Search

Purpose: This paper aims to critique the rationalist theoretical framework of international mediation, which ignores emotions in analyzing the decision by conflict parties to pursue a negotiated settlement or continue fighting, and to present an alternative framework that integrates emotions. Design/methodology/approach: The paper draws on psychology research on emotions and conflict to develop an emotionally informed framework for analyzing conflict parties' decision-making regarding a settlement. It demonstrates the framework's validity and value through a case study of the 2000 Camp David mediation to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Findings: A rationalist approach to mediation does not have adequate explanatory and predictive power theoretically. In practice, it can reduce the prospect of success. Research limitations/implications: The paper highlights the necessity for mediation researchers to study the effects of emotion, draw on psychology studies on conflict and explore the emotional implications of different mediation strategies and tactics. Practical implications: The framework highlights the challenge of designing and conducting mediation in a way that cultivates emotions favorable to a settlement and lessens emotions unfavorable to a settlement. Originality/value: This is the first study, to the best of the authors' knowledge, to critique the rationalist framework of international mediation studies and develop an alternative framework that integrates emotions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]