{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016645326504481434, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.88546255506608, '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}}
Assessing the Contingency Model of Third-Party Intervention in Successful Cases of Prenegotiation

The theory and practice of third-party intervention continue to develop in constructive directions and increasingly acknowledge the utility of unofficial methods directed more toward the subjective and relational aspects of international conflict. A previously developed contingency model of third-party intervention articulates the potential complementarity of these unofficial approaches (e.g. problem-solving workshops) with more traditional, official methods (e.g. power mediation) in pursuit of resolution. A comparative analysis of five cases of successful unofficial intervention in ethno-political conflicts identifies important contributions to the peace process. Descriptions of the interventions are followed by an identification of the transfer mechanisms and effects that carried the fruits of the unofficial interactions into the official domain. Each case is then reflected on the contingency model by identifying the stage of conflict escalation and the initiation, sequencing, and complementarity of interventions. The analysis provides some support for the validity of the model, although variations in the patterns of intervention indicate that strict applications of the model may be untenable. The model is thus seen as an idealized representation of a complex reality, but one that identifies some of the necessary interplay between official and unofficial interventions in order to effectively address intractable ethno-political conflicts.