The selection and signaling effects of third-party intervention

Although mediation is one of the most widely used conflict management techniques, not all international conflicts involve mediation. Why do mediators intervene in some conflicts while not in others? Do third parties strategically select cases for mediation? How does their decision to intervene influence the outcome of international bargaining? This paper formally analyzes the initiation of mediation and the effect of third parties’ decisions of (non-)involvement on the likelihood of war. We find that informed mediators tend to avoid cases in which a disputant is resolute (selection effect); however, even such self-serving actions can reduce the likelihood of warfare by signaling the disputant’s intransigence to the other side and inducing the latter to make more concessions during bilateral bargaining (signaling effect). The Kargil War of 1999 illustrates this logic.