Tetsuro Iji – författare

This book takes stock of the accumulated body of literature on ripeness theory, inspired by the seminal work of I. William Zartman. The book posits the continued relevance of the ripeness theory, well into the 21st century, and sheds new light on the potential for further development.

The timing of efforts for resolution, either negotiation or mediation, is always a central concern for policy makers and scholars alike in the field of international conflict resolution. The work of I. William Zartman on ripeness was a groundbreaker in the long-standing inquiry into this key question, and over more than three decades, the notion of a ripe moment and its adjuncts, such as a mutually hurting stalemate and a mutually enticing opportunity, has not only served as an essential policy guidance but also inspired wide-ranging research programs. The chapters in this edited volume feature studies intended to advance ripeness theory conceptually, test it empirically through case studies for possible implications to the theory itself, or examine relations with related concepts and theories.

This volume is divided into two parts. The Foreword and the chapters included in Part I were originally published as a special issue of the journal Ethnopolitics. Part II features, first and foremost, Zartman’s own seminal article published in the inaugural issue of the same journal. It also includes other recently published articles in journals such as Security Studies, Civil Wars, and Studies in Conflict & Terrorism that are considered to have made important contributions to the debate on the subject.

This book takes stock of the accumulated body of literature on ripeness theory, inspired by the seminal work of I. William Zartman. The book posits the continued relevance of the ripeness theory, well into the 21st century, and sheds new light on the potential for further development.

The timing of efforts for resolution, either negotiation or mediation, is always a central concern for policy makers and scholars alike in the field of international conflict resolution. The work of I. William Zartman on ripeness was a groundbreaker in the long-standing inquiry into this key question, and over more than three decades, the notion of a ripe moment and its adjuncts, such as a mutually hurting stalemate and a mutually enticing opportunity, has not only served as an essential policy guidance but also inspired wide-ranging research programs. The chapters in this edited volume feature studies intended to advance ripeness theory conceptually, test it empirically through case studies for possible implications to the theory itself, or examine relations with related concepts and theories.

This volume is divided into two parts. The Foreword and the chapters included in Part I were originally published as a special issue of the journal Ethnopolitics. Part II features, first and foremost, Zartman’s own seminal article published in the inaugural issue of the same journal. It also includes other recently published articles in journals such as Security Studies, Civil Wars, and Studies in Conflict & Terrorism that are considered to have made important contributions to the debate on the subject.

This book presents a conceptual and empirical analysis of the UN-led multiparty mediation in the Tajikistan conflict.

Multiparty mediation has been a significant research topic of international conflict management since the 1990s, but in-depth case studies on the peacemaking dynamics of violent conflicts are rare, particularly in regard to third-party roles. This volume addresses that gap in the literature by examining the multiparty mediation of the Tajikistan conflict, a largely forgotten but notably successful case of UN-orchestrated peacemaking in the post-Cold War era. It argues that several interrelated factors contributed to the "success" of the Tajik multiparty mediation: Russia, Iran, and other major interveners shared a common interest, and reached a broad consensus on the terms of settlement; the UN was widely accepted as a lead coordinator by other mediators, and succeeded in constructively engaging with them; as a consequence, there arose positive interconnections between different third-party roles. The book presents an analytical framework for understanding the complex interplay of these factors, not only to evaluate the Tajik case but also to help clarify policy implications for multiparty mediation in other cases of violent conflict, particularly civil wars.

This book will be of much interest to students of conflict resolution, civil wars, international mediation, the UN, Central Asian politics, and International Relations.

This book presents a conceptual and empirical analysis of the UN-led multiparty mediation in the Tajikistan conflict.

Multiparty mediation has been a significant research topic of international conflict management since the 1990s, but in-depth case studies on the peacemaking dynamics of violent conflicts are rare, particularly in regard to third-party roles. This volume addresses that gap in the literature by examining the multiparty mediation of the Tajikistan conflict, a largely forgotten but notably successful case of UN-orchestrated peacemaking in the post-Cold War era. It argues that several interrelated factors contributed to the "success" of the Tajik multiparty mediation: Russia, Iran, and other major interveners shared a common interest, and reached a broad consensus on the terms of settlement; the UN was widely accepted as a lead coordinator by other mediators, and succeeded in constructively engaging with them; as a consequence, there arose positive interconnections between different third-party roles. The book presents an analytical framework for understanding the complex interplay of these factors, not only to evaluate the Tajik case but also to help clarify policy implications for multiparty mediation in other cases of violent conflict, particularly civil wars.

This book will be of much interest to students of conflict resolution, civil wars, international mediation, the UN, Central Asian politics, and International Relations.