A Mediator [‘M’] can use ‘Moral Clarity” to assuage anger and bring reason into the room by encouraging disputants to clarify and reflect on their own deeply held moral principles, values, and shared ethical frameworks.

This approach helps move the conversation from immediate, emotionally charged positions to the underlying interests and values that can form the basis of a sustainable resolution.

Mediator Tools include:

(i)     Clarifying and Acknowledging Values – M helps each participant [‘P’] articulate the moral principles guiding their position.

By using active listening and reflective techniques, M ensures these values are heard and validated, even if not agreed upon by the other P.

(ii)    Identifying Shared Ethical Ground – Mediators look for common ground, which can include universal principles such as ‘fairness’, ‘respect’, ‘responsibility’, or the desire for a ‘peaceful future’, i.e. ‘peaceful co-existence.’

Highlighting these shared values can help bridge divides and reduce animosity.

(iii)   Reframing the Conflict – Inflammatory, blame-oriented statements can be reframed into neutral language that focuses on unmet needs and concerns.

This shifts the focus from a ‘moral failing’ of the other person to a ‘moral dilemma’ that the P’s need to solve collaboratively.

(iv)   Encouraging Perspective-Taking – M structures the conversation to encourage each P to view the situation from the other’s moral or ethical perspective.

This fosters empathy and understanding, which are essential for defusing anger.

(v)    Focusing on the Future and Positive Action – Instead of dwelling on past transgressions, which often fuel anger, M guides the P’s to focus on what a just and workable future looks like.

This involves defining ethical actions that will help their relationship flourish going forward.

In International Disputes, this is linked to principles of ‘Reparative Justice’, which I will be discussing in my forthcoming book – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’

(vi)   Maintaining Mediator Neutrality and Process Clarity – The Mediator must balance ‘moral clarity’ with strict neutrality to avoid appearing to take a side or impose their own moral framework.

Clarity around the ‘Mediation Process’ itself (including of course the ‘Ground Rules’), builds trust and fosters a safe environment for difficult conversations.

By using these methods, M can transform raw anger into a ‘focused discussion on values’, thus allowing ‘reason’ to prevail, and thereby enabling the P’s to work together, in jointly developing mutually acceptable, and ethically sound solutions.

AI – ‘Moral clarity means having a clear understanding of right and wrong, enabling firm, value-based decisions and actions, free from confusion or compromise, even in complex situations. It’s the ability to discern good from evil and act decisively, but it can also involve holding firm beliefs while acknowledging nuance and other perspectives, avoiding simplistic “us vs. them” thinking. Historically, the phrase has been used in politics to suggest a firm, often uncompromising stance against perceived evil (like Communism or terrorism), but modern interpretations emphasize nuanced understanding alongside conviction. Key Aspects of Moral Clarity:

• Discernment: Seeing ethical distinctions clearly, identifying what is just or unjust. 
• Firm Conviction: Acting decisively based on deeply held values, without hesitation. 
• Contextual Understanding: Recognizing specific facts and circumstances, not just applying rigid rules. 
• Nuance (Modern View): Holding strong values while remaining open to other viewpoints, allowing for “both/and” thinking rather than strict “either/or”. 
• Action-Oriented: Translating ethical understanding into concrete actions, often requiring courage. 

Examples in Use:

• Political Context: A politician claiming moral clarity might argue for a specific policy as objectively good and its opposition as inherently bad, as seen in anti-communist rhetoric or debates on terrorism. 
• Journalism: A journalist seeking moral clarity might name racism or other injustices directly, rather than using euphemisms to appear neutral, according to The New Yorker. 
• Personal/Interpersonal: Someone with moral clarity might strongly oppose a harmful bill but still try to understand why someone supports it, showing empathy while staying true to their values, suggests Conflict Center.’

AI – ‘Moral clarity in international relations is the clear definition and firm stance on what is right and wrong in foreign policy, often involving clear distinctions between good and evil, but it’s a complex concept: it can mean decisive action against injustice (like in the Cold War) or, when taken to extremes (moral absolutism), risks blinding nations to nuance, leading to conflict, while a mature approach balances firm values with humility, understanding context, and considering both actions and inactions. Core Concepts

• Defining Good vs. Evil: Making unambiguous judgments about actions, such as opposing oppression, fighting terrorism, or addressing climate change.
• Action-Oriented: Moving beyond mere ideals to take decisive, principled action based on these clear moral lines.
• Historical Context: Gained prominence during the Cold War as a way to rally support against ideological foes. 

Nuances and Challenges

• Risk of Moral Absolutism: Unyielding certainty can lead to violence and crusades, ignoring complexities or differing perspectives, as seen in historical conflicts, notes Carnegie Council and The New York Times.
• Balancing Values & Realism: A mature moral clarity requires humility (like Lincoln’s “firmness in the right, as God gives me to see the right”) to allow for reconciliation, recognizing the limitations of human judgment and the need for nuanced approaches, says the Carnegie Council.
• Beyond Simplistic Judgments: A truly moral foreign policy assesses motives, methods, and consequences, even acknowledging the ethical weight of inaction, explains Texas National Security Review and Harvard Kennedy School. 

A Better Approach (According to some scholars)

• Three-Dimensional Ethics: Evaluating intentions, means, and consequences.
• Contextual Understanding: Recognizing that borders and national communities carry moral weight, requiring balancing universal humanitarian duties with specific responsibilities to one’s own citizens, as discussed in Project MUSE.
• “Both/And” Thinking: Holding firm beliefs while remaining open to new information and understanding opposing viewpoints, fostering change rather than division, suggests the Conflict Center.’ 

AI – ‘In international relations, relying solely on a concept like “moral certainty” is generally ineffective for mediating disputes with a hegemon, as moral arguments often resist compromise and hegemons operate primarily on power dynamics and self-interest. Political order is instead typically resolved through pragmatic, interest-based mediation strategies that leverage power dynamics, incentives, and the involvement of other influential international actors. Challenges of Using “Moral Certainty”

• Resistance to Compromise: Moral values are often viewed as non-negotiable or “sacred,” leading to moral outrage at the mere suggestion of a compromise. This cognitive and emotional attachment makes finding a mutually agreeable solution difficult.
• Peril of Absolutes: History suggests that crusading moral certainty can lead to violence, as each side may believe they have a monopoly on “the right”. This approach is counterproductive to the compromise-seeking nature of mediation.
• Hegemon’s Perspective: A hegemon “with no moral compass” is likely to be unresponsive to moral appeals, focusing instead on material interests, security concerns, and the maintenance of its power. 

Effective Mediation Strategies in a Power ImbalanceWhen dealing with a powerful state, the mediator and the weaker party must employ pragmatic strategies beyond moral arguments. 

• Focus on Interests, Not Morality: Mediation should pivot from moral positions to the underlying interests of both parties. Identifying and clarifying these essential interests allows for creative solutions that might be acceptable to the hegemon on pragmatic grounds (e.g., stability, economic benefits, security) rather than moral ones.
• Leverage External Pressure and Incentives: Mediators can use their ability to harness incentives (e.g., economic aid, trade deals) or disincentives (e.g., international sanctions, public opinion, diplomatic isolation) offered by other states or international organizations to encourage the hegemon’s commitment to a peace process.
• Confidentiality: International mediation is typically conducted confidentially, allowing parties to make concessions that might be politically unpalatable in public negotiations. This is particularly important when dealing with a strong actor sensitive about appearing weak.
• Building Trust (Working, not Deep): Rather than trying to change the hegemon’s “moral compass” or build deep personal trust, the focus should be on building “working trust” through Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs), such as information exchanges or specific cooperative initiatives, to reduce immediate tensions and facilitate dialogue.
• “Reality-Testing” Questions: The mediator can employ “reality-testing” by pointing out the potential negative consequences of a failure to resolve the dispute, such as an adverse resolution in an international organization or a costly prolonged conflict.
• Ensuring Lawfulness: Mediators must ensure that any proposed compromise is in full compliance with international law and not a flagrant violation of existing treaties or norms, which can provide a degree of legitimacy that even a hegemon may eventually need to consider for long-term stability. 

Ultimately, resolving political order in such a scenario involves a delicate balancing act of power, diplomacy, and practical interests rather than appeals to a shared moral framework that does not exist.’

Empirically, is there any evidence of a typology of outcomes in mediated dispute resolution between state actors?

If the answer is yes, then what framework was applied, and what were the underlying dynamic factors, i.e. concepts/Mediation and Mediation Advocacy Tools?

I will explore this in my planned book, ‘Mediation of International Disputes.’ See the ‘Mediation of International Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.