Mediation ends in three distinct ways: achievement of the mandate, for instance in the form of a peace agreement; termination by the mediator, by the term limits given by the mandator, or by the warring parties themselves, in effect undermining the third party; or due to external events such as changes in conflict dynamics or concerns about the mediator’s security (threats or assassination). These possible endings are explored using concrete cases.

This chapter develops a conceptual framework in order to understand the role of mandates in the process of mediation. It draws on what previous mediation research has theorized in terms of mandates and tries to develop a broader basis for how mandates can be systematically taken into account when studying mediation processes. It provides a definition of mediation mandates and explores how mandates might affect the various phases of the mediation process. A mediation mandate is an externally given formal or informal authorization to a third party for what it could/should do concerning settling or managing a threatening, ongoing, or stalemated armed conflict. We show how mediation mandates may differ depending on whether they originate from the conflict parties or externally to the conflict. The mandate is one of the key ways in which the trilateral relationship between sending organizations, conflict parties, and individual mediators are regulated. Mandates also vary in terms of being explicit or implicit as well as general or specific.