Mediation and peacekeeping are commonly used tools to manage conflict. To what extent are they complementary and effective instruments for ending violent conflicts? Generally, they are seen as distinct tools: mediation aims to facilitate negotiated settlements, while the goal of peacekeeping is to prevent agreements from collapsing. However, peacekeeping and mediation regularly occur simultaneously. Arguably, peacekeeping operations rely on continuing political processes, while peacekeepers create a context favorable for mediation and provide a valuable source of independent information. Using a variety of model specifications, including selection models, empirical evidence supports that (a) mediation rather than peacekeeping is key to halting hostilities, (b) mediation and peacekeeping are largely complementary, but (c) this complementarity is conditional: in the post-Cold War period, transformative peacekeeping boosted the effectiveness of mediation to halt civil wars. There is no evidence that peacekeeping on its own matters for ending conflict. Finally, counterfactual analysis shows the substantial impact of mediation and peacekeeping on the frequency of conflict.

调解和维持和平是管理冲突的常用工具。它们在何种程度上补充和有效地结束了暴力冲突？通常，它们被视为独特的工具：调解旨在促进谈判达成的解决，而维持和平的目标是防止协议崩溃。但是，维持和平与调停经常同时发生。可以说，维持和平行动依赖于持续的政治进程，而维持和平人员则创造了有利于调解的环境，并提供了宝贵的独立信息来源。使用各种模型规范，包括选择模型，经验证据支持（a）调解而不是维持和平是制止敌对行动的关键，（b）调解和维持和平在很大程度上是互补的，但是（c）这种互补性是有条件的：在冷战后时期，变革性的维持和平行动提高了调停内战的效力。没有证据表明维持和平本身就可以解决冲突。最后，反事实分析显示了调解与维持和平对冲突发生频率的重大影响。