Professional Peacemakers in Ukraine: Mediators and Dialogue Facilitators Before and After 2014

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj120119.2017-3.117-136

Keywords:

mediation, dialogue facilitation, civil society in peacebuilding, conflict resolution, Ukraine

Abstract

Based on the findings of qualitative empirical study, this article reveals that, in contrast to most violent conflicts in the world, the Ukrainian context is distinguished by the presence of a self-organized, self-aware and skilled local professional communities of mediators and dialogue facilitators. The article analyses each professional community and concludes that Ukrainian mediators and dialogue facilitators are capable to serve as independent actors in peacebuilding process, guiding their international colleagues and the government as for the best practices of mediation and dialogue. At the same time, both communities still experience pains of professional growth such as making choices between core methods and societal roles and they need external support. Additionally, the 2014 crisis has brought some opportunities concerning increased funding for mediation and dialogue, and the top-down pressure of the international community for greater use of these tools. These opportunities have, in turn, triggered some challenges such as an increased competition for funding and ideological tensions between “the peacemakers” and the other groups of Ukrainian civil society inspired by the military discourse.

Author Biography

Tatiana Kyselova, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy; Faculty of Law

Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in Kyiv, Ukraine and a visiting teaching fellow at Queen Mary, University of London. In 2015–2017 she was a Marie Curie/COFUND postdoctoral fellow at University of Turin, Italy. She received her LLM from the London School of Economics and Political Science, kandydat nauk from the Ukrainian National Academy of Science and a DPhil from University of Oxford. She specializes in socio-legal studies, conflict resolution, alternative dispute resolution, and post-Soviet transition

References

  1. Allison, Roy. “Russian ‘Deniable’ Intervention in Ukraine: How and Why Russia Broke the Rules.” International Affairs 90.6 (2014): 1255–97.
  2. Brown, Carole J. “Facillitative Mediation: The Classic Approach Retains Its Appeal.” Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 4.2 (2003): 279–95.
  3. Bush, Robert A. Baruch, and Joseph P. Folger. The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
  4. Carothers, Thomas, and William Barndt. “Civil Society.” Foreign Policy 117 (2000): 18–29.
  5. Global Protection Cluster, Peacebuilding and Reconciliation in Ukraine. “Guidance Note,” (2016). Accessed December 20, 2017, http://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/field_protection_clusters/Ukraine/thematic-updates/peacebuilding_reconciliation_guidance_note_en.pdf.
  6. Cristescu, Roxana , and Denis Matveev. The Challenge of Inclusiveness in the Peace Processes in Ukraine. Civil Society Dialogue Network, 2017.
  7. De Palo, G, L D’Urso, M Trevor, B Branon, R Canessa, B Cawyer, and R Florence. “Rebooting the Mediation Directive: Assessing the Limited Impact of Its Implementation and Proposing Measures to Increase the Number of Mediations in the EU.” Brussels: DG for Internal Policies, 2014.
  8. De Palo, Giuseppe, and Mary Trevor. Eu Mediation Law and Practice. Oxford: OUP 2012.
  9. Editorial. “Mediatsia kak sposob yevropeizatsii strany [Mediation as a Means of Europeanization of Ukraine],” Investytsiyna Gazeta, April 13, 2013.
  10. Erbe, Nancy. “Global Popularity and Promise of Facilitative Adr” Temple International & Comparative Law Journal 18 (2004): 343.
  11. Feller, Amanda E., and Kelly K Ryan. “Definition, Necessity, and Nansen: Efficacy of Dialogue in Peacebuilding.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 29.4 (2012): 351–80.
  12. Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. New York: Penguin, 2011.
  13. Fuller, Lon L. “Mediation – Its Forms and Functions.” South California Law Review 44 (1971): 305.
  14. Galtung, Johan. Peace by Peaceful Means. London: Sage, 1996.
  15. Harrington, Christine B., and Sally Engle Merry. “Ideological Production: The Making of Community Mediation.” Law and Society Review (1988): 709–35.
  16. Hendley, Kathryn. “What If You Build It and No One Comes? The Introduction of Mediation to Russia.” Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution. 14 (2013): 727–58.
  17. Krupelnitsky, Vitalii. “Mediatsia yak yavysche yevropeiskykh pravovidnosyn [Mediation as a Phenomenon of European Legal Relations],” Pravo Today October 25, 2011, Accessed December 20, 2017, http://pravotoday.in.ua/ua/press-center/publications/pub-681/.
  18. Kyselova, Tatiana. “Dualism of Ukrainian Commercial Courts: Exploratory Study.” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 6.02 (2014): 178–201.
  19. Kyselova, Tatiana. Integration of Mediation into Court System of Ukraine: Policy Paper. Council of Europe, 2016.
  20. Kyselova, Tatiana. Mediation Organizations in Ukraine: Short Guide 2017. Accessed December 20, 2017, https://www.academia.edu/32378787/Mediation_Organizations_in_Ukraine_Short_Guide_2017.
  21. Kyselova, Tatiana and Julia von Dobeneck, Track III Dialogues in Ukraine: Major Patterns and Resulting Risks. 2017.
  22. Lederach, John Paul. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. 1997.
  23. Lederach, John Paul. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995.
  24. Mapping of Dialogue Initiatives to Resolve the Conflict in Ukraine. Kyiv: International Center for Policy Studies, 2015. Accessed December 20, 2017, http://icps.com.ua/assets/uploads/files/mapping_of_dialogue_initiatives_eng_.pdf.
  25. McGuinness, Margaret E. “Women as Architects of Peace: Gender and the Resolution of Armed Conflict.” Michigan State Journal of Internationall Law. 15 (2007): 63.
  26. Mehmel, Friedrich-Joachim, and Frans van Arem. Court-Bounded and Commercial Mediation – a Pilot Project in Ukraine: A Story of Success. Kyiv: Council of Europe, 2011.
  27. Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. “Mothers and Fathers of Invention: The Intellectual Founders of Adr.” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 16 (2000): 1.
  28. Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. “Variations in the Uptake of and Resistance to Mediation Outside of the United States.” In Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2014, edited by Arthur Rovine, 189–221. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015.
  29. Merry, Sally Engle. “Moving Beyound Ideology Critique to the Analysis of Practice.” Law & Social Inquiry 27.3 (2002): 609–12.
  30. Mubashir, Mir, Engjellushe Morina, and Luxshi Vimalarajah. Osce Support to Insider Mediation: Strenghtening Mediation Capacities, Networking and Complementarity. OSCE, 2016.
  31. Novakivska, Zvenyslava. Rezultaty strategichnoi sesii po planuvanniu rozvytku seredovyscha mediatoriv do 2020 [Results of the Strategic Session on Planning of Mediation Development 2020] OSCE, 2017.
  32. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Special Monitoring Mission. Civil Society in the Ukrainian Crisis: Thematic Report. 2015. available at http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/141046?download=true.
  33. Paffenholz, Thania. “International Peacebuilding Goes Local: Analysing Lederach's Conflict Transformation Theory and Its Ambivalent Encounter with 20 Years of Practice.” Peacebuilding 2.1 (2014): 11–27.
  34. Pylypiv, Natallia. “Vidnovne pravosuddia v Ukraini: rezultaty ta perspektyvy [Restorative Justice in Ukraine: Results and Prospects],” Vidnovne Pravosuddia v Ukraini 17.3-4 (2011): 87–99.
  35. Riskin, Leonard. “Understanding Mediators' Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed.” Harvard Negotiation Law Review 1.7 (1997): 7–51.
  36. Roberts, Kenneth M. “Mediating the Evaluative-Facilitative Debate: Why Both Parties Are Wrong and a Proposal for Settlement.” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 39 (2007): 187.
  37. Ropers, Norbert “From Resolution to Transformation: The Role of Dialogue Projects,” in Berghof Handbook of Conflict Transformation, ed. Beatrix Austin (BerghofResearch Center for Constructive ConflictManagement, 2004).
  38. Special Monitoring Mission Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Civil Society in the Ukrainian Crisis: Thematic Report, (2015). Accessed December 20, 2017, http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/141046?download=true.
  39. Vasylchak, S.V., and L.V. Kutas. “Mediation as a Method of Civilized Resolution of Corporate Disputes.” Scientific Journal NLTU Ukraine 20.14 (2010): 133–37.
  40. Vasyliev, Yegor. “Alternative Dispute Resolution in a Global Perspective: Legal, Political and Cultural Factors in Introducing Mediation to Post-Soviet Ukraine.” SSRN eLibrary June 5, 2013 (2013).
  41. Yelnyk, Pavlo. “Ugoda pro assotsiatsiyu Ukraina-YeS: Yevropeiski mekhanismy vyrishennia sporiv [EU-Ukraine Association Agreement: European Mechanisms of Dispute Resolution],” Kyiv Mediation Center. Accessed December 20, 2017, http://medyacia.com/page102575.html.
  42. Zaretskaia, Irina. “Put k soglasiyu ili peregovory bez porazheniia [Getting to Yes or Negotiations without Giving In],” Yur Liga (2012). Accessed December 20, 2017, http://jurliga.ligazakon.ua/yurtv_detail/211.

Downloads

How to Cite

Kyselova, T. (2017). Professional Peacemakers in Ukraine: Mediators and Dialogue Facilitators Before and After 2014. Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal, (3), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj120119.2017-3.117-136

Issue

No. 3 (2017): Special Issue: Civil Society in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2017 Tatiana Kyselova

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal provides free access to original research without restriction barriers (i.e. subscription fees, licensing fees etc.).

Unless otherwise indicated, content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which means you are free to:

distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially

...provided that any use is made with attribution to author(s) and Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal.

The copyright in the article or any other submission to Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal shall remain with the author(s).

The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.