The puzzle of the African Union mediation is that it enjoys regional effectiveness in leading peace processes and yet often fails to prevent atrocity crimes. While existing studies focus on the lack of capacity to explain failures, I draw on atrocity mediation literature that emphasizes coercive strategies for ripening to explore widely significant factors associated with the AU mediation. I adopt the “framework of mediator behavior” in international mediation studies to analyze AU policies on conflict responses and the mediation in South Sudan. My approach is consistent with the content analysis of qualitative data. I find that the significant factor in the AU mediation is the “patient” policy, like “strategic patience.” The policy reflects formulative strategy of conflict mediation that describes the mediator who controls the process but shifts control of substantive decision-making to the parties. Formulative strategy is technically non-coercive, so the AU embraces it to respect sovereignty. The paradox is that formulative strategy is the AU legitimacy source—which anchors effectiveness—and failure. The AU mediation failed because of strategic choice, not the lack of capabilities. This study contributes to a broader understanding of the AU mediation and challenges mediator behavior assumptions.

中文翻译：

---

制定战略：为什么非洲联盟领导的南苏丹国际调解未能预防暴行罪

非洲联盟调解的难题在于，它在领导和平进程方面享有区域效力，但往往未能防止暴行罪。虽然现有研究关注缺乏解释失败的能力，但我利用强调成熟的强制策略的暴行调解文献来探索与非盟调解相关的广泛重要因素。我采用国际调解研究中的“调解人行为框架”来分析非盟在南苏丹应对冲突和调解的政策。我的方法与定性数据的内容分析一致。我发现非盟调解的重要因素是“耐心”政策，例如“战略耐心”。” 该政策反映了冲突调解的制定策略，该策略描述了控制过程但将实质性决策的控制权转移给各方的调解人。制定战略在技术上是非强制性的，因此非盟接受它以尊重主权。矛盾的是，制定性战略是非盟合法性的来源——它锚定有效性——和失败。非盟调解失败是因为战略选择，而不是缺乏能力。这项研究有助于更广泛地了解非盟调解并挑战调解员行为假设。非盟调解失败是因为战略选择，而不是缺乏能力。这项研究有助于更广泛地了解非盟调解并挑战调解员行为假设。非盟调解失败是因为战略选择，而不是缺乏能力。这项研究有助于更广泛地了解非盟调解并挑战调解员行为假设。