Türkiye’s Outcome-Oriented Hybrid Mediation Approach in an Age of Unpeace
Abstract
This article examines Türkiye’s mediation practices in the context of a transforming international system characterized by systemic uncertainty, fragmented authority, and what has been conceptualized as an “age of unpeace.” Rather than approaching mediation as a neutral, processdriven, and normatively prescriptive activity, the study argues that Türkiye has developed an outcome-oriented hybrid mediation approach shaped by regional proximity, strategic autonomy, and institutional adaptation. This approach does not represent a universal or transferable template for conflict resolution. Instead, it reflects a context-specific response to contemporary conflict environments in which comprehensive settlements are often unattainable and time operates as a strategic constraint. Conceptually, the
article advances a framework that analyzes Türkiye’s mediation practices along three interlocking axes: normative, operational, and strategic. Normatively, Türkiye practices non-neutral impartiality, combining clear normative positions and alliance commitments with process-level fairness and issue-specific flexibility, particularly on humanitarian matters. Operationally, the approach prioritizes speed, modularity, and leadershipdriven engagement, favoring incremental arrangements such as ceasefires, corridors, and exchanges over comprehensive but politically infeasible agreements. Strategically, mediation is embedded within national interest calculations related to geopolitical proximity, economic interdependence, and the management of spillover risks. Empirically, the framework is illustrated through three case studies: the Ankara Process between Somalia and Ethiopia, the Black Sea Grain Initiative between Ukraine and Russia, and exploratory mediation efforts related to Sudan. Together, these cases demonstrate both the capabilities and limitations of hybrid mediation under conditions of unpeace. The article contributes to mediation theory by moving beyond ideal-type models of neutrality and comprehensive settlement, offering a more adaptive and empirically grounded understanding of mediation as a tool of problem management rather than order construction in contemporary global politics.
Keywords
