal bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Bu yeniden düşünme, arabuluculuk etiği, barış inşası kuramı ve uluslararası diplomasi pratiği açısından önemli sonuçlar doğurmaktadır.

Keywords

• Anahtar Kelimeler: Arabuluculuk
• Çatışma Çözümü
• Tarafsızlık
• Barış Çalışmaları

THE ETHICS OF NEUTRALITY IN INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION: TOWARD A CONTEXT-SENSITIVE REAPPRAISAL

Abstract

Neutrality has long been considered a cornerstone of mediation theory and practice, however its ethical and practical value is increasingly contested in contemporary conflict environments. This article examines the dilemmas of mediator neutrality, arguing that strict impartiality in some specific occasions obscures structural inequalities and can inadvertently sustain unjust power relations. Drawing on Peace Studies, Conflict Resolution, and critical International Relations, the paper reconceptualizes neutrality not as an absolute moral principle but as a context-sensitive practice whose legitimacy depends on justice, inclusion, and the dynamics of specific conflicts. Methodologically, the study develops a normative–conceptual analysis informed by illustrative case discussions and the mediation ethics literature. The cases of Bosnian civil war process and the Oslo process between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization demonstrate how rigid adherence to neutrality either legitimized aggression or entrenched structural inequities, therefore producing settlements that lacked both justice and sustainability. These examples highlight that neutrality, when applied without sensitivity to asymmetry, risks reinforcing the very conditions that perpetuate conflict. The article argues that in such contexts mediators must adopt a more engaged stance that protects vulnerable groups and addresses systemic injustice, while remaining transparent about their ethical commitments. This approach, conceptualized as context-sensitive neutrality, seeks to balance the traditional value of impartiality with the normative imperatives of justice and inclusion. The article’s contribution is twofold: first, to clarify the ethical and practical limits of conventional neutrality; and second, to propose a conceptual framework of context-sensitive neutrality that equips mediators to navigate the tensions between impartiality, justice, and effectiveness. This rethinking has implications for mediation ethics, peacebuilding theory, and the practice of international diplomacy.

Keywords

• Mediation
• Conflict Resolution
• Neutrality
• Peace Studies

References

1. Anam, S. (2020). Neutrality in Conflict Mediation Process. Dauliyah: Journal of Islam and International Affairs, 5(2), 291-304.
2. Astor, H. (2007). Mediator neutrality: Making sense of theory and practice. Social & Legal Studies, 16(2), 221-239.
3. Banks, W. C., & Straussman, J. D. (1999). A new imperial presidency? Insights from US involvement in Bosnia. Political Science Quarterly, 114(2), 195-217.
4. Bercovitch, J., & Jackson, R. D. W. (2009). Conflict resolution in the twenty-first century: principles, methods, and approaches. University of Michigan Press.
5. Chalkey, K., & Green, M. (2016). In the context of mediation, is safeguarding mediator neutrality and party autonomy more important than ensuring a fair settlement? International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 8(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-10-2015-0016
6. Chandler, D. (2010). International statebuilding: The rise of post-liberal governance. Routledge. Cobb, S., & Rifkin, J. (1991). Practice and Paradox: Deconstructing Neutrality in Mediation. Law & Social Inquiry, 16(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1991.tb00283.x
7. Cooks, L. M., & Hale, C. L. (1994). The construction of ethics in mediation. Mediation Quarterly, 12(1), 55-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3900120106
8. Crowe, J., & Field, R. (2019). The Empty Idea of Mediator Impartiality. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, 29, 273-280.

9. De Girolamo, D. (2019). The Mediation Process: Challenges to Neutrality and the Delivery of Procedural Justice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(4), 834-855. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqz011
10. Douglas, S. (2012). Constructions of neutrality in mediation. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, 23(2), 80-88.
11. Douglas, S. (2017). Ethics in mediation: Centralising relationships of trust. Law in Context, 35(1), 44-63.
12. Dover, R. (2005). The EU and the Bosnian Civil War 1992–95: The capabilities–expectations Gap at the heart of EU foreign policy. European Security, 14(3), 297-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830500407770
13. Erickson, S. K., & Erickson, M. S. M. (2001). The practitioner's guide to mediation: a client-centered approach. John Wiley & Sons.
14. Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New left review, 3, 107.
15. Gaffney, I. (2022). Impartiality and Neutrality in Mediation. Journal of Mediation and Applied Conflict Analysis, 8(1).
16. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301
17. Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005
18. Goetschel, L. (2020). Neutral States as Peace Mediators: Favoured or Restrained by Norms? Swiss Political Science Review, 26(4), 527-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12427
19. Hartwell, L. (2019). Conflict resolution: Lessons from the Dayton peace process. Negotiation Journal, 35(4), 443-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12300
20. Holbrooke, R. (1999). To End a War: The Conflict in Yugoslavia. Modern Library.
21. Jacobs, S. (2002). Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of pragmatics, 34(10-11), 1403-1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00071-1
22. Kastner, P. (2021). A Normative Framework for Peace Mediation. In C. Turner & M. Wählisch (Eds.), Rethinking Peace Mediation (pp. 17-36). Bristol University Press.
23. Kim, J. Y., & Lee, J. J. (2024). Biased Mediation: Selection and Effectiveness. Economic Research Institute. Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse University Press. Lee, S.-M. (2013). Mediator Impartiality and Mediator Interest University of Kentucky ]. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/polysci_etds/8
24. Leigh-Phippard, H. (1998). The Contact Group on (and in) Bosnia: An exercise in conflict mediation? International journal, 53(2), 306-324. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.2307/40203296
25. Mac Ginty, R. (2008). Indigenous peace-making versus the liberal peace. Cooperation and Conflict, 43(2), 139-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836708089080
26. Mac Ginty, R. (2010). Hybrid peace: The interaction between top-down and bottom-up peace. Security dialogue, 41(4), 391-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010610374312
27. Mallinder, L. (2009). Retribution, Restitution and Reconciliation: Limited Amnesty in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Queen’s University Belfast.
28. Marandici, I. (2023). Structural bias, polarized mediation and conflict resolution failure: a comparative examination of the disputes in Transnistria and Donbas. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 23(1), 89-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2022.2101188
29. Nolan-Haley, J. (2005). Self-Determination in International Mediation: Some Preliminary Reflections. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution(7), 277-288.
30. O’Ballance, E. (1995). Civil War in Bosnia 1992–94. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13666-7_8
31. Ott, M. C. (1972). Mediation as a method of conflict resolution: Two cases. International Organization, 26(4), 595-618.
32. Pring, J. (2023). The other side of resistance: Challenges to inclusivity within civil society and the limits of international peace mediation. Cooperation and Conflict, 58(2), 194-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221137183
33. Richmond, O. (2012). A post-liberal peace. Routledge.
34. Richmond, O. P. (2009). A post-liberal peace: Eirenism and the everyday. Review of international studies, 35(3), 557-580. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210509008651
35. Richmond, O. P. (2015). The dilemmas of a hybrid peace: Negative or positive? Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 50-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836714537053
36. Richmond, O. P., & Franks, J. (2009). Between partition and pluralism: the Bosnian jigsaw and an ‘ambivalent peace’. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 9(1-2), 17-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683850902723389
37. Salamanca, A. (2024). Biased Mediators in Conflict Resolution. American Law and Economics Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahad014
38. Shinar, D., & Bratic, V. (2010). Asymmetric war and asymmetric peace: Real realities and media realities in the Middle East and the Western Balkans. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 3(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2010.531034
39. Shlaim, A. (2016). The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process. In L. Fawcett (Ed.), International relations of the Middle East (pp. 241-261). Oxford University Press.
40. Svensson, I., & Höglund, K. (2008). 'Damned If You Do, and Damned If You Don't': Nordic Involvement and Images of Third-Party Neutrality in Sri Lanka. International Negotiation, 13(3), 341-364. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180608X365235
41. Swiss Political Science Review. (2020). Special Issue: Norms in International Mediation, 26, 4(4).
42. Touval, S. (1996). Coercive mediation on the road to Dayton. International Negotiation, 1(3), 547-570. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180696X00214
43. Touval, S. (2002). Mediation in the Yugoslav Wars: The Critical Years, 1990–95. Springer.
44. Van Santen, E. (2021). Identity, Resilience and Social Justice: Peace-making for a Neoliberal Global Order. Peacebuilding, 9(3), 344-365. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2021.1895608
45. Young, O. R. (1967). The Intermediaries: Third Parties in International Crises. Princeton University Press.
46. Zamir, R. (2011). The Disempowering Relationship Between Mediator Neutrality and Judicial Impartiality: Toward a New Mediation Ethic. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 11(3), 467-517.