{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012987012987012988, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0030557677616501145, 'mean_word_length': 5.208530805687204, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Power mediators and the ‘illiberal peace’ momentum: ending wars in Libya and Syria

Abstract The civil conflicts that erupted in the Middle East and North Africa as a consequence of the failure of the 2011 Arab uprisings show the limits of mediation as a tool for conflict resolution and of negotiated settlement based on power-sharing as a solution to conflict. The article examines mediation processes in Libya and Syria, problematising the role played by the nature of mediators as well as the broader ideational framework in which they have been operating. We show that in both contexts there has been a declining influence of pure mediators, exemplified by the sidelining of the United Nations, in parallel to a gradual but steady dispersion of mediation efforts in favour of ‘power’ and biased mediators. This trend reflects a broader rise in arguments in favour of stability, often interpreted in authoritarian shapes at both the local and the international level, a development that normatively and politically undermines the existing international regime dealing with civil wars. Taken together, mediation attempts in Libya and Syria point to the hollowing out of the liberal peace consensus and the consolidation of an alternative framework for conflict resolution based on authoritarian settlement.