INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT MEDIATION BY SMALL STATES: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF A FEW COUNTRIES

The research question of the dissertation is, within the current system of international relations, theoretically and empirically (on the basis of Qatar's and Norway's cases), to scrutinise and reveal the role of international conflict mediation in small states' foreign policy and, more importantly, the factors which are necessary even if not sufficient for the success of such endeavours by the Lilliputians in their attempts of conflict management. Numerous other influencing conditions are also revealed. The application of various scientific methods, including the approach of comparative politics, helps to answer this research question. International conflict mediation is one tool within the foreign policy of the small states, including Qatar and Norway, to achieve various goals and aims. It can serve a purpose of physical survival as in the Qatari case: avoiding to choose sides in a conflict and being useful for all its parties help to keep everyone happy and to continue manoeuvring. Moreover, conflict management can assist in the protection from direct (Doha) or indirect (Oslo) threats for national interests and security, including their economic aspects: it has often served to protect Qatari investments and trade interests in the countries, affected by conflict, and for general economic and financial climate positive condition of which is beneficial also for Norway. Promoting peace principles, diplomatic brokerage contributes also towards the efforts at regional (Doha) and/or global (Oslo) system maintenance. International mediation can be also a mean to acquire soft and/or subtle power and, thereby, to augment the influence and security further. Qatar and Norway are promoting peace through their endeavours, and, thereby, they attract other players which enhances their soft power. The latter contributes also to their legitimacy and status. At the same time, the emirate is aimed at subtle power by utilising opportunities and manipulating circumstances. Utilising the methods of comparative politics, the necessary conditions for an effective diplomatic brokerage by the Lilliputians are also revealed. The success of conflict management through mediation is the dependent variable. Conflict resolution is not always achievable, especially when an intermediary is relatively powerless: the selected cases but Darfur represent conflict management. The effectiveness of the latter is considered on the basis of final deals' durability as the proxy of success: Qatar's efforts in Lebanon and Norway's endeavours in the Israeli-Palestinian and Sri Lankan conflicts are labeled as a successful conflict management; the emirates' attempts in Yemen as failure; and results of its activities in Darfur as an qualified or partial success (or failure). Independent variables are factors which affect the effectiveness of diplomatic brokerage. Having in mind, inter alia, the features of the small state and the focus on the peculiarities of conflict management, the hypotheses on essential factors for effective conflict management via international mediation are proposed, and they are confirmed empirically, comparing the selected cases. The following conditions are proved to be necessary: the acceptance by capable stakeholders and by parties of a strife; the willingness to handle tensions and disagreements, enhanced by the presence of valid spokesmen and a perceived way out; the inclusion of the main opponents; and their cohesion. Numerous other influencing conditions are also revealed. Thus, international conflict mediation is proved to be one tool of the Lilliputian's foreign policy, aimed at security, including its economic aspects and system maintenance, the increase of influence through the acquired soft and/or subtle power. The indispensable factors for successful conflict management via international mediation by the Lilliputian in the current international system are also defined.