The following are statistics about the use of mediation, its impact on crisis management and long-term tension reduction, and the effectiveness of various mediation styles and organizations. This is by no means a literature review but just a few numbers I found interesting.

Please feel free to respond by sharing the statistics you’ve found in your research, of course including appropriate references so sources can be verified.

External forces cannot by themselves compel a State to end a civil strife: at some point, domestic actors need to be able to work together to find a way out of the conflict.

There are many reasons why people choose to escalate a conflict, but most often it is a tactic to achieve a certain objective. For example, to ensure a victory or avoid losing, to force a settlement or remain a relevant force, to gain support from patrons or expand one’s status, to seize a strategic advantage or just to punish the adversary and take revenge... [1].

The literature has focused a great deal on trying to identify the right or “ripe” moment to initiate negotiations between belligerent parties, but in their article “Ready for Prime Time: The When, Who, and Why of International Mediation,” Chester Crocker, et al [1], discuss the readiness of the mediator for the task-at-hand. They discuss 3 dimensions of mediator ripeness for leading an official peace process:

Contact groups, peace talks, and conferences are a diplomat's classic tools when faced with a rapidly deteriorating security environment. While some have been very successful, the landscape of international interventions, in times of war, is replete with examples of multi-stakeholder consultations that failed to produce sustainable results or fell short of reaching a comprehensive settlement.

Center for Humanitarian Dialogue

Oslo Forum Papers N°002 (November 2013)

"Strengthening mediation to deal with criminal agendas"

By James Cockayne