[MUSIC] In this video, I would like to present a topology of resources on which the mediator can rely to establish his or her credibility, either directly as a person, or indirectly through the institution he or she represents. Let me clarify that, what follows can be applied to any sort of mediation, but I've decided here to illustrate this topology with mainly international examples. Now, what follows is inspired from a classic topology, on the form of power designed in a 1959 paper by two social psychologist French and Ravanne. They identified five bases of power: reward, coercion, status, expertise, and reference. Let's see how this helps understand the various resources a mediator might rely on, to do his or her job. Number one, reward. That's pretty clear, a mediator can reward the parties to nudge them towards an agreement. This implies a set of positive incentives or carrots in line with the co-motivation of the parties. For example, in the 1996 Oslo agreement between Israel and the PLO, the USA put on the table the commitment to ensure the security of Israel, and the capacity to invest in the economic development of the Palestinian territories. Number two, coercion, is the opposite source of leverage. The mediator can threaten the parties with negative consequences, if they do not move into the direction of an agreement. Examples of these sticks are numerous. In the mediation leading to the Dayton agreement on the war in Bosnia, for instance, US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, used a big stick to force the Serbian President Milosevic. He basically explained, either you go this way or NATO will bomb Belgrade. The third classic source of leverage is status. The mediator gets legitimacy through his or her own status, usually is the envoy of an institution. The special envoy of the United Nations secretary general, doesn't have a direct capacity to reward nor to force. Nevertheless, he or she has leverage as the agent of a preeminent institution. Source of power in number four. Referent power, is close to status, but different. Here the parties value their relations with the mediator, and they do not wish to put it at risk. The classic example is the involvement of the Vatican, or of the community of Sant' Egidio, between Catholic parties in conflict. As an example, the Pope was acceptable and able to prevent result to arms, in the Beagle Channel Dispute between Chile and Argentina due to a similar religious legions by both parties. Another example closer to us, in the ongoing mediation effort on Ukraine, only Russia enjoys this referent power over the separatist groups in the eastern part of that country. Source of power number five, expertise. Here, the parties trust and follow the mediator because of his or her expertise and experience. They consider that they are in safe hands because the mediator knows a lot about the mediation process itself, about conflict resolution, and/or about this particular conflict. He or she knows the region well, the act as well. Now, in any given situation, a mediator can usually rely on a combination of these five sources of leverage, these five resources. And depending on this combination on the amount of resources available, the mediator can build different mediation approaches. Let's consider four different types. In the facilitative mediation, the mediator tries in a low profile way, to provide a minimal framework for meaningful communication between the parties. In the formulative approach, the mediator gets further and has a greater influence on the proceedings, helping the parties to formulate the problem and the solutions, in an acceptable way for the other. In the directive mediation, the mediator takes a greater role on defining what the problem is about, and what the good solutions could be. In the manipulative approach, the mediator turns into a leader, threatening or rewarding parties in order to get concessions until they accept the agreement. And here of course, purists would say this is no longer an authentic mediation. Now, the choice between these four types of mediation approaches, will also depend on the context, the urgency, and the magnitude of the conflict, the parties involved, and of course on the personal style of the mediator.