This study analyzes four mediation initiatives in the
conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to understand the differences
between mediators' capabilities and their effect on the negotiating
flexibility of the disputing parties. It is claimed that regardless of the
outcomes of the negotiations, in all mediation cases, parties adopted
flexible negotiating behavior in the form of making or offering con-
cessions, agreements on rules and procedures, agreements on mutual
solutions, and introducing new peace proposals. In all instances, the
mediators played both the facilitator and manipulator roles. The
difference between a mediation process leading to an agreement and one
ending with a stalemate is found in the way and extent to which a
mediator uses his or her leverage in playing the role of a manipulator.
