This article analyses third-party mediation of identity-based conflicts, which are notoriously difficult to resolve. It seeks to reconcile the contradiction in the mediation literature between the need for less coercive strategies to ensure ownership of a peace agreement and the need for more coercive strategies to reach a final agreement. Through an analysis of mediation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the article makes four contributions to existing literature. First, the article develops a theoretical ‘best fit’ model that proposes a u-shaped relationship between intensity of mediator coercion and transition through phases of negotiation. Second, it challenges the prevailing notion that pre-negotiation does not involve coercion. Third, it suggests that epistemological and ontological understandings of a conflict and the role of a mediator by both the mediator and the parties mean that mediators enjoy limited capacity to effectively shift from high- to low-coercive strategies. Multi-party mediation can provide the flexibility needed to execute the coercion u-curve effectively. Fourth, it challenges existing understandings of the US-mediated negotiations during the Annapolis process, 2007–08.

中文翻译：

---

基于身份的冲突的胁迫和第三方调解

本文分析了众所周知的难以解决的基于身份的冲突的第三方调解。它试图调和调解文献中的矛盾，即需要较少强制策略以确保和平协议的所有权与需要更多强制策略以达成最终协议之间的矛盾。通过对巴以冲突的调解分析，本文对现有文献做出了四点贡献。首先，本文提出了一个理论上的“最佳拟合”模型，该模型提出了调解人强制强度与谈判阶段过渡之间的 u 型关系。其次，它挑战了预先谈判不涉及胁迫的普遍观念。第三，它表明，调解人和当事方对冲突的认识论和本体论理解以及调解人的作用意味着调解人在有效地从高强制策略转向低强制策略方面的能力有限。多方调解可以提供有效执行强制 u 曲线所需的灵活性。第四，它挑战了对 2007-08 年安纳波利斯进程中美国调解谈判的现有理解。