Managing Environmental Confl icts through Mediation: Opportunities and Limitations

Abstract

This article analyzes the theory and practice of using mediation technologies for managing (resolving) modern environmental confl icts. The main characteristics of mediation, the necessary conditions for its application, types of mediation, and the diff erences between environmental mediation and other types of mediation are highlighted. Using various examples of mediation in environmental confl icts in the United States since the 1970s, the author examines the principles of choosing a mediator, the mediator’s role in the confl ict resolution process, the advantages and disadvantages of using mediation from the point of view of various participants in environmental confl icts, the political aspects of using mediation to resolve environmental confl icts and its possibilities and limitations.

References

1. Amy, D. “The Politics of Environmental Mediation,” Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1983, pp. 1–19. 
2. Amy, D. The Politics of Environmental Mediation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987. 
3. Ballamingie, P., and Koller, K. “Environmental Confl ict. Access to Natural Re sources,” Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics, eds. D. C. Poff , and A. C. Michalos. Cham: Springer, 2018, p. 63. 
4. Bingham, G. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience. Washington: Conservation Foundation, 1986.
5. Brosig, J., Weimann, J., and Ockenfels, A. “The Eff ect of Communication Media on Cooperation,” German Economic Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2003, pp. 217–241. 
6. Brosig, J., Weimann, J., and Yang, C. L. “Communication, Reputation, and Punishment in Sequential Bargaining Experiments,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 160, No. 4, 2004, pp. 576–606. 
7. Cormick, G. W. “The Theory and Practice of Environmental Mediation,” The Environmental Professional, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1980, pp. 24–33. 
8. Eisenkopf, G., and Bächtiger, A. “Mediation and Confl ict Prevention,” Journal of Confl ict Resolution, Vol. 57, No. 4, 2013, pp. 570–597. 
9. Favretto, K. “Should Peacemakers Take Sides? Major Power Mediation, Coercion, and Bias,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 103, No. 2, 2009, pp. 248–263. 
10. Harbring, C. “The Eff ect of Communication in Incentive Systems: An Experimental Study,” Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2006, pp. 333–353. 
11. Isaac, R. M., and Walker, J. M. “Communication and Free-riding Beh * avior: The Voluntary Contribution Mechanism,” Economic Inquiry, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1988, pp. 585–608. 
12. O’Leary, R., Yandle, T., and Moore, T. “The State of the States in Environmental Dis pute Resolution,” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1999, pp. 515–613. 
13. Ostrom, E. “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 1, 1998, pp. 1–22.
14. Singer, D. “The Use of ADR Methods in Environmental Disputes,” Arbitration Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 1992, pp. 55–67. 
15. Stulberg, J. “The Theory and Practice of Mediation: A Reply to Professor Susskind,” Vermont Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1981, pp. 85–117. 
16. Susskind, L., Richardson, J., and Hildebrand, K. Resolving Environmental Disputes: Approaches to Intervention, Negotiation and Confl ict Resolution. Cambridge: MIT Laboratory of Architecture and Planning, 1978. 
17. Svensson, I. “Mediation with Muscles or Minds? Exploring Power Mediators and Pure Mediators in Civil Wars,” International Negotiation, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2007, pp. 229–248.