Introduction

The recent move towards the professionalization of the peace mediation field has rested on coalescence around certain ‘evident’ truths surrounding the design and delivery of mediation processes. These truths include the need to see peace mediation as a process rather than an outcome, the need to ensure inclusivity and national ownership of mediation processes, and the embeddedness of mediation within the norms and institutions of the international community. And yet this so-called self-evidence is not always a guarantee of success. It remains necessary to assess ‘what really works’ in light of the situations where peace mediation, combined with constitutional changes, in the context of a broader transition has not worked, regardless of how one defines peace. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Central African Republic are among the best examples of where mediation has not worked, whereas South Africa, Tunisia and to a certain extent Kenya have seen more positive results. Reflecting on the differences in outcome, this chapter is concerned with the tension between what is normatively accepted – the self-evident truths of mediation – and ‘what works’ in practice as well as the long-term implications of such a gap.

There are three normative layers to the discussion. The first concerns the professional deontology – that is the normative canon – of peacemakers and mediators that is considered to guide and constrain their actions. The second concerns the nexus between peace mediation and constitutions, as prime expressions of domestic law and state practice, in the context of broader transitions. The third concerns the progressive development of international law informed by the two other layers. The chapter asks whether there is a connection between deontological and practitioners’ guidelines, the reproduction of practices and values, and state practice, and whether emulation and socialization between peacemakers may influence the evolution of international law more broadly in relation to transitional governance. In short, can such a reproduction be jurisgenerative, for example by preparing the terrain for emerging law through custom creation? It could also be argued that a fourth normative reflection may be added. This ‘meta-layer’ is an assessment of whether the ‘bridges’ between the three normative layers make for a beneficial cross-fertilization – or not.