{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018030513176144243, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.441964285714286, '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}}
Formulative Strategy: Why the African Union-led International Mediation in South Sudan Failed to Prevent Atrocity Crimes


 The puzzle of the African Union mediation is that it enjoys regional effectiveness in leading peace processes and yet often fails to prevent atrocity crimes. While existing studies focus on the lack of capacity to explain failures, I draw on atrocity mediation literature that emphasizes coercive strategies for ripening to explore widely significant factors associated with the AU mediation. I adopt the “framework of mediator behavior” in international mediation studies to analyze AU policies on conflict responses and the mediation in South Sudan. My approach is consistent with the content analysis of qualitative data. I find that the significant factor in the AU mediation is the “patient” policy, like “strategic patience.” The policy reflects formulative strategy of conflict mediation that describes the mediator who controls the process but shifts control of substantive decision-making to the parties. Formulative strategy is technically non-coercive, so the AU embraces it to respect sovereignty. The paradox is that formulative strategy is the AU legitimacy source—which anchors effectiveness—and failure. The AU mediation failed because of strategic choice, not the lack of capabilities. This study contributes to a broader understanding of the AU mediation and challenges mediator behavior assumptions.