Comparing Qatari and Norwegian Models of Small State Conflict Mediation

It is a foundational assumption of international relations theory that great powers with massive resources – such as the USA and Russia – are the only actors capable of effectively mediating conflict, while small states can aspire to be marginal actors at best (Lieb 2004; Neumann & Gstöhl 2004; Kamrava 2013). However, over the past decades, in particular since the end of the Cold War, several small states have carved out a niche role as conflict mediators.

Norway’s hosting of the negotiations that produced the 1993 Oslo Accords and its involvement in a number of other peace processes, as well as Switzerland’s role in sponsoring mediation efforts, are widely known. Research suggests that such small state mediators possess some comparative advantages over big states, including credibility, trustworthiness, and perceived legitimacy (Slim 1992; Coleman 2012, p.71; Barakat 2014). Most crucially, small states typically do not possess the ‘hard power’ resources utilised by large states in ‘power mediation’; rather, they engage in ‘pure mediation’ where their capacity to influence outcomes lies in the power of persuasion (Fisher 1996, p.41). Such a non-coercive mediation strategy is commonly known as facilitation, distinct from the coercive manipulation strategy (Touval & Zartman 1985). Furthermore, due to their engagement in mediation activities, small states including Norway and Switzerland now possess considerable experience and expertise embodied in their diplomatic staff, and increasingly also within research institutes, NGOs, and think-tanks.