Adaptive Mediation

Abstract

This chapter introduces the Adaptive Mediation approach, explains its roots in the study of complex adaptive systems, and addresses some of its key principles and characteristics. Adaptive Mediation encourages a process whereby the content of agreements emerges from the interaction among the participants and where the emergent dynamics of the mediation process creates the basis for the self-sustainability and resilience of the agreements reached. Adaptive Mediation is thus a specific approach designed to cope with complexity and sees the role of the mediator as limited to facilitating a process of emergent self-organization. This chapter unpacks these aspects in more detail and explores the theoretical foundation of Adaptive Mediation to understand how it is grounded in what we know about the behavior of complex social systems.

In this chapter, I will introduce the Adaptive Mediationapproach, explain its roots in the study of complex adaptive systems, and address some of the key principles and characteristics of Adaptive Mediation that will inform how one plans for, analyzes, assesses, and undertakes Adaptive Mediation processes.

Mediation can be defined as a “complex process of conflictmanagement that purports to facilitate a voluntary agreement between conflict parties at different levels” (Bercovitch and Houston 1993, 297). In the context of this definition, peace mediation is typically understood as a process in which two or more parties to a conflict are assisted by a neutralthird-party mediator to pursue a cease-fire or peace agreement (Bercovitch 1991). It can also be used more broadly to describe neutral third-party support of national dialogue or other types of peace initiatives (Lehti 2019).

There are a few widely agreed-upon prerequisites for effective mediation. The first is that the parties to the conflict must have arrived at a point where they have recognized the need to seek a negotiated solution and where they themselves choose to enter into a mediation process. This implies that they have reached what Zartman (2001) has termed a “mutually hurting stalemate.” This is a point in the conflict where neither party can achieve victory over the other(s) through violence or other coercive means, and the positions they are in are untenable.

It is thus a point in the conflict where each of the parties themselves come to the realization that their best option is to pursue a negotiated end to the conflict. In other words, when weighing all their options, they must come to the conclusion themselves that they are more likely to secure their interests through a negotiated outcome than through violent conflict or other means. In negotiation theory, this is also known as considering the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Settlement (BATNA), that is, if a party believes there is a better alternative than a negotiated settlement, they will pursue that option (Fisher et al. 2011). BATNA is also used to analyze the specific options and choices a party may have during a negotiation or a mediation process when faced with certain decision points, but the first decision is of course whether to negotiate or not.

Zartman uses the mutually hurting stalemate analysis to assess the degree to which a conflict is ripe for resolution. If the parties have not reached this point, they are unlikely to opt for mediation. If they do engage in mediation, for instance under international pressure, then the process is unlikely to succeed. If they reach an agreement, it is unlikely to hold for long, if one or more of the parties believe they can achieve a better outcome for themselves through other means. This is not an idle concern. Collier and colleagues have found that approximately 50 percent of all peace agreements fail within ten years (Collier et al. 2003). Adaptive Mediation is an approach to mediation that is particularly concerned with enhancing the self-sustainability of the agreements reached, and laying the foundation for this self-sustainability through the mediation process itself.

The second prerequisite is that the parties to the conflict must choose mediation—as opposed to, for example, direct negotiation or arbitration if that is an option—and agree on the choice of the mediator. This could be a choice for an institution, for example the African Union or the United Nations, but often it also includes the choice of a specific person, or at the very least the option to veto anyone the parties object too. This is because the parties must have confidence in the neutrality, impartiality, and integrity of the mediator (Bercovitch and Houston 1993). In Adaptive Mediation, the mediator plays an important but limited facilitation role in the mediation process, and the approach has very specific guidance for how mediators should manage their role in the mediation process to avoid disrupting the emergent self-organization process necessary to generate self-sustainablepeace agreements.

Many conflicts don’t reach this point and are not ripe for mediation. In some cases, one party achieves victory over the others, or at least sufficient dominance to take over or remain in control of the state. Many others end up in a kind of no-peace-no-war situation where the conflict has reached an impasse, but where it is not formally acknowledged or settled. In these situations, the choice not to formally settle the conflict is a kind of temporary settlement in itself (Pospisil 2019). Some degree of typically low-level violent conflict may continue, but for the time being the conflict is paused. At the same time, trying to resolve the conflict may be too risky for the parties as attempting resolution may reignite violence. Thus, leaving it unresolved may be their best option for the time being. Often this is because important elements of the particular conflict are linked to a rivalry between major or regional powers (Lehti 2020). This is why dozens of conflicts suddenly became ripe for resolution at the end of the Cold War. Sometimes peace agreements may also contain elements of preferred unsettlement, where parties agree to address at a later stage in the process those aspects that are too sensitive to address at the outset. It is thus important to assess each conflict to determine if it is ripe for mediation. If not, other techniques, including Adaptive Peace Operations (de Coning 2020b) or Adaptive Peacebuilding (de Coning 2018) may be more suitable.

In increasingly complex armed conflicts, mediators have been challenged on several fronts and obliged to reassess the effectiveness of their methods (Paffenholz 2021). The 2016 Oslo Forum also addressed the question of whether mediation is still the most effective tool to solve the pressing conflicts of our time. The forum participants recognized that in recent years mediation has been ineffective; despite many attempts to initiate peace processes, violence continues to flare in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other locations (Dziatkowiec et al. 2016). Peace mediation has been criticized for remaining state-centric and for relying on rationalistic, interest-based, and materially driven approaches. However, in the last decade, there was also an increase in peace mediation actors among official actors, such as small states and international organizations, and an increasing number of nongovernmental actors (Lehti 2019, 2–3).

Mediation is thus widely understood as a delicate and complex undertaking that is more likely to fail then succeed. Although, as Andrew Mack (2012) pointed out, statistically even failed peace agreements save lives.¹ The potential for success depends on many factors, most of which are outside the control of the mediator and, in some cases, even the parties to the conflict. There are many stakeholders involved. In addition to the parties directly involved, there are the people affected by the conflict, including specific groups that may be associated with some of the parties. Some of these are likely to be in the diaspora, from where they may exert influence on the process. Many other actors inside and outside the country will have a stake in the outcome, and as a result may try to influence the process. This may include important private sector interests inside and outside the country, countries in the region, or rival regional or global powers. Some will try to disrupt the process or even derail the mediation itself.

In an ideal model, the mediator understands the history and context of the conflict and takes into account the interests and perspectives of the various parties to the conflict as well as others who may have an interest in the outcome and may be trying to influence the process (Lehti 2019). The mediator also has to understand the complex psychological, group, and intergroup relational dynamics of the mediation process itself in order to assess the pace of the process and determine when to introduce new elements, when to take a break, and so on (Deutsch and Coleman 2012). At the same time, the mediator is expected to facilitate a process of growing trust, first in the process and eventually in the emerging agreement and in each other (Paffenholz 2014).

In reality, no mediator, no matter how extensive and professional their support team, can meaningfully comprehend and factor in all these complex dynamics. The Adaptive Mediation approach recognizes that this complexity, unpredictability, and uncertainty is an intrinsic quality of complex systems, not a result of imperfect knowledge, poor analysis, or inadequate planning (Popolo 2011, 209). Adaptive Mediation is an approach that anticipates and accepts this complexity and employs a set of principles and practices that help mediators cope with uncertainty, setbacks, and shocks when attempting to facilitate such complex social change processes (de Coning and Gray 2018). Peter Coleman and colleagues defined adaptive mediation as “the capacity to read important changes in the fundamental dimensions of mediation situations and to respond to them with strategies and tactics that are more ‘fitting’ and thus more effective in those situations” (Coleman et al. 2017).

Those who interpret adaptation to imply conflictmanagement may feel that it does not go far enough, and that what is needed to truly bring an end to a conflict is a transformation of the system that generated the conflict. In the field of conflict resolution, the dichotomy between “problem-solving” and “transformation” approaches has been a key debate (Kriesberg 2007). Kriesberg (2007) underlined that one of the matters of dissensus among scholars and practitioners resides in the differentiation between “conflict” and “dispute” and their settlement, resolution, or transformation. While a dispute is an easily negotiable matter and contains more elements of compromise, a conflict is about deep-rooted problems. While “conflict resolution” implies solving these problems, “transformation” changes the relationships between the conflict parties, and “settlement” suppresses the conflict but does not address its deeper causes or relations. Bush and Folger (1994) characterized both evaluative and facilitative mediation as problem-solvingapproaches and introduced transformativemediation as an alternative. A transformative mediation approach focuses on the opportunity to transform the interaction between conflict parties, while mediators would only intervene when necessary to support empowerment and recognition shifts. Transformative mediators will be more focused on the process of transformation rather than reaching an agreement (Bush and Folger 1994).

In contrast to problem-solving styles, Kenneth Kressel underlined that relational styles “focus less on agreement making and more on open lines of communication and clarifying underlying feelings and perceptions” (Kressel 2014, 651). The relational style focuses on the self-organization and self-management of both parties, combined with improving their long-term relationship through humanistic values. Some examples of this new emerging paradigm are the transformational (Bush and Folger 1994), narrative (Winslade and Monk 2001), and victim-offender mediation approaches (Umbreit 2010). In addition to this debate, Kressel (2014) highlights that the mediator style is interdependent with the context where the conflict is occurring. Therefore, mediators are encouraged to be flexible and adaptive to the context.

The last 20 years in particular have seen the rise of informal peace diplomacy executed by nongovernmental organizations. They are frequently viewed as supporting actors in peace processes, and their participation is widely acknowledged to be fundamental. In most cases, peace processes are carried out by independent nongovernmental institutions, for example the African Centre for the Construction Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), the Finnish Crisis Management Initiative (CMI) and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) (Lehti 2019, 40). The current transformation in peacemaking practices and actors reveals the emergence of bottom-up methods in the peace mediation field, which has been highlighted by Marko Lehti (2019, 6) as a dialogic turn in peacemaking, contrasting it with the methods and approaches of classical mediation.

Adaptive Mediation is transformative, relational, and dialogic, but it is important to understand that the term “adaptive” in this case does not refer to the degree or extent of the change in the conflict system, that is, conflictmanagement, resolution, or transformation, but to the theory of change, that is, the way in which the change in the system is brought about.

Two concepts that are important to understand when it comes to the theory of change of Adaptive Mediation are resilience and self-organization. Resilience refers to the capacity of social institutions “to absorb and adapt in order to sustain an acceptable level of function, structure and identity under stress” (Dahlberg 2015, 541). Self-organization refers to the ability of a complex system to organize, regulate, and maintain itself without a controlling agent. In complex social systems, the resilience to withstand shocks and challenges grows as social institutions develop increasingly complex forms of self-organization, which distributes and dilutes vulnerability across a network of interdependent parts.

In a mediation context, self-organization begins to emerge when the parties involved in the mediation cross the interdependence tipping point, that is, when they recognize that they can’t achieve their interests on their own and that they need each other’s cooperation. It is at this point that they start to collaboratively work toward mutually acceptable agreements. This is the most delicate part of the mediation process because the mediator can use this moment to influence the agreement. Agreements reached through a self-organizing mediation process are, however, more resilient because the ownership and commitment are distributed among all the participants who co-created it. Adaptive Mediation challenges mediators to accentuate rather than constrain the agency and interdependence of the parties. Adaptive Mediation encourages a process whereby the content of agreements emerge from the interaction among the participants—as opposed to from inputs by the mediation team or from so-called international best practice—and where the emergent dynamics of the mediation process creates the basis for the self-sustainability and resilience of the agreements reached (de Coning 2018).

The negotiations that brought an end to the Apartheid era in South Africa are an example of self-organized mediation. The Convention for a Democratic South Africa’s (CODESA) multiparty talks (1992–1994) were managed by the parties themselves. The talks broke down on several occasions due to various setbacks, such as the Boipatong massacre in June 1992 and the inability of the parties to find common ground on particularly challenging issues. However, the relationships and self-organizing networks that had developed among and around the parties were resilient enough to enable them to find creative ways to resume talks and ultimately reach an agreement (Sparks 1996).

Adaptive Mediation is thus a specific approach to mediation designed to cope with complexity and uncertainty, which is especially concerned with enhancing the self-sustainability and resilience of peace agreements and sees the role of the mediator as limited to facilitating a process of emergent self-organization. Before we unpack these aspects in more detail, let’s first explore the theoretical foundation of Adaptive Mediation to understand how it is grounded in what we know about the behavior of complex social systems.

Complexity

We often hear it said that a particular conflict is complex, or that conflict resolution and mediation is a complex undertaking. What does it mean when we say a particular conflict, or the international response to it, is complex? What can we learn from applying the knowledge generated by the study of complexity to the peacemaking context? Could insights from the study of complex adaptive systems assist us in improving our understanding of how to influence complex social systems, and can we use this knowledge to improve how we help societies resolve conflict? Beyond the common use of the term, there is a science of complexity or complex adaptive systems that studies the behavior and characteristics of complex systems. This science is also increasingly applied to the social world, and is gaining ground in economics, political science, international relations, and peace and conflict studies (de Coning 2020a), with insights about social behavior and relations that are highly relevant for conflict resolution and mediation (Hendrick 2009).

Mediation is about facilitating a process whereby parties that are in an adversarial relationship are seeking to find an agreement according to which they can peacefully coexist in a shared social system. Insights from complexity science that help us understand how to influence the behavior of complex social systems and how such systems evolve and respond to pressure should thus be valuable for those involved in trying to understand and manage mediation processes.

Studying complexity can, for instance, help us understand where mediators can have the most impact when trying to influence complex social relationships. Donella Meadows (1999) found that when we try to influence complex systems, we often devote most of our efforts to aspects that, counterintuitively, have only weak leverage. In the context of mediation, this could be time spent reaching agreements on things such as the composition of committees, position assignments, deadlines for certain processes, and so on. These may be important and sensitive areas in a negotiation process, but they are weak leverage points for social change because on their own they do not change the system within which they function. In conflict resolution terminology, we can say they do not address the root causes or key drivers of the conflict. Meadows points out that high leverage points in complex systems—where relatively small shifts can have the most impact—are rules, structures, goals, and paradigms. These are also the aspects of any mediation process that will be the most sensitive but most important in terms of bringing about real change in the way a society is organized and future conflict is resolved.

Studying complex systems has also taught us that change does not always occur gradually. Pressure for change accumulates, but often without much evidence during the build-up phase. And then suddenly, when a tipping point is reached, a system can change significantly in a short period of time (Coleman et al. 2006). This is a dynamic we often experience in mediation, where breakthroughs are typically not reached as a result of steady progress, but rather under pressures of deadlock or even potential breakdown. This is partly due to the importance of path dependency in system dynamics (Mitchell 2009). The choices available to individuals, even powerful leaders and political elites, are constrained by initial conditions and by the choices they and others have made earlier in the process. This helps explain why most important systemic changes occur during periods of turbulence when path dependency is disrupted. From a mediation perspective, such transitions create opportunities to exert influence on higher-order leverage points.

As these examples show, social systems and social interactions—like mediation processes—are empirically complex (Byrne 1998). This means that they demonstrate the ability to adapt, and that they have emergent properties, including self-organizing behavior (Kaufmann 2013). As social systems are highly dynamic, nonlinear, and emergent, it is not possible to find general laws or rules that will help us predict with certainty how a particular society or community will behave or how a specific mediation process will develop (Cilliers 2002).

Complexity explains that a complex system, for example a society, is a particular type of holistic system that has the ability to adapt, and that demonstrates emergent properties, including self-organizing behavior. Such systems emerge and are maintained as a result of the dynamic and nonlinear interactions of their elements, based on the information available to them locally, as a result of their interaction with their environment, as well as from the modulated feedback they receive from the other elements in the system (Cilliers 1998, 3).

One way to highlight the unique characteristics of complex adaptive systems is to contrast them with complicated systems. A complicated system can potentially be fully understood and predicted, provided sufficient information is available. Designing, building, and launching a rocket into space is highly complicated, but once it is mastered, the same process can be repeated with a reasonable chance of success. In fact, the most frequently used rocket to send people and goods into space is the Russian Soyuz rocket, which has a core design that has been in use since 1967 (European Space Agency 2019). In contrast, nonlinearity plays a critical role in the emergence and self-regulation of complex adaptive systems (Cilliers 1998, 3). Even if a particular process helped to generate a peaceful outcome in one society, for example the CODESA process in South Africa mentioned earlier, it cannot be repeated in another context with any reasonable expectation that it will have the same outcome. In fact, it can’t even be repeated in South Africa with any expectation that it will have the same outcome.

I will explain three of the core characteristics of complexity that have been mentioned several times by now, namely systems, nonlinearity, and self-organization, in more detail. In the process, I will also introduce a number of related concepts that form the basis of our understanding of complexity and its relationship with Adaptive Mediation, including emergence, adaptation, and feedback.

Systems

A system can be defined in a very general sense as a collection of interacting elements that together produce, by virtue of their interactions, some form of system-wide behavior (Mitchell 2009). In other words, a system is a community of elements that, as a result of their interconnections, form a whole. In complex systems, the interaction is dynamic; that is to say, a complex system changes over time (Cilliers 1998). Complexity is interested in how the elements interact and how this interaction fosters the development of new system capacities that did not exist within the individual elements.

From a mediation perspective, we can say that the parties to the conflict can be viewed as elements in a system and that the mediation process is aimed at facilitating the emergence of a new system. At the start of the process, they represent separate systems that are in competition with each other; if successful, by the end they represent elements (subsystems) of a new system, where the parts have recognized their interdependence and found a formula for coexisting peacefully. This does not imply that they no longer compete with each other, or that they no longer have their own interests, but that they have arrived at an agreement on how to manage that competition, and the disputes that may arise as a result, peacefully in the future while coexisting within the same system.

In complex systems, the whole has properties that cannot be found in the constituent elements or in the sum of their properties. In social systems, for instance, the society as a whole develops and maintains norms and identities that serve the common needs of the community. In some ways, this results in suppressing some of the interests and needs of the individual and of special interest groups in the interest of the general wellbeing and survival of the society as a whole. Morin (2005, 11) points out that in social systems, not only is the whole more than its elements because new qualities or properties emerge due to the organization of the elements in the whole, but the whole can also be less than the sum of its parts because “a certain number of qualities and properties present in the parts can be inhibited by the organization as a whole.” This fits well with the mediation context where parties are expected to give up some of their demands in order to enter into a new relationship that will enable them to secure their most important interests.

The concepts “social” and “society” conjure up images of systems made up of people who share a common sociocultural, national, or civic bond. When studying people in the context of them being part of a society, as opposed to studying them as individuals, a different side of their being—including aspects related to their role in society as well as to the restrictions that conforming to society places on them—is revealed. These are aspects of their being that could not be revealed by studying them in isolation from their place in a social system. By studying the society as a whole made up by the patterns of activity of the individuals and the various networks and subsystems—such as family, clan, and tribe that develop out of these patterns—we reveal insights into the way individuals derive meaning from their roles in a community and how the interactions between these individual roles shape, sustain, and transform both the society as a whole and the individuals who make up that society. These are insights that could never be identified by studying only the individual.

In moving from the individual to the community and society, we come across organization. Complex systems cannot do without hierarchy and structure, but in complex systems hierarchy is not hardwired or externally determined and controlled; the hierarchy of a complex system is emergent and self-organized and thus changes with the system as it adapts and evolves in response to its environment (Cilliers 2001). The vitality of the system depends on its ability to transform itself, including its structure and hierarchy. Hierarchy is a typical characteristic of complex adaptive systems, but it is important to note that the hierarchies themselves exhibit complex adaptive characteristics (Chapman 2002). A peace agreement is literally an agreement to change the political, economic, security, and other hierarchies and structures of a society from the current and immediate past state that contributed to the conflict to a future state that the parties to the conflict believe will enable them to coexist more fairly and equally.

The last aspect of a whole-of-systems approach that should be discussed is the role of boundaries and borders in complex systems. Complex systems are open systems, which implies that interactions take place across their boundaries (Cilliers 2002). These interactions take place with other systems and the environment: for instance, there is a flow of information between the system and its environment through its boundaries. Systems consist of interrelated subsystems, and some boundaries can thus fall within larger systems or share borders with them (Chapman 2002). Not all subsystems are neighbors physically; some are virtually linked—in social systems, agents far away from each other may be interlinked, for example via social media, and collaborate, coordinate, or otherwise influence each other’s systems and in this way interpenetrate such systems. In the mediation context, we can think of the system as the society experiencing conflict, and of the environment as the wider national, regional, and international context within which that conflict plays out. Conflicts are typically influenced and interlinked to various interests and developments in their wider environment, but the underlying causes of the conflict are typically to be found in the structure and operation of the primary social system in which the parties are located and identify with. Conflicts generate displacement and refugees, and there are usually people living outside the territory with a great interest in—and sometimes influence over—what happens in the system. They are part of the system, although they are not at present physically located in the territorial space associated with the system, and they thus have to be factored in, both in the analysis of the conflict dynamics and in its potential resolution. We will return to the issue of boundaries and borders when we consider aspects related to delineating between internal or local and international actors in the broader mediation context.

Complexity thus builds on and is grounded in systems thinking. However, it is concerned with a specific type of system, namely complex adaptive systems, and to gain more understanding of that differentiation we turn to another set of important properties of complexity, namely nonlinearity and self-organization.

Nonlinearity

The previous section introduced a systems perspective, explaining that complexity is interested in the patterns of interconnections among the elements and how this dynamic interaction generates properties beyond those that exist in its constituent parts. This section introduces the second characteristic of complexity, namely that in complex systems the causal patterns of these interactions are nonlinear, that is, the outputs are not proportional to the inputs (Hendrick 2009). Nonlinearity refers to behaviors in which the relationships between variables in a system are dynamic and disproportionate (Kiel 1995).

Jervis (1997) points out that we tend to intuitively expect linear relationships. For example, if a little foreign aid slightly increases economic growth, it is expected that more aid should produce greater growth. However, complex systems often display behavior that cannot be understood by extrapolating from its units or their relations, and many of the results of actions are unintended. Thus, an important characteristic of complex systems is that nonlinear variables may have a disproportionate impact at one end of its range (Byrne 1998). Nonlinearity thus refers to behaviors in which the relationships between variables in a system are dynamic and disproportionate (Kiel 1995).

This leads us to the first characteristic of nonlinearity in complex systems, that the outputs they generate are not proportionate to their input; that is, they are asymmetrical. In complex social systems, we often talk of indirect or unintended consequences. For instance, in preparation for a mediation one of the parties may organize a training course with the aim of improving their negotiation skills, but then it turns out that the most important benefit that the participants gained from the training was not necessarily the new skills, but the team-building, social networking, or opportunity to develop a common understanding of their interests and expected gains from the mediation process.

The second aspect of nonlinearity is that nonlinear systems do not follow a predetermined, and thus predictable, cause-and-effect path. Nor can such a path, once traced in hindsight, be replicated to generate the same effect. This irreproducibility is one of the core characteristics of complex systems, implying that what has worked in one peace process cannot be replicated in another with any predetermined or predictable likelihood of success.

A third aspect of nonlinearity is that it cannot be reduced to something simpler, like a set of laws or rules that can help us to predict and thus control the behavior of the system. Cilliers (1998, 4) explains that “a large system of linear elements can usually be collapsed into an equivalent system that is much smaller.” Nonlinear data sequences and nonlinear system processes cannot be reduced to formulae or rules that can compress the amount of information necessary to manage them, or to make them otherwise predictable and controllable. This is why we are not going to find an algorithm for peace, the one formula that will help us predetermine the outcome of a mediation or that can predict what a perfect peace agreement should contain in a given context.

As these three characteristics have demonstrated, our commonsense understanding of nonlinearity is often closely associated with the concepts of disorder, chaos, and randomness because we typically explain nonlinearity as the opposite of the linear, the logical, and the orderly. It is thus important to emphasize that, in the context of complexity, nonlinearity is not associated with disorder. In fact, nonlinearity is an essential ingredient in the processes of emergence and self-organization that generate order in complex systems.

Nonlinearity has been presented as the element that distinguishes a complex system from a linear, deterministic, or mechanical system. The latter is fully knowable, predictable and, therefore, controllable in principle. It, therefore, is also unable to do anything that is not preprogrammed or designed. In contrast, nonlinearity in complex systems makes it possible for these systems to adapt and evolve, in other words to create something new that goes beyond what is preprogrammed within the parts that make up the system. Without nonlinearity, parties will not be able to change their positions, make compromises, or create new solutions. Nonlinearity is thus an essential part, in fact a precondition, for emergence, self-regulation, and adaption in complex systems (Cilliers 1998).

One of the ways in which complex systems use constraints to maintain themselves within certain parameters is through the use of feedback mechanisms. When certain thresholds are crossed, positive or negative feedback is used to correct the system back to within its parameters. While complex systems may thus theoretically be capable of a huge variety or range of actions, their behavior is typically constrained within a fairly limited range of options. Individuals may be theoretically free to choose any action, but in reality our behavior is constrained to within a fairly limited range of options by influences such as what would be regarded as legal, moral, and appropriate by an individual’s society, family, and friends. This is why our lives are relatively stable and broadly predictable, and why we have such an interest in peace and stability. However, while this may be true for most people most of the time, it is not true for all individuals all the time—some choose to act in their own interest despite social constraints—hence the inherent uncertainty of complex social systems. The difference between a system that is able to sustain peace and one that is vulnerable to lapses of violent conflict lies in the degree to which the society has a resilient network of social institutions that can prevent, manage, and resolve disputes and tensions peacefully, and can generate and maintain social norms against using violence to pursue political, social, and other interests. When an individual acts outside of these social norms or parameters, negative feedback is applied through a range of social sanctions that, in most cases, serve to direct the individual back to within the social norm. Similarly, a society will also use positive feedback to encourage and reward the kind of behavior it desires. In the mediation context, we also see positive and negative feedback being used by stakeholders to exert influence on the parties to the conflict. Feedback is also used by the parties themselves during the mediation, for example positive feedback to signal to each other where agreement may be reached and negative feedback to indicate where their respective redlines lie.

At this point, the first two complex-systems characteristics have been introduced, namely systems dynamics and nonlinearity. Let us turn now to the third characteristic: self-organization.

Self-Organization

Self-organization refers to the ability of a complex system to organize, regulate, and maintain itself without the need for an external or internal managing or controlling agent. A typical system that is designed to maintain a certain state, for example the temperature in a refrigerator, has a controlling mechanism, for example a thermostat in the case of a refrigerator, that increases or decreases the intensity of the cooling mechanism. Many people think that a government performs the same function in a society, but actually any social system is a self-organizing system in that it continuously and spontaneously adapts in response to the cumulative effect of all the decisions made by the individuals and social institutions that make up the system.

Individuals consider and act on the information available to them, and it is the cumulative and collective effect of their actions that determines the overall behavior of the system. Each individual and institution acts on their own, but these individual actions aggregate into swarm behavior—where the actions of some trigger behavior by others that result in large, swarm-like fluctuations in the system. This happens when a large number of individual agents respond similarly in what appears to be coordinated behavior. For instance, a few individuals or families may start fleeing when a rumor spreads that an attacking force may be approaching and then others join them and soon there is a large outflux that may appear coordinated or organized, but in fact it the cumulative effect of hundreds or thousands of individual and family decisions.

This is why governments can’t control society; they can only influence our social system. They are part of the system, subject to the same influences and constraints posed by internal dynamics and resources and the external environment. They are, nonetheless, an influential part of the system. Governments do have a powerful set of instruments at their disposal, but not enough to control society. They may use taxes or tax rebates, certain types of spending and investments, interest rates, and regulation to influence and stimulate the economy, but this is not the same as controlling it. Very often these incentives or sanctions don’t work, or don’t have the intended effects. Similarly, the government may use social policies to nudge the society toward, for example, a more healthy lifestyle. Ultimately, a government can use force, for example, to quell a riot or to put down a rebellion, but if they use too much force, or if the use of force and other measures are perceived to be unfair and unjust, people tend to overthrow the government.

Democracy is a form of political self-organization. In democracies, we elect representatives that are given special roles—higher levels of influence in our social systems. However, their actions also only constitute another level of input into the self-organizing system. They are given the responsibility to make decision about the feedback that governments can employ to try to regulate the behavior of our social system, but they do not have control over how the system will respond to their inputs. If we look back at the last 50 or 100 years, we can see examples of governments that have been fairly successful at steering their societies into peaceful and prosperous times, but also examples of decisions that led to war and socioeconomic decline. We can also see examples of when governments tried to exercise absolute control, and in most cases this had disastrous consequences. From these experiments with different forms of government, one can conclude that societies that understand their governments are not, and should not be, in control of the political, social, and economic spheres of their society have been the most successful. They seem to grasp that if the optimal role of government is to help society develop and maintain a resilient network of social institutions, within and outside government, it needs to self-organize.

Some regimes have been able to exert more control on their society than others, but none can absolutely or totally control their society. The most successful regimes—democraticor authoritarian—have achieved high levels of public or social trust where most people believe that supporting the state is in their best interest (Kleinfeld 2018). These regimes are not resilient only because of their ability to control some parts of the system via negative feedback, but because large parts of the system are choosing to support the state due to positive feedback dynamics, such as the value they see in stability, safety, economic growth, and so on. These regimes, of course, encourage those dynamics and will try to manipulate the overall behavior of the system, but social systems are self-organizing, and no regime will ever be able to totally control the society they are part of.

The organization of the social system as a whole thus comes about as a result of the interaction between the various agents that constitute the system and its environment (Cilliers 1998). There is no single agent or group of agents controlling the system, but there are many agents trying to influence the behavior of the system, and there are many more who simply respond to what they perceive to be the current state or future direction of the system based on the information available to them locally. As a result, the society spontaneously self-organizes through an emergent process that comes about as a result of the cumulative and collective interaction of all the agents in the system.

As discussed in the previous section, this process is nonlinear and dynamic and thus cannot be predicted or controlled. So many causal reactions happen simultaneously, and influence each other in nonlinear and thus asymmetrical relationships, that no one agent or group of agents working together—not even the most powerful regime—can gain sufficient understanding of these social dynamics to control the social system.

Another important property of complexity in general, and self-organization in particular, that has been referred to several times before is known as emergence. Emergence is important because it explains how the elements in the system do not merely interact with each other in order to maintain themselves. In complex systems, the interactions of the elements generate new collective effects that would not have occurred if the different agents acted on their own. Nonlinearity plays a critical role in creating and sustaining order in complex systems, that is, in enabling order to emerge (Cilliers 1998). This change over time—the way in which a system adapts on the basis of its own internal processes as well as its interaction with its environment and the way in which it generates new structures, forms, and functions—is what is meant by emergence. All systems experience entropy, the loss of energy in a system that, if unchecked, will result in the gradual collapse of the system. Mechanical systems need to be maintained, but eventually their parts age to a point where they stop functioning. Most biological systems are able to heal and renew themselves to some extent, but they also have an age limit. Social systems seem to be some of the most enduring systems because of their capacity to continuously adapt to, and co-evolve with, their environment as a result of the process of emergence. The French Revolution is a dramatic example of how a society reordered itself in response to its own increasing dysfunction, and how out of seeming chaos and disorder, a totally new way of social organizing—the republic—emerged. A key characteristic of complex systems is thus that they emerge and maintain themselves spontaneously (Cilliers 1998).

Three of the core characteristics of complexity, namely a whole-of-systems approach, nonlinearity, and self-organization, have now been introduced, and key concepts such as feedback and emergence have also been discussed. The next sections focus on the implications of nonlinearity, self-organization, and emergence for mediation.

Implications of Complexity for Mediation and Conflict Resolution

The standard or mainstream mediation and conflict resolution method that emerged after the Cold War can be described as determined-designed thinking. It is based on the assumption that experts have the agency to analyze a conflict, identify its root causes, and design solutions for the conflict based on international norms (liberalpeace ideology) and best practices (lessons based on past successes and failures). Mediation and conflict resolution in this context is understood as a process through which the parties, based on the information, analysis, best practices, and options presented by experts, are led through a directed-mediation process that ends with the parties agreeing on a version of the solutions presented to them, modestly adapted to reflect local realities and the most important interests of the parties (Bercovitch et al. 1991).

In practice, most of the limited solutions offered fall within a standard range of options, and, as a result, most peace agreements reached over this period share, at their core, a similar logic: a transitional power-sharing period during which state institutions are developed or restored according to liberalpeace norms, including in some cases a constitutional review process, followed by democratic elections. The underlying theory of change is that democracy leads to good governance. Good governance leads to stability. And stability leads to peace and prosperity for all.

Unfortunately, electoral politics can—without sufficiently developed formal and informal institutions to manage the resulting tensions, power rivalries, and greed—generate new waves of violent conflict. It also often creates political systems in which one set of elites, often linked to whichever ethnic group happened to form the majority of the population, capture and corrupt the state to serve their own interests. These determined-design and directed-mediation and conflict resolution processes, measured against the extent to which they led to a self-sustainable peaceprocess, seem to have been successful in fewer than 50 percent of the cases, when measured over a ten-year period following the adoption of the peace agreement (Collier et al. 2003).

In contrast, Adaptive Mediation recognizes that our ability to understand complex systems is inherently limited and time-bound. Complexity implies that the nonlinear and highly dynamic nature of complex systems places inherent limitations on our ability to know, predict, and control complex systems, including social systems. It also limits our ability to generate knowledge that is transferable from one context to another (Ramalingam 2013). Complexity thus reminds us to be skeptical, in principle, of results and findings that claim to be universally applicable or transferable, regardless of the method used to obtain them, because all methods are limited when considering highly dynamic and nonlinear phenomena. Complex social systems are dynamic, nonlinear, and emergent. This means that both the causes and consequences of conflict are continuously evolving. An adaptive approach recognizes this dynamism and copes with this uncertainty by employing an iterative inductive process, or theory of change, that continuously generates new analyses, as well as regular reflection points where teams or organizations reflect and make judgments regarding the changes they have identified and their implications (Brusset et al. 2016).

Conflict Analysis

Recognizing that the mediator’s ability to understand and predict complex social systems is inherently limited has a number of implications for how we should approach and conduct conflict analysis. Firstly, a complex systems approach reminds the mediator to be mindful not just of the specific aspect we may be focused on, but to consider it in the context of the wider system of which it is a part, including the context and environment within which that system operates. In other words, how we think of reconciliation in a specific peace process should not in the first instance be determined by how we usually do reconciliation, or how we have done it somewhere else with relative success, but by what the context and needs of the specific situation at hand are. These contextual and specific needs can’t be identified and analyzed by independent experts, but instead must emerge from the parties themselves as part of the relational(Kressel 2014) and dialogic (Lehti 2019) process during the mediation itself.

Secondly, it reminds the mediator of the importance of the dynamic and nonlinear interconnections among the agents in the system, and the way in which these interactions generate context specific meaning in the system (Bercovitch 1991, 4). It reminds us that any given manifestation of a problem is unique to that context. What may work in one context may not necessarily work in the next. Thirdly, it tells the mediator that there is no one single “state of affairs” or set of “root causes” that can be identified and solved. We cannot intervene in one system in isolation, and even if we were able to do so, that system will not be static. We will always have to deal with multiple systems constantly interacting with each other and the larger international and regional environments of which they (and us) are part. The conflict is not something static that happened in the past, nor are its causes static, as if buried in the past waiting to be uncovered. They are dynamic and emergent and further developing and changing as we speak. The parties have different, often competing, interpretations of the causes and drivers of the conflict, and these understandings are continuously evolving; how they are understood and viewed today has as much, if not more, bearing on future conflict (relapse) than on how they were perceived and understood when violent conflict erupted. To understand the (conflict) system, we need to see it in motion and in relation to the larger environment or system (which is also dynamically evolving) in which it is embedded, not in freeze-frame or in isolation. Fourthly, complex systems do not follow any predetermined causal design where certain root causes determine certain outcomes that can be discovered through a reductionist analytic method.

On the basis of these insights from complexity, Adaptive Mediation suggests that conflict analysis has to be an ongoing process of exploration and self-critical analysis. It should not be a one-off process that takes place prior to the start of the mediation. Conflict analysis also needs to be informed by an awareness of our inability to fully understand the complex systems we are dealing with, and of the fluidity and change in the system. This means that our analysis should be limited in scope and spanning a relatively short period of time. Our information gathering will need to take a multipronged and highly adaptive approach, so that it can be open and sensitive to feedback and changes in the system and environment. We need to be self-critical and open to new information that requires us to adapt earlier analysis. If a period of time passes without such an adjustment to our analysis, an understanding of a complex systems approach will caution us that we have likely missed some new developments, given the one thing we can predict is that the system will be constantly changing.

There is a lot of pressure, especially in large institutions like the UN system, for different parts of the system to cohere around a single “joint” conflict analysis. Involving different parts of the system that bring various perspectives to the table should be encouraged because it should lead to a more robust and rich analysis. However, the subsequent pressure for these parts of the system to then agree on one joint analysis is problematic, because it may lead to a simplified or generalized analysis. A shared conflict analysis that retains different perspectives and insights may result in a more textured and rich analysis. From a complexity perspective it is a good thing if different agencies have different understandings of a situation, because that results in the overall understanding being informed by many different perspectives. Others may not agree, but at least they have to take those perspectives into account, and that contributes to all participants in the process being more open to a complex and multifaceted understanding of the situation at hand.

Complexity informs us that in complex systems, including social systems, change processes emerge from the local system and are evolutionary in nature; in other words, the local system adapts to its environment and its own emergent behavior through a continuous process of inductive adaptation, regulated by its own self-organizing processes. Local in this context thus refers to processes that emerge from the local experience, while the external experience refers to the larger system or environment within which the local system is embedded and with which the elements in the local system interact. The local social system adapts and evolves in response to the stimulation of both the external environment and its own internal feedback in an ongoing iterative process. In order to apply a complex adaptive system’s approach to mediation, we thus need to think in terms of local systems and the external influences in their environment, while being aware that the boundaries we utilize in the process have emerged as a result of the framing choices we have made in our analysis. This does not mean that our choices are completely arbitrary, as our analysis is based on features and factors that can be verified empirically, but we need to be aware of the degree to which our own framing choices influence our analysis (Cilliers 1998).

A complex-systems approach suggests that mediators need to understand peace processes as essentially local. The local system needs to develop its own resilient social institutions that can manage internal tensions and disputes peacefully, and in so doing sustain its own peace. The role of external actors may be helpful, for instance, to restore stability after an outbreak of violent conflict and to act as a catalyst by stimulating and facilitating the processes necessary for social regeneration. However, mediators need to recognize that external intervention is not sufficient to achieve self-sustainable peace. The essential ingredient for self-sustainable peace is local emergent self-organized complexity. It is possible for a society to become peaceful on its own, but it is not possible to make or build peace on behalf of a society from the outside. International mediators thus have to come to terms with what it really means when they say that something is context-specific.

This is why Adaptive Mediation encourages the maximum possible participation of the local parties themselves, whether independently or together, in the analysis of the conflict, so as to encourage self-organization and resilience. The more the parties (or insider neutrals associated with them if it is too sensitive for the parties themselves) participate in conflict analysis, the more likely it is that the analysis will reflect indigenous narratives and perspectives relevant to the context, rather than the assumptions, interests, and biases of the mediation team and other external experts.

An adaptive conflict analysis methodology enables mediation support teams and the parties to continuously adapt their strategies and approaches to the changing context. Context refers here to both the larger social dynamics that shape the mediation process and the internal dynamics within the mediation process itself.

Participatory conflict analysis across conflict divides can be a source of tension (or even impossible in the early stages of a mediation process), but, when skillfully facilitated, can be a source of common understanding and emerging ownership of mediated outcomes (Gray and Burns 2021). One way to think of mediation is to see it as a process through which a new shared knowledge system is developed (Lehti 2019, 2020). The parties enter the process each with its own knowledge of the problem. Each has its own interpretation of the history and often emphasizes different aspects of key events. So even where there is an acknowledged shared history, the parties’ knowledge of the causes, triggers, major events, and possible futures differ in significant ways. Part of the mediation process is thus to educate each other and share knowledge, allowing a new shared knowledge system to emerge. This is also why national dialogues and other such processes that allow public participation are so important, because for such a new shared knowledge system to emerge, it needs broad participation and ownership (Paffenholz 2021).

Planning

The insights we have gained from the application of complexity to mediation thus far suggest that it is not possible to definitively identify a problem and design a solution for it at the outset, that is, during the premediation or initial planning phase, using an analytical problem solvingmethodology. Instead, we have to use an alternative adaptive planning methodology. Harry Jones (2008, 3) argues that “recognizing uncertainty heightens the importance of building flexibility into projects, and adapting to the available signals about performance and progress as you go along.”

Ricardo Wilson-Grau (2008, 2) argues that in situations with high levels of uncertainty, intentional design tends to limit the capacity to respond and innovate, above all when the social change process is bound to achieving those predefined results in order to demonstrate success to its stakeholders, notably partners and donors. He argues that the alternative to full-fledged intentional design, as well as to the more conventional modes of strategic planning, is for the social change processes to keep the planning process light and imaginative (Wilson-Grau 2008, 2). On the basis of these insights from complexity, we argue that design and planning cannot be limited to the start of a mediation process, but need to be part of an ongoing process of adaptation, throughout the lifetime of the mediation process. The planning process should involve the broadest possible representative group of experts, including relevant and appropriate local actors and representatives or proxies of the parties to the conflict, so that it can be informed by the widest possible cross-section of information. The design process should generate multiple options, and the planning process should experiment with those most likely to have the desired effect. This is essentially an evolutionary process of iterative cycles of variation and selection.

Applying an adaptive approach to mediation in the face of uncertainty does not imply that we cannot plan, but it does suggest that we have to depart from linear causal planning approaches. Murray and Marmorek argue that an adaptive approach allows “activities to proceed despite uncertainty regarding how best to achieve desired outcomes (…) in fact, it specifically targets such uncertainty (…) and provides a science-based learning process characterized by using outcomes for evaluation and adjustment” (Murray and Marmorek 2003, 2).

Adaptive Mediation approaches planning as an iterative exploration and adaption process that continuously co-evolves with the system it is attempting to influence. Adaptive Mediation employs variation and selection to generate a variety of hypotheses or options for achieving objectives, and institutes a selection process that identifies options to explore further and those to discontinue. In contrast to traditional approaches, the adaptive approach does not privilege one potential solution or end-state, but purposefully pursues a variety of options simultaneously. For instance, Adaptive Mediation may simultaneously employ multiple-track approaches to engage with potential parties, or probe different topics for negotiation concurrently.

When multiple options are explored, special attention must be paid to the feedback generated by these different initiatives. Feedback enables purposeful selection-based adaptation of the mediation process, whereby underperforming options are modified or abandoned while promising options are expanded.

Management and Coordination

As complex systems are dynamic, our methodology for generating knowledge about the particular system we are engaging with and its environment must keep up with the rate of change in the system and its environment. A management approach that is sensitive to the need to continuously adapt our decisions based on new information is thus more likely to cope with complex systems. The reality on the ground is that approaches that worked in one specific context can rarely be guaranteed to yield results in another (Coleman 2003; Brusset et al. 2016).

Management in this context refers to directing the experimentation, assessment, and adaptation processes of the Adaptive Mediation approach. By contrast, a management style that is based on the belief that the manager or the organization has the knowledge and agency necessary to identify “the problem” and to develop the “right” solution for the problem is likely to be less effective when dealing with highly dynamic and nonlinear complex systems. According to Cilliers (1998, 112), following such a management strategy constitutes “an avoidance of complexity.” Rihani (2002, 9) agrees, arguing that “command-and-control methods are useless. Complex adaptive systems respond better to light-touch styles of management based on constant monitoring of overall patterns of performance coupled with judicious small-scale incremental adjustments.”

Real-time decisions will always necessitate compromise between the urgency of the action, the information currently available, and the time and opportunities available for pursuing coherence. In this highly dynamic and nonlinear environment, most decisions are made without crucial information and in the presence of major uncertainties about the potential cost, benefits, and risks involved in certain courses of action, both of which prevent informed decisions (Cloete 2004). Being aware of the limits of our knowledge in this context is very useful, reminding us not to overestimate our ability to analyze a conflict, identify root causes, and prescribe medium- to long-term solutions.

Our study of complex systems has found that distributed, decentralized control makes a system more flexible, and therefore increases its ability to cope with highly dynamic and nonlinear changes in its environment and within the system itself. Applied to the management of mediation processes, this notion argues against an overemphasis on centralized, top-down control of the process by the mediator. The critique against centralized management or rigid leadership is based on the knowledge that centralized control mechanisms will, in complex systems, lead to the degeneration of the system (Cilliers 1998). “Command-and-control methods and detailed forecasts and plans, effective for linear systems, are inappropriate as it is not possible to select sensible actions…where results cannot be traced back to specific causes” (Rihani 2002, 9).

When facilitating a peace process, a mediator typically does not have control over the inputs or resources, and can only indirectly influence the outputs that are meant to generate momentum toward the desired outcomes and impacts, as these depend on the agreements reached by the parties to the conflict. A mediator typically has the authority and credibility to convene, and can use that opportunity to facilitate and coordinate a process. The overall effect of this process can result in a much more comprehensive and all-encompassing effort than what any one of the parties could otherwise have achieved on their own if they chose to negotiate with each other without the help of a mediator. The role of the mediator is to facilitate the process that generates the strategic direction and operational coherence of the mediation process, not to control it (de Coning 2010).

Management and coordination in a complex mediation process thus require skills and approaches that are perhaps counterintuitive to most mainstream expectations of managers, namely that they should be visionary and decisive. Instead, what the Adaptive Mediation approach needs are process facilitators who are able to persuade independent agents to cooperate around shared goals and objectives and manage an adaptive process in a highly dynamic and uncertain environment, without interfering in or controlling the process so much that they end up disrupting the emergence of self-organization among the parties.

Facilitating a Self-Organizing Mediation Process

Adaptive Mediation suggests that when the aim is a self-sustainablepeace agreement, mediators should, as a rule of thumb, apply a light touch. Mediators should protect parties from external interests and agendas, foster inductive processes that maximize the capability of parties to self-organize, and help to generate agreements that are rooted in the local context and narrative.

The quality of a peace agreement should be assessed on its sustainability, that is, the degree to which the parties are committed to implementing the agreement on their own after the mediation has ended. Many peace agreements fail to be implemented because the parties don’t sufficiently own the mediation process or subsequent agreements. Important indicators of the sustainability of an agreement include the resilience of the agreed upon mechanisms for implementation, such as the extent to which the agreement puts in place processes that can manage future disputes or emergent issues.

Peace agreements that are not strongly owned by the parties lack resilience and sustainability. Implementation breakdowns are common, for example, when international mediation processes coerce parties to go along with processes, agreements, or externally conceived end states (for example, an accelerated election timetable) that do not necessarily reflect their interests or are not viable for implementation in the local context. One example is the August 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (ARCSS), which has been criticized for being imposed on the conflict parties by South Sudan’s neighbors. This contributed to a lack of political willingness to implement the agreement, or in some cases selective implementation of parts of the agreement by some of the parties (Buchhold et al. 2017, 10).

With Adaptive Mediation, the aim of the mediator is to provide the benefits of external intervention without undermining self-organization. Every time a mediator intervenes to solve a perceived problem among the parties, they interrupt internal feedback, and deny the parties the potential to respond to a challenge together, thereby deepening their interdependence. The result is a lost opportunity to develop self-organization and resilience.

Too little facilitation, however, may result in a lack of purpose, deadlocks, or breakdown. External influence has many advantages, including bringing leverage, opening political space, and encouraging accountability and more inclusive processes. The key to successful Adaptive Mediation lies in finding the appropriate balance between external facilitation and self-organized mediation.

Adaptive Mediation also recognizes the inherently political nature of mediation. Choices regarding who gets to participate and what criteria will be used to determine the topics included on the agenda, or the order in which they will be discussed all have political dimensions and political effects. A decision to pursue a particular initiative may face pushback from those who view it as harmful to their interests, or who were excluded from the process. All these choices are influenced by political judgments about who may lose or gain, and, as a result, it is rare that the “technical” aspects of a mediation will override what is seen as politically feasible in a given context. Even with the best expert advice, no mediator can replace the role of the political marketplace to effectively discount all political interests and considerations. Thus, as the South African example cited earlier demonstrated, the less the mediator directs the outcome, the more the parties themselves will self-organize, and in the process develop the ability to absorb and adapt to stress together, making the process more resilient to internal political trade-offs and external shocks.

Evaluation

Our linear determined-design assumptions influence how we assess success and failure, and are poorly suited to complex, dynamic peace-making environments. Ian Wadley observes that “Traditional monitoring and evaluation methods are not well suited to this task, typically imposing artificially linear project models on a dynamic conflict situation, as well as compliance reporting that moves attention away from real value” (Wadley 2017, 6).

In a linear complicated system, it is possible to explain an outcome in terms of a sequence of cascading causes, for example A caused B and B caused C. Complex systems are nonlinear. “Small changes can cause, through feedback and effects multiplying rather than just adding, very large changes elsewhere in the system. When effects are multiplicative rather than additive, it is not convincing to attribute one change to a single other change. The richness of interconnections means that any one change has several prior causes and itself may contribute to further changes in these causes” (Chapman 2002, 43).

As pointed out earlier, Morin (2005) stressed that emergence is “indeductible” from the qualities of the parts, and thus irreducible. This is why we are unable to attribute causation when studying interventions and effects, and why considering contribution—how certain activities contributed to a certain effect—is a more humble and realistic alternative in complex systems. Morin also considers the role of feedback in what he describes as a circular system wherein the effect itself intervenes in the cause, or in other words, “feedback is a process which complexifies causality” (Morin 2005, 15). In complex systems, the behavior of the system is influenced by its own internal processes and external causes, and its internal system has evolved as a result of its particular history.

Traditional results-based ideas of accountability and responsibility are associated with a simple linear theory of causation (Chapman 2002). In order to monitor whether progress is being made, it is essential to provide measures of performance and targets. In complex systems, the pursuit of any single target is likely to distort the operation of the system and thereby reduce its overall effectiveness. The feedback generated by the process of monitoring and reporting on the indicators will in turn influence the system, and have its own knock-on effects on the system. One of the significant dangers of specifying targets and simple measures of performance is that the result will be suboptimization. Emphasizing a single measure of performance leads to a decrease in overall performance. A specific target can encapsulate only one element of a complex system, and its dominance is likely to undermine other aspects of the system that are crucial to its general and long-term effects.

Feedback is critical for adaptation, and monitoring for feedback and effects should thus be a very important part of driving adaptation during mediation and conflict resolution processes. Current mediation practice neglects monitoringand evaluation, and where it does take place, its function is often limited to accountability, that is, reporting back to donors. There have been very few attempts to evaluate mediation with the aim of informing the adaptation of the mediation process itself.

An adaptive monitoring and evaluation model proposed by researchers at the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue seeks to better assess real value in uncertain mediation contexts by ensuring that assessments measure the quality of the process, not just observable results. This is achieved by assuring the quality of professional judgments through peer review, assessing a project’s strategic logic and implementation, and measuring observable results wherever possible (Wadley 2017).

An additional imperative for monitoring and evaluation in Adaptive Mediation is to shift the focus from accountability toward more real-time learning and adaptation. Mediation teams have to reflect regularly—weekly, monthly, or quarterly—on the continued validity of their hypotheses and on which aspects of their strategy, approach, or plans to disregard or pursue based on feedback from the context. As far as is possible, this process should be conducted together with representatives of the parties (or insider neutrals associated with them), to further stimulate self-organization and resilience. To encourage timely adaptation, feedback available to the mediation team must be systematic (that is, drawn from a diverse spread of actors and issues that could affect the mediation), timely (that is, preferably before rather than after context changes have affected the mediation), and accurate (that is, ideally verifiable, or not adversely affected by stakeholder bias) (de Coning and Gray 2018).

In Adaptive Mediation, conflict analysis, planning, and the assessment of results should not be understood as sequential steps in a linear project cycle with a defined beginning and end. Instead, they should be approached as interdependent dimensions of an iterative adaptive process that are undertaken simultaneously.

An Adaptive Mediation process can, for example, include iterative cycles of meetings within or between parties (or their proxies or constituencies) that simultaneously (a) reflect on the conflict context, dynamics, and drivers, and the implications for planning and implementation; (b) reflect on current activities under implementation, considering the viability of existing or alternative options; and (c) derive lessons and generate data to serve both internal decision making (planning) and external accountability functions.

Implications for the Ethics of Mediation and Conflict Resolution

The insights from complexity presented in this chapter have important ethical implications for mediation and conflict resolution. While complexity holds that we cannot predict the future and don’t have the agency to control future behavior, this does not mean that we are without agency altogether. Woermann argues that a complexity approach implies a shift from trying to discover “the Truth” about given situations, to a process of making choices and developing strategies for living and acting, and for dealing with the often unexpected outcomes of these strategies (Woermann 2010, 121). An uncertain future can be anticipated, influenced, adapted to, and engaged with, but such engagement needs to be informed by an awareness of the limits of anyone’s ability to ultimately fully know complex systems. That awareness has important implications for the ethical status of interventions into such systems. No party can claim moral superiority on the basis of predetermined models or lessons learned elsewhere, or on their good intent, nor can anyone hide behind unintended consequences, because we know that complex systems are nonlinear and dynamic and that any intervention in complex systems will generate side effects, some of which are likely to be harmful.

From an ethical perspective, this implies that it is necessary to acknowledge that, as mediators, we are acting on the basis of our own provisional knowledge and interest, not on superior knowledge that enables us to know how to achieve peace in complex social systems. Mediators thus have an ethical duty to proceed with caution and to monitor carefully the effects (intended and unintended) of their actions on the mediation process, with an understanding that these actions will eventually have an impact on the everyday lives and livelihoods of real people (Autesserre 2014). An explicit, reflexive awareness of the incompleteness of our knowledge and the limits of our agency are therefore vital to ensure decisions are made with a large degree of caution (and humility) while at the same time demanding that we think through the possible ramifications, especially possible harm (Hughes 2012, 116).

The ethical responsibility thus shifts from the perceived predetermined virtue of a proven model, theory of choice, or assumed good intent of the mediator, to those who have the agency to choose which model or theory of change will be applied in a given context. The outcomes and consequences that result are thus not attributable to the assumptions of the model or a misapplication of an otherwise good theory, but to the choices that have been made with the full awareness of the limitations of our preknowledge and the understanding that our attempts to influence mediation processes and social systems will have unintended consequences.

An awareness of complexity informs us that it is not possible to interfere in a complex system and have only one effect. Whenever we attempt to change something in a complex system, the system responds to our intervention in a number of ways. We can anticipate some of these responses, and some may have been responses we intended to elicit. The system, however, is also likely to respond in other ways that we do not anticipate. This does not mean that we are powerless in the face of unpredictable and unstable system effects. On the contrary, an improved understanding of the dynamics of complex systems should improve our ability to anticipate that there will be unpredictable and unintended consequences, and this should enable us to be more sensitive to such consequences when they occur and take steps to mitigate their effects or adjust our actions.

Aoi et al. (2007) argue that those responsible for the planning, management, and evaluation of interventions thus need to recognize that unintended consequences are a normal outcome of the dynamic nature of complex systems. They therefore recommend that the UN and other institutions undertaking such interventions develop institutional mechanisms for addressing unintended consequences, and institutionalize planning and assessment mechanisms that will enable them to anticipate and respond to emerging unintended consequences.

Complexity thus implies that mediators have to take ethical responsibility for their choices and actions. Taking responsibility means that mediators need to think through the ethical implications of both their macro theories and their specific choices and actions in any given context. They cannot base their decisions on the claimed superiority of a model or theory of change. They have to be conscious of the knowledge claims and assumptions that inform the choices they make, and the potential consequences of their actions for each specific context, and take responsibility for their decisions.

Conclusion

A fundamental implication of complexity for how we understand and approach mediation and conflict resolution is the realization that the ability of external agents to gain knowledge of the complex social systems we are dealing with in the mediation context is inherently limited. In other words, we need to recognize that international actors do not have the agency to analyze a conflict, design a solution, and apply that solution with a reasonable likelihood that such a solution can result in sustainable peace. First, in complex systems, there is no one definitive problem that can be solved. Second, for a peace process to be sustainable, any complex social system will need to develop its own institutions to manage its own conflicts peacefully; for that to happen, the process needs enough space and time to allow its own self-organizing processes to emerge. International or external mediators can assist and facilitate this process, but if they interfere too much, they will undermine and delay the self-organizing process. The key to successful mediation thus lies in finding the appropriate balance between external facilitation and local self-organization, which will differ from context to context.

Adaptive Mediation differs from the mainstream determined-design and directed-mediation model in that it is an approach specifically designed to cope with the uncertainty, unpredictability, and irreproducibility inherent in complex social change processes. Adaptive Mediation aims to empower the parties participating in the mediation to generate solutions themselves. For a peace agreement to be self-sustainable, it has to emerge from a collaborative process owned by the parties to the conflict that includes inductive iterative adaptive engagement with the context. The role of the mediator is limited to facilitating the process. Adaptive Mediation is especially concerned with enhancing the self-sustainability of peace agreements and, in this context, understanding the role of the mediator as facilitating a process of emergent self-organization.

When this approach is applied to conflict analyses, planning, monitoring, and evaluation, the ability of mediation processes to navigate uncertainty and adapt to changing dynamics will be enhanced. In order for more resilient and self-sustainable agreements to emerge, Adaptive Mediation requires mediators to apply a light touch that encourages greater interdependence among the parties and discourages dependence upon the mediator. As a result, utilizing an Adaptive Mediation approach should result in peace agreements that are more locally grounded, self-sustainable, and resilient to withstand setbacks and shocks.

The core principles of the Adaptive Mediation approach are thus:

• 1. A recognition that social systems are complex and thus highly dynamic and nonlinear. This means that their behavior is inherently uncertain and unpredictable.

• 2. In order to make sense of such complex conflict systems and to influence them—while recognizing that our agency to understand and influence such complex systems are limited—one needs to employ an inductive adaptive theory of change that is based on discovery and learning through iterative cycles of experimentation and feedback.

• 3. As the ultimate aim is to achieve self-sustainable peace, and the aim of peace mediation is to generate self-sustainablepeace agreements, the mediation process needs to enable the maximum participation of the parties themselves in the emergence of an agreement. This means the mediators need to limit their role to process facilitation and allow the content of the agreements to emerge from the self-organizing processes of the negotiations among the parties themselves.

The chapter also touched on the ethical implications of applying a complexity lens to mediation and conflict resolution. When we attempt to influence complex systems, they will respond in several ways. Some of these we may anticipate, but a complex system, because it is nonlinear and dynamic, will also respond in ways that we cannot predict. Our interventions thus generate unintended consequences, including some that are likely to be negative or harmful to people. We know that this will be the case, so, although the specific effects are unintended, the general effect is not unknown. The United Nations and all other institutions that undertake mediation thus need to develop institutional mechanisms for addressing the inevitable unintended consequences of their mediation efforts on the peace process, and should institutionalize planning and assessment mechanisms that will enable them to anticipate and respond to such emerging unintended consequences, with the aim of preventing and mitigating any harm that may be caused by the mediation process.