Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Just Say No: Explaining the Lack of International Mediation in Kashmir

Just Say No: Explaining the Lack of International Mediation in Kashmir AbstractThe dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is one of the world’s most protracted and potentially dangerous conflicts. While the international community has strong interest in limiting violent conflagration between the two states, third party action aimed at amelioration has been very limited. This contrasts with overall global mediation efforts, which have increased in the post-Cold War period. Using archival research, this study explores the reasons for the Government of India’s implacable opposition to any external intervention in the conflict. We argue that both strategic and ideational motivations have influenced its decisions. In particular, India’s strict adherence to the principle of strategic autonomy precludes the possibility of accepting external mediation. By exploring how and why strategic and ideational motivations intersect to become a formidable barrier to third party intervention, this article contributes to our understanding of why certain countries develop resistance to mediation. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Negotiation Brill

Just Say No: Explaining the Lack of International Mediation in Kashmir

International Negotiation , Volume 22 (3): 22 – Jun 17, 2016

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/just-say-no-explaining-the-lack-of-international-mediation-in-kashmir-2OGjmHcQd0
Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1382-340X
eISSN
1571-8069
DOI
10.1163/15718069-23011118
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractThe dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is one of the world’s most protracted and potentially dangerous conflicts. While the international community has strong interest in limiting violent conflagration between the two states, third party action aimed at amelioration has been very limited. This contrasts with overall global mediation efforts, which have increased in the post-Cold War period. Using archival research, this study explores the reasons for the Government of India’s implacable opposition to any external intervention in the conflict. We argue that both strategic and ideational motivations have influenced its decisions. In particular, India’s strict adherence to the principle of strategic autonomy precludes the possibility of accepting external mediation. By exploring how and why strategic and ideational motivations intersect to become a formidable barrier to third party intervention, this article contributes to our understanding of why certain countries develop resistance to mediation.

Journal

International NegotiationBrill

Published: Jun 17, 2016

There are no references for this article.