Making Peace with God: What Place for Religion in United Nations Mediation?

ABSTRACT

As representatives of the chief global peacemaking body, United Nations (UN) mediators are often deployed to conflict contexts where religion is important to warring parties. However, religion is largely absent from the academic and policy literature on UN mediation. In response, this study systematically explores the place of religion in UN mediation policy. To consider the extent to which religious issues, actors, values, norms, and identities inform the work of UN mediators, I thematically analyse all publicly available UN mediation guidance resources. I find that religion holds a more meaningful position in UN mediation than the literature suggests, and that the UN has taken positive steps to promote religious sensitivity among its mediators. However, the guidance is less clear as to how religion matters in conflict spaces, and my analysis reveals that religion tends to be understood in a tribal and depoliticized way. This view offers a reductive reading of the multiple and complex roles that religion plays across conflict environments, which may limit the success of UN peacemaking efforts. My findings highlight the importance of adequately understanding the role of worldviews and normative dispositions in spaces where the UN mediates, including, but not limited to, religion.

KEYWORDS:

• International mediation
• United Nations
• religion
• conflict resolution
• culture
• peacemaking

Introduction

The main document outlining the policy of United Nations (UN) mediation in conflict spaces around the world, the UN Guidance for Effective Mediation, makes a single reference to religion.

Considering that many conflicts where the UN intervenes have religious dimensions, or religion plays a role in the socio-political organization of these societies, it is nothing less than surprising that the guidance’s only allusion to religion is strictly procedural and of little substance in that it merely refers to the fact that religious leaders have been consulted, amongst other actors, in the drafting of the Guidance:¹

The Guidance draws on the experience of the international community. Inputs from Member States, the United Nations system, regional, subregional and other international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), women’s groups, religious leaders, the academic community, as well as mediators and mediation specialists, informed its development.²

In contrast to the guidance’s negligible mention of religion, scholars of international mediation have long recognized the importance of religion in the process of conflict mediation.³ Particularly with the global proliferation of ethno-religious conflicts since the end of the Cold War, religious identities, norms, and values have taken centre stage in conflict resolution research.⁴ Religion, defined here as ‘a human response to a perceived nonphysical reality concerning the origin, meaning, and purpose of life’, is often interwoven with a society’s socio-cultural structures and ‘organized by communities into a shared system of symbols, rituals, institutions and practices’.⁵ For this reason, this ‘religious turn’ can be seen as a reflection of a wider trend in the Western academic study of peace and conflict, which emphasizes the centrality of culturally sensitive approaches to contemporary peacemaking.⁶

These developments have followed suit in the wider praxis of international mediation, understood as the ‘process whereby a third party assists two or more parties, with their consent, to prevent, manage or resolve a conflict by helping them to develop mutually acceptable agreements’.⁷ For decades, religiously inspired individuals and groups have played an important role in resolving conflicts.⁸ In particular, faith-based organizations have become prominent actors in the realm of mediation, with notable examples including the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Community of Sant’Egidio, Interfaith Mediation Centre, Muhammadiyah, and Mediators Beyond Borders. The Vatican State, too, has a long history of mediating between parties in international conflicts.⁹

However, religion seems to be absent from the academic and policy literature on mediation by the UN, much like in the Guidance for Effective Mediation. This apparent vacuum in theory and practice is significant for three main reasons. First, because as the ‘chief global peacemaking body’, the UN has historically been at the forefront of international mediation processes.¹⁰ Second, because since the end of the Cold War, there has been ‘a strong demand and burgeoning expectations for the United Nations to take a more useful role in responding to international conflicts’, many of which have a religious dimension.¹¹ And third, because of the growing consensus within the UN system surrounding the importance of national ownership for successful and sustainable peacemaking processes.¹² Against this backdrop, it is striking that research on UN mediation has struggled to keep up with the growing attention given to religion in the research and practice of international mediation more generally.

In response, this article systematically explores the place of religion in UN mediation policy. Through the qualitative analysis of text drawn from all publicly available UN mediation guidance material, I consider the extent to which religious actors, values, norms, and identities inform the work of mediators deployed by the UN to conflict and post-conflict spaces around the world. I find that religion holds a significant and meaningful place in UN mediation policy. My analysis of the material reveals that, for the UN, religious identities, issues, actors, and norms matter greatly in mediation processes, operating both as a driver of conflict and as a force of peace. However, the guidance’s treatment of religion is often superficial and problematic, primarily because it promotes a depoliticized understanding of religion. This view of religion as tribal and apolitical, I argue, overly simplifies the multiplicity and complexity of roles played by religion in conflict dynamics and peace efforts, and can constrain the effectiveness of UN peace interventions.

In what follows, I review the literature on UN mediation to understand how previous academic and policy research interprets the role of religion in the UN’s international peacemaking efforts. I then discuss the procedure used to collect data from the UN’s mediation guidance documents, and the method employed to analyse the data systematically. Next, I make a summary of relevant findings, which I proceed to unpack as I analyse the implications and problems underpinning the UN’s reductive and depoliticized understanding of religion. In the concluding section, I reiterate my argument, make some recommendations on how the UN could promote a greater level of religious sensitivity among its mediators, and suggest avenues for future research.

Religion and UN Peace Mediation: A Review of the Academic and Policy Literature

There is a vigorous body of academic and policy literature on UN mediation, from which a number of trends can be identified. On one hand, researchers have reflected broadly about the role of the UN as a mediator of international conflicts.¹³ Others, like Peck,¹⁴ Biersteker and colleagues,¹⁵ and Convergne¹⁶ have discussed the methodology and approaches underpinning UN mediation. This stream of research focuses on the organization’s capabilities and limits as an international mediator; identifies and evaluates the sources of leverage that UN mediators can resort to; and traces the evolution in UN mediation from an ad-hoc diplomatic practice based on personal traits, to a professionalized, highly technical endeavour.

A second area of study has sought to draw lessons from specific empirical cases where the UN has acted as a mediator at one point or another. The perceived failure of UN mediation in Cyprus between the 1960s and 1990s, for instance, gathered the attention of commentators at the turn of the century.¹⁷ More recently, researchers have committed significant efforts to assess the UN’s mediation performance in Libya,¹⁸ Yemen,¹⁹ and Syria.²⁰ The research projects carried out by Mancini and Vericat²¹ and Asseburg and colleagues²² have taken a multiple case study approach to identify and analyse the common challenges faced by the UN when mediating in these three countries. This approach has also been adopted by Nathan and colleagues,²³ who echo the lessons learnt by the UN with its preventive diplomacy efforts in Guinea, Lebanon, Malawi, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Yemen. Other cases of UN mediation, such as El Salvador,²⁴ Serbia-Kosovo,²⁵ and the Arab-Israeli conflict,²⁶ have also received a dose of scholarly attention.

The third bundle of research, which often overlaps with the case studies literature, explores trends and challenges of UN mediation in the present and future. To illustrate, Hellmüler²⁷ considers the problems of attempting to mediate in a world plagued by internationalized civil wars, which make violent conflict longer and deadlier. In her view, the central challenge to UN mediation in these kinds of civil wars is earning the consent of the parties, given the multiplicity of actors involved in these conflicts and the great power politics at play in the UN Security Council. Relatedly, research by Standfield²⁸ and Klein²⁹ analyses the implications of the UN’s Women, Peace and Security agenda in the context of mediation efforts, finding that implementation of a gendered perspective in UN mediation continues to be deficient. Lastly, the work of Pentikäinen,³⁰ Convergne,³¹ and Palik and Rustad³² examines the opportunities and challenges underlying the inclusion of local actors and other external stakeholders in mediation processes.

Yet, and despite the robustness of this body of literature, academic and policy accounts of UN mediation largely ignore religion as an important element of conflict relations and peace efforts. There is little mention of the role of religious values, norms, and identities in conflicts where the UN mediates, and it is unclear whether UN mediators take a special approach to incompatibilities where religion is important to the parties. Calling for greater and more introspective research on how worldviews – including religious – matter in UN mediation processes, Hellmüler and Wählisch argue that ‘more reflection is needed about what worldview UN peace mediation represents in light of the global fragmentation of international consensus and the endurance of many protracted armed conflicts’.³³

A small number of contributions, such as those by Nathan and colleagues,³⁴ Pentikäinen,³⁵ and Mancini and Vericat,³⁶ speak to the religious dimensions of conflicts where the UN has intervened. These research projects tend to emphasize the importance of including religious actors in peace processes. They suggest that religious leaders can play an instrumental role in legitimizing settlements and ensuring parties observe agreements reached, and that incorporation of influential religious actors is key to successful peacemaking outcomes. Their findings and recommendations resonate with the wider trend in UN policy that seeks to localize conflict resolution under the premise that ‘locally owned, led and implemented’ peace settlements are more durable and sustainable.³⁷

In doing so, however, this line of research offers a reductive understanding of religion fundamentally based on the ability of religious actors to advance the UN’s mediation agenda. By these accounts, religious actors are a monolith category frequently equated to tribal leaders, which fosters a simplistic vision of religion as frivolous, instrumental, and exotic. This has prevented the academic and policy circles associated to the UN from adequately gauging how religion may be intertwined with the cultural, social, political, and economic structures of a given conflict setting. Additionally, the failure of existing research on UN mediation to engage with religion in a serious, systematic manner blinds this body of literature to the multiple ways in which religious values, issues, norms, and identities might enable or constrain the UN’s mediation efforts across conflict and post-conflict spaces.

Even though an explanation for this lacuna is beyond the scope of this article, to investigate the inclusion of religion in UN mediation guidance documents is useful to map the distance between mediation research and the organization’s policy objectives. As discussed in this section, the literature tells us little about the role of religion in UN mediation, which prompts an exploration of the topic on a policy level. This may encourage scholars interested in UN mediation to begin asking questions about worldviews more broadly, and to consider whether and how religious worldviews fit in the ‘national ownership’ discourse at the core of the UN’s contemporary approach to conflict resolution.

Methods

To better understand the place religion holds in UN mediation policy, data were collected from a wide range of textual resources issued by the UN to inform and guide mediation processes. These documents are publicly available in the UN Peacemaker website, and were accessed by browsing the ‘Mediation Resources’ section, which centralizes all UN documents, guidance material, manuals, training resources, and information on UN mediation and mediation support services.³⁸

Textual data were extracted from four sub-sections within the ‘Mediation Resources’ section. The first, ‘Key UN documents’, ‘contains a selection of UN documents in the areas of mediation and conflict prevention, including reports of the Secretary-General as well as resolutions and documents from the Security Council and the General Assembly’.³⁹ The second sub-section is ‘Mediation Guidance’, which ‘contains UN guidance material for setting up and managing mediation initiatives. The material provides practitioners with practical advice and options in addressing some of the key challenges in mediation to maximize the chances for success’.⁴⁰ Third, the sub-section ‘UN Guidance for Effective Mediation’ includes the 2012 United Nations Guidance on Effective Mediation and three reports derived from such guidance.⁴¹ The fourth and last sub-section, ‘Guidance on Mediation of Ceasefires’, contains the 2022 Guidance on Mediation of Ceasefires.⁴²

The reason I decided to focus on UN guidance and related documents on mediation over other potential sources of data is because of the growing professionalization of UN mediation. According to Standfield, ‘the efforts to turn UN mediation into a science have produced a series of texts’ that constitute a ‘larger trend in professionalizing UN mediation’.⁴³ This trend led to the creation in 2006 of the Mediation Support Unit, an entity designed to strengthen the UN’s mediation capacity, to offer technical support to peace processes, and to produce and disseminate expertise on mediation.⁴⁴ Ever since the Unit’s creation, the trend in the UN’s approach to mediation has shifted from a diplomatic art reliant on individual agency, to the direction of a highly technical and specialized practice informed by a series of guidance documents.⁴⁵ Even though I am unable to differentiate between the importance of the various documents⁴⁶, I am convinced that general patterns can be identified by analysing them systematically and collectively. These patterns may in turn shed some light on the UN’s normative – or value based – approach to engage with religion in mediation processes.

A total of 57 documents⁴⁷ were identified across the four sub-sections of the UN Peacemaker website. All of these resources were gathered and screened according to the incidence of 31 search terms that allude to religion in one way or another. These included ‘religious’, ‘confessional’, ‘faith’, ‘belief’, ‘sacred’, ‘temple’, ‘creed’, ‘worship’, as well as terms relating to the world’s major religions (see Appendix 1 for the full list of search terms). While some results were not directly associated to religion, such as the term ‘Islamic’ in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a careful and contextualized consideration of sentences and paragraphs allowed me to discard a number of instances where my search terms did not make direct reference to religion.

After isolating all paragraphs that featured at least one of the pre-defined search terms, the resulting textual data were analysed using thematic network analysis, as outlined by Attride-Stirling.⁴⁸ Thematic network analysis is a form of thematic analysis that classifies themes emerging from text as web-like illustrations, or networks, in order to facilitate the structuring and interpretation of these themes. This method of analysis was deemed useful to reveal thematic patterns from the data in a structured and systematic way, and to illustrate the relationships between them. To apply this method of analysis, researchers must first formulate initial codes to describe the content, meaning, or context of the textual data. These codes are then used to generate basic themes, organizing themes, and a global theme, as shown in Figure 1. Each of these themes can be described as follows:

• Basic Themes: this is the most basic or lowest-order theme that is extracted from the textual data. Basic Themes are simple premises characteristic of the data, and on their own they describe so little about the text or group of texts as a whole.

• Organizing Themes: this is a middle-order theme that organizes the Basic Themes into categories of similar issues. They are clusters of significations that summarize the principal assumptions of a group of Basic Themes, so they are more abstract and more revealing of what is going on in the texts.

• Global Themes: super-ordinate themes encapsulating the principal metaphors in the text as a whole. These are then represented as web-like maps depicting the salient themes at each of the three levels, and illustrating the relationships between them.⁴⁹

Figure 1. Basic, organizing, and global themes.

In the context of this paper, the analysis of the text yielded 35 different but overlapping codes, which are outlined in Appendix 2. Following the above steps, these codes were first organized into nine basic themes, which were then grouped into three organizing themes that represent the most salient ideas across the material in relation to the global theme – the place of religion in UN mediation policy. My coding strategy is reflected in the presentation of my findings, and the complete coding framework can be found in Appendix 2.

Findings

Three organizing themes emerged from the textual data: (1) religious dimensions of conflict, (2) religion as a peacemaking tool, and (3) mediator guidance. Within the organizing themes, a total of nine basic themes were identified: (a) religious conflict, (b) religion as oppressive, (c) influence of religious leaders, (d) faith-based mediation, (e) engagement of religious actors, (f) inclusion of religious groups in mediation, (g) bringing stakeholders together, (h) engaging with religious traditions appropriately, and (i) UN mediator traits. Note that each organizing theme condenses a number of basic themes, as follows: Basic themes (a) and (b) make up organizing theme (1); basic themes (c), (d), (e), and (f) make up organizing theme (2); and basic themes (g), (h), and (i) make up organizing theme (3). This configuration is displayed visually in Figure 1.

Religious Dimensions of Conflict

The material analysed makes frequent reference to the religious dimensions that conflicts may take, given that religion is often a marker of socio-political and economic difference between individuals and groups in fragile environments. On one hand, religious-based grievances are considered as a potential catalyst of violence, as a 2020 report of the Secretary-General explains:

Some of the greatest risks of violence stem from the mobilization of concerns of exclusion and injustice, rooted in in-country inequalities across groups, based on ethnic, regional or religious identity.⁵⁰

Religious divisions and disputes can also galvanize different expressions of violence between and across parties. On four separate documents, a religious conflict in Bangassou, Central African Republic, features as a case study to illustrate local mediation efforts in the context of religious incompatibilities:

Clashes with AntiBalaka-associated militias caused heightened tension between Muslim and Christian communities. These tensions erupted in the form of an attack by a local, Anti-Balaka-associated militia on predominantly Muslim neighbourhoods and on the MINUSCA base in Bangassou. The attack provoked mass displacement: 16,000 people fled to the DRC border, several thousand Muslims sought refuge on premises owned by the Catholic Church, and movement in and out of the town was restricted.⁵¹

Moreover, religious values may be at the heart of divisions and disputes in certain contexts, and may fuel violent conflict. For example, a guide for mediators that addresses the intersection of natural resources and conflict repeatedly alludes to potential conflicts that could emerge between statutory and customary forms of land tenure:

Attempts to reclaim land under these circumstances can trigger conflict between authorities and affected communities, particularly in situations where the community’s traditional practices require the land to be kept fallow for periods of years, or where the land is protected for religious reasons.⁵²

Religious minorities, in particular, may be subject to exclusion, persecution, and discrimination over their belief system or their position in society, and are frequently vulnerable actors whose grievances must be addressed in all peace negotiations.

If certain groups (such as ethnic or religious minorities, women, youth and people with disabilities) are excluded from the initial settlement, it may be more difficult to address their needs and ensure their representation later on.⁵³

This link may be evident in the profile of the perpetrator, who is often affiliated with a State or non-State armed group, which includes terrorist entities or networks; the profile of the victim, who is frequently an actual or perceived member of a persecuted political, ethnic or religious minority.⁵⁴

But beyond activating conflict relations, the resources analysed warn against the potentially oppressive practices associated with religious values, groups, and institutions. This is usually related to the prevention of and response to gender-based violence and conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV):

And yet, even as the pandemic drove up the projected estimates of girls being forced to marry or drop out of school, or of women suffering violence in their homes, the driving forces behind these trends were sexism and misogyny, enabled by patriarchal social, religious and other institutions, and often intentionally spread by powerful political actors.⁵⁵

The adoption and implementation of protective legal frameworks [for victims of CRSV] stalled, in some cases owing to opposition from traditional and religious leaders, a situation that highlighted the need to engage a broad constituency on these issues.⁵⁶

For this reason, UN mediators are encouraged to engage religious leaders to promote societal changes in attitudes, behaviours, and beliefs that may normalize gendered and sexual violence:

The enhanced engagement with civil society and religious and traditional leaders as a means of prevention and to shift harmful gender stereotypes, such as stigmatization and victim/survivor-blaming.⁵⁷

Religion as a Peacemaking Tool

At the same time, the different documents emphasize the opportunities that religious actors and groups may offer UN mediators to push forward their peacemaking mandate. Religious leaders are central to these efforts, as they tend to have connections to and across local communities, are often widely respected figures with moral authority, and have a strong mobilization capacity. They are therefore important points of entry to spaces and actors that UN mediators might not otherwise have access to:

Traditional and religious leaders can also legitimize the process, help sell a difficult compromise to reluctant communities and champion reconciliation.⁵⁸

The involvement of broader stakeholders who are not directly negotiating at the table, such as leaders of religious groups or local politicians, can have a positive impact in ensuring understanding and support from the local community and civil society.⁵⁹

These qualities make faith-based leaders and actors effective mediators, as evidenced by the case study of Bangassou:

The Interfaith Platform mediators –wielding moral authority and being natives of the prefecture – were able to effectively leverage such peace capacities to gain access to the armed groups, civil society and administrative authorities and eventually broker a peace agreement.⁶⁰

However, the Secretary-General notes in a 2012 report that the UN is yet to take full advantage of the opportunities that faith-based groups may afford UN mediators, and calls for stronger partnerships with these actors:

Religious leaders and faith-based organizations play an important mediating role in many conflict situations. These leaders have unique connections to local communities and frequently enjoy the trust of the conflicting parties. Yet, these actors are often not fully acknowledged, and their potential contribution remains underutilized.⁶¹

In the period ahead, I am committed to strengthening our collaboration with three other communities working on mediation issues: the academic community; religious leaders working on mediation; and States engaged in mediation.⁶²

Where the UN can support or collaborate with religious peacemakers, UN mediation teams are advised to assess the UN’s comparative advantage vis-à-vis these actors:

Lastly, linking efforts with partners is critical. […] The multiplicity of actors potentially involved in local mediation processes underscores the need for a careful calibration of roles and a clear division of labour amongst mediation actors, such as international and local NGOs or community, religious and tribal mediators.⁶³

To this end, examples are often given of successful synergies and complementary relations between the UN and religious mediators:

In 2018, MINUSCA supported a mission of the Interfaith Platform – a coalition of religious leaders advocating for peace – to expand on existing efforts. Consequently, Cardinal Dieudonné Nzapalainga and Imam Kobine Layama led a three-day consultation process involving all main stakeholders. This process provided a critical opportunity for participants to air their grievances; it also facilitated an agreement between the conflict parties, aiming to restore state authority, dismantle checkpoints, disarm armed groups, restart local businesses and assist IDPs.⁶⁴

UN mediators are constantly instructed to engage religious actors to support and sustain the UN’s mediation activities, including through consultations, alliances, and partnerships:

More broadly, it is important that there be an expansion beyond the immediate conflict parties to engage those others — inter alia, civil society actors, including women, youth, religious groups and minorities — who can influence or have a stake in a peace process.⁶⁵

Identify civil society organizations […] for inclusion in Track II efforts and develop an engagement strategy at the outset of the mediation process, with actors such as representatives from trade unions, business sector, human rights groups, women’s organizations, religious institutions, and indigenous groups.⁶⁶

The material makes frequent reference to two faith-based organizations that work on mediation with religious actors, and which facilitate the UN’s engagement with these groups. They are the Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC):

The Department of Political Affairs has been instrumental in establishing networks to better connect with non-governmental organizations and draw on their expertise as well as enhance collaboration among them. These include […] the Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers, designed to enable the creation of stronger links with the non-governmental organizations that work with those important national actors.⁶⁷

The [OIC] has consultative and co-operative relations with the UN and other inter-governmental organizations to protect the vital interests of the Muslims and to work for the settlement of conflicts and disputes involving Member States.⁶⁸

Finally, in addition to engaging religious groups, the guidance underscores the importance of including all religious minorities in peace processes, as their participation is fundamental to the success of such processes and of any agreements that stem from them:

A concerted effort is therefore required to ensure that peace processes, including any constitution making that is part of them, encompass social, cultural, religious and minority groups, as well as women, youth, civil society groups and professional organizations, and are responsive to the needs and interests of different segments of society, both during the process itself and in its outcomes.⁶⁹

A central concern is the participation of women, youth networks and civil society organizations, as well as social, ethnic, religious, regional and other minority groups.⁷⁰

The experience of a UN envoy attests to the centrality of including religious groups in mediation:

In Ethiopia and Eritrea, we brought together the religious leaders of both countries – the patriarchs of the Orthodox church, the Catholic bishops, the Evangelical leaders, and the Moslem imams. They met in Norway in a remote place one hour north of Oslo, where they were totally isolated. In the beginning, they didn’t talk to each other; they only talked with their national compatriots – the Eritreans on one side and the Ethiopians on the other. […] But, gradually, they were able to talk more reasonably. This process turned out to be very helpful for us in bringing the political leaders to talks. Religious leaders command great respect within the population and, when they went home, they were able to use that to influence the political leadership.⁷¹

Mediator Guidance

The final organizing theme that emerged from UN mediation resources is the specific set of directives and instructions for mediators working in conflict settings where religious issues, identities, norms, and values are meaningful to actors. These relate to a mediator’s positionality, their potential for contribution, and some of the challenges they are likely to face. For example, the UN has a unique ability to draw together stakeholders in war-hit contexts, including religious actors, through its convening power and financial capacities:

The UN is often well placed to use its convening power to bring stakeholders together, including conflict parties and actors with the capacity to play a direct mediation role. This approach can include connecting actors, and in some circumstances, playing a coordination role or facilitating partnerships, particularly with local and international non-government organizations, religious actors and private sector representatives.⁷²

The support provided by the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) for mediation and reconciliation efforts in that country includes provision of air travel and, when appropriate, security, to enable representatives of the Government and the National Assembly, as well as representatives of armed groups and religious and civil society actors, to attend meetings related to the peace process.⁷³

Similarly, some mention is made of the religious traditions, practices, and values that UN mediators should bear in mind throughout their work, and engage with appropriately:

In addition to knowing the specific technical matters in detail, it was important to understand the political, cultural, and religious background of the participants and prepare the program and protocol accordingly.⁷⁴

Assess the applicability of locally rooted, tribal, indigenous or other customary or faith-based practices for responding to environmental change or managing and sharing resources.⁷⁵

This religious sensitivity is especially relevant when it comes to the promotion of gender equality and the prevention of gendered and sexual violence:

Mediation teams should solicit guidance from women’s groups and networks, and consult gender experts for advice on how to engage with customary and religious traditions appropriately.⁷⁶

Detailed knowledge of cultural, traditional or religious concepts, principles and institutions is essential, as they are likely relevant to an appropriately gendered approach.⁷⁷

The above ties into the traits, qualities, and behaviours expected from a UN mediator. The first set of traits are a solid understanding of the religious underpinnings of a conflict, which should inform their decisions and approaches:

A good mediator has excellent knowledge about the conflict in question. She or he is familiar with historical, cultural, ethnic and religious setting in which the dispute is taking place.⁷⁸

Literacy in and sensitivity to different cultural, religious and gender values and perspectives, particularly those relevant to the actors and issues at hand.⁷⁹

A second set of qualities relate to the ability of mediators to ensure the inclusion of religious minorities in peace processes:

Consequently, to secure the appropriate inclusion of social, cultural, religious and other minorities, as well as women, youth, civil society groups and professional organizations, mediators need to be both flexible and creative.⁸⁰

Designing solutions to address the effects of climate change can provide entry points for more inclusion and participation of women and youth as well as social, religious and regional minorities in peace processes.⁸¹

A third set of characteristics are associated to self-reflection and self-awareness. It is expected that these traits prevent religious convictions and perspectives from influencing the mediator’s work:

United Nations Mission personnel should be aware of their own prejudices and assumptions and take action to prevent personal beliefs from influencing their work.⁸²

It is the responsibility of United Nations Mission personnel to treat every victim/survivor with respect and dignity, regardless of the circumstances of the incident, the sex, gender, age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, language, political affiliation or any other opinion of the victim/survivor.⁸³

The fourth and last set of qualities include strategic thinking, building relations between parties, and the ability to broker agreements, as evidenced by the following advice on how to mitigate conflicts over values and beliefs:

Intervention strategies can include reframing matters to avoid a narrative around conflicting values or beliefs; promoting agreement with parallel understandings to ‘agree to disagree’ on other matters; promoting constellations of issues characterized by common values where possible; identifying overarching objectives that are held by all parties; and accepting that fundamental conflicts over values and beliefs may not be resolved through a mediation process.⁸⁴

Discussion: The Depoliticization of Religion in UN Mediation and its Implications

To my knowledge, this is the first systematic attempt to unpack the place of religion in UN mediation policy and guidance. As argued in the Literature Review, religion is largely absent from scholarship on UN mediation, and features sporadically to highlight the importance of including religious groups in negotiations and the role religious leaders can play in legitimizing peace processes and agreements. My findings, however, suggest that religion holds a far more meaningful position in UN mediation policy than the literature would have us believe. They reveal that, in the eyes of the UN, religious issues, actors, identities, norms, and values matter in mediation processes, and that mediators should be well prepared to face the religious particularities of the conflict setting they are working in. Yet, it is often unclear how these elements matter, and the accounts set forth by the UN are often problematic. In what follows, I offer a critical reading of each of the organizing themes. I highlight some strengths, limitations, and implications of the UN’s recognition of the religious dimensions of conflict, its view of religion as a peacemaking tool, and the mediator guidance.

The organizing themes reveal that the UN views religion to operate as a double-edged sword, as a productive force of both conflict and peace. In fostering the narrative that religion is a driver of conflict, the material analysed implies that religious faiths are more prone to violence and aggression than secular ideologies. Although it is important that UN mediators recognize the potential interlinkages between religion and conflict, the ‘religion as cause’ argument risks overstating the uniquely religious aspects underpinning violent conducts.⁸⁵ This can hinder the UN’s ability to comprehensively unpack all possible causes of conflict and the interrelations between them, constraining its understanding of conflict to a monocausal relationship between religion and violence. This also perpetuates the artificial separation between religion and politics that dominates Western, secular thinking, and may cause third-party interveners to misdiagnose the drivers of conflict, potentially resulting in misdirected interventions.⁸⁶

Where the text does recognize the intersectionality of religious elements with other sources grievance or incompatibilities, I find that the UN upholds a one-size-fits-all approach to mediating such conflicts. This standardized approach treats religion as an independent variable stimulating violence – no different to ethnicity, race, language, or political affiliation – and the prescriptions that flow from it are grounded in universal needs and interests. In doing so, UN mediators privilege the political and resource constraints associated with religious affiliation, whilst minimizing ‘the salience of the parties’ differing worldview-generated constraints’.⁸⁷ The problem with universal, interest-based approaches to resolving worldview disputes is that material bargaining may prove inadequate to satisfy the needs of conflict parties, since groups and individuals tend to derive meaning from sacred values that contribute to shaping their interests.⁸⁸ As long as UN mediators fail to incorporate parties’ moral, symbolic, and normative ideals into their frame of thinking, and understand how these dimensions play out in the political sphere, their contribution to settling religious-based conflicts are likely to face limitations.

Relatedly, UN mediators are advised that religious minorities in conflict settings may be vulnerable to violence, exclusion, and persecution. This view, whilst important and necessary to safeguard the rights of all groups and individuals, portrays religious minorities as helpless, homogenous communities in need of protection. It overlooks the agency of these groups and their role in political space, creating an uneven power dynamic that can reduce their bargaining power in peace negotiations. An implication of a paternalistic treatment towards religious minorities is that it may restrict the UN’s disposition to co-create agenda and priority settings with these communities, which could undermine the trust and legitimacy enjoyed by UN mediators from these groups. Mediators should instead work to strike a balance between ensuring the rights of religious minorities are protected and engaging them as active political actors with a capacity to speak for themselves.

My findings also demonstrate that the UN considers religious actors and traditions to be potential obstacles for achieving gender equality and women’s empowerment, a cross-cutting priority for UN peacemaking.⁸⁹ From this perspective, religion is a hurdle that must be overcome to ensure peacemaking incorporates a gendered approach, in compliance with Western liberal norms and values. This is helpful guidance insofar as it directs attention to the gendered principles at the core of religious teachings and practices, and to the implications that these may have for the mediator’s mandate. However, it overly simplifies the complex interplay between religion, gender, politics, and culture in societies where religion is a meaningful element of public life.⁹⁰ Indeed, a static conception of religion as backward and oppressive paints an inaccurate picture of the multiple roles religion plays in war-hit contexts, and mediators may acquire distorted understandings of some of the dynamics underlying conflict relations as a result.

Given that UN mediators frequently operate in contexts where women are relegated from political negotiations, the guidance seems to provide too narrow of an account regarding the relationship between gender and religion. In these contexts, ‘mediators face the choice of pushing a normative agenda that challenges the parties and risks alienating them, on the one hand, or marginalizing women and gender on the other’.⁹¹ Because UN peacemaking mandates tend to be uncompromising on the issue of gender, it is problematic that the resources analysed do not contemplate the potential costs of asserting the organization’s normative principles. Yet, if the UN’s agenda contravenes established socio-cultural standards of gendered relations, the neutrality and legitimacy of mediators is likely to be jeopardized, with the implication that any agreement brokered may fail to become socially and culturally resonant among affected populations.

The organizing themes, on the other hand, also demonstrate that the UN considers religion to be an important instrument with great potential to buttress its peacemaking efforts. Given that the inclusion and engagement of religious actors paves the way for local ownership of peace processes, facilitates access to relevant stakeholders, and fosters buy-in among affected communities, the UN’s call for complementary relations with religious actors and leaders in conflict settings is a welcome one.⁹² Still, it fails to recognize the links between religion, power, and politics, and depoliticizes religious actors without inviting reflection about who operates as the mouthpiece of religion. This perception of religious actors as a uniform category, often equated to that of the exoticized ‘tribal’ leaders, is part of a wider discourse identified in the material that essentializes the role of religious actors, values, and identities in both conflict and peace processes as mobilizing drivers, solely in the service of socio-political elites. For Hirblinger and Landau, a consequence of these ‘closed framings’ is that they tend to elicit competition between the different elements grouped under these reductive classifications, and as a result only the most influential voices end up being heard, replicated, and actioned, at the expense of the less powerful ones.⁹³

The same is true for the partnerships with religious-based groups and mediation organizations that the guidance advocates for. The UN’s efforts to consult, form networks, and work jointly with these actors grants mediators the crucial awareness that the UN is seldom the sole actor involved in mediation in conflict spaces. In an important introspective exercise, it also implies that in many cases the UN is ill-equipped to engage religious actors, identities, and norms, and that the peacemaking mandate should be upheld by ‘outsourcing’ the religious elements of mediation work to faith-based actors. However, the guidance resources do not sufficiently appreciate that the ontological and practical dimensions of religious approaches to conflict and peacemaking might differ from those of the UN. Moreover, by expressing a clear preference for formal, state-based mediation, the guidance depicts religion as existing outside the political realm the UN operates in. Both of these perceptions are based on a binary distinction whereby the modern, secular, and cosmopolitan UN is juxtaposed with the thorny, convoluted, and backward religiously minded actor. This in turn perpetuates the UN’s avoidance and modest understanding of the politics of religion in war-hit contexts, potentially limiting its efficacy at resolving conflicts where religion matters to parties.

A further problem with the UN’s instrumental view of religion is that it overrides local conflict resolution processes that incorporate religious principles or practices. From the UN’s perspective, religion is a means to uphold a mandate, and faith-based actors need to be brought under the mantle of the UN’s model and approach. As Morris points out, ‘there is a steady development of ethical standards which promote North American dominant culture values of individual autonomy and objectivity, without acknowledgement of the diversity of cultures and practices in the field of dispute resolution’.⁹⁴ It is therefore problematic that the mediation guidance does little to take the religious dimensions of local conflict resolution seriously, and that where it does, these processes are romanticized and exoticized, to the extent that they are construed as subsidiary to the UN’s hegemonic model. In some conflict settings, this imposition may leave untapped the potential for conflict resolution of established religious norms, values, actors, and identities.

The third and final organizing theme – the UN’s specific advice and directives to its mediators – demonstrates an insightful level of self-awareness of the organization’s potential and limitations in relation to religion. For instance, the basic themes reveal that the UN sees ample scope for contribution by acting as a facilitator between religious actors and other stakeholders at all stages of peace processes. This is consistent with the findings of the second organizing theme, and reinforces the UN’s conviction that engaging all religious actors and groups in mediation and including them accordingly – particularly minorities – is positive for peace outcomes. A problem that may arise here, and which the guidance does not allude to, is that the inclusion of certain religious groups may not always be welcomed by other parties to the conflict. This can happen when one or more parties do not see a religious group or its representatives as legitimate players, or where a given group is discriminated or stigmatized.⁹⁵ In these cases, it is possible that the UN’s normative stance in favour of equality and inclusion might jeopardize negotiations and that mediators are forced to make difficult compromises, which the guidance omits by giving the idea that engagement with and inclusion of religious actors is merely a matter of capacity and willingness, rather than a deeply political issue.

Additionally, the guidance’s emphasis on religious sensitivity is a positive step towards ensuring mediators are self-reflective and able to better navigate the challenges and opportunities posed by religious identities, norms, and values in conflict contexts. This is especially relevant for those aspects of religion and culture that are oppressive and may cause harm to individuals and groups. Yet, the call for an appropriate engagement with religious traditions and practices is excessively transactional and tends to focus on the faith-based constraints to the UN’s gendered agenda. From this perspective, a mediator’s understanding of the religious background, principles, and institutions in a given setting should facilitate the imposition of the UN’s normative standards, rather than enhance its responsiveness to the socio-cultural drivers of violence. This provides a vague account of the degree to which mediators should adapt their approaches to encompass religious sensitivity, and begs the question of whose needs and interests are privileged in mediation processes – those of the conflict environment and its parties, or those of the UN?

Lastly, the traits and qualities of UN mediators set out in the guidance speak to the increasing professionalization of UN mediation, as it underscores ‘generic and depoliticized expertise’ to respond to the religious dimensions of conflict.⁹⁶ Even though the material states that the personal beliefs of UN mediators should not influence their work, the guidance does not go far enough to address the positionality of the UN vis-à-vis local communities, conflict parties, and the wider political and socio-cultural environment where UN mediators are deployed. There is little mention of the kinds of relationships, narratives, norms, and values that both the UN and its mediators bring into their contexts of operation, and it is unclear whether mediators should adapt their strategies or approaches depending on the varying roles that religion plays in conflict and peace processes across cases. This is likely owed to the UN’s self-understanding as a non-partisan, rational, apolitical, and secular third party, and by its casting of religious issues as technical problems that call for a standardized solution.⁹⁷

Conclusion

In this article, I argued that although religion occupies an important place in the UN’s approach to peace mediation, the organization’s understanding of religious issues, identities, norms, and values in relation to conflict dynamics and peace processes is often reductive and problematic. The textual analysis of all mediation guidance documents revealed that religion tends to be considered in tribal and depoliticized terms, simultaneously as a vehicle of conflict fueling violence, and as an instrument of peace that UN mediators can use at their advantage to push mandates forward. UN mediation therefore appears to operate under a paradigm that discounts the political dimensions of religion and overly simplifies the multiple and complex roles that religious institutions, identities, and values can play in conflict settings, which can be limiting from the perspective of conflict resolution. The organization’s self-perception as a secular, rational, neutral, and culture-free mediator likely contributes to the essentialized view of religion set forth in the material.

Of course, one must recognize that guidance documents like those analysed privilege the general over the specific, and are only able to offer a broad glimpse into common challenges, dilemmas, and good practices in international mediation. The material can only go too far without considering all contextual variables of a given case, and it cannot reflect or emulate the conceptual and theoretical sophistication of academic publications. This makes it inherently limited and an easy target for criticism in the academic literature. In this sense, the guidance offers a good foundation to inform the engagement of mediators with religious issues and actors. One important finding of this study is that religion holds a richer and more meaningful role in UN mediation policy than the existing literature would suggest, and I highlight the positive steps taken by the UN to recognize the importance of religion in both peace and conflict. The guidance’s frequent call for religious sensitivity is thus a welcome development in the praxis of UN mediation.

However, the UN ought to take the normative orientations associated with religion more seriously, particularly as UN mediation becomes increasingly professionalized and standardized. The guidance could go further in helping UN mediators to explore and accommodate the religious worldviews that inform the needs and interests of conflict parties, and which help them to make sense of reality. A greater religious sensitivity involves a more holistic awareness of where and to what extent religion matters; who religious actors are and what roles they play in peace and conflict; what the risks and benefits of engaging them are; and how it might be appropriate to do so. UN mediators must also overcome the current siloization of religion as a variable driving violence, and be better equipped to understand the interrelations between religion, culture, and politics. It is imperative that they are prepared to adapt their tools, strategies, and approaches to ensure a greater responsiveness to the political motivations and aspirations of conflict parties for whom religion is important, without becoming consumed by the fetishization of religion.

A positive step in this direction would be the production of a guidance document for UN mediators on the topic of religion and mediation. An example of this kind of guidance is the Action Guide produced by the United States Institute of Peace in 2021, which sets out guidelines and best practices for mediators to appropriately consider and integrate religious values and cosmologies into their mandate.⁹⁸ Equally, the UN could incorporate a module on religious peacemaking as part of UN mediator trainings, looking to ensure they are equipped to engage with the multifaceted roles religion plays in conflict settings in respectful and effective ways. Both the guidance and training should seek to address the general questions posed in the paragraph above instead on focusing on a particular religion or religions, as there are several practical complications associated to the situational approach, including time constraints and financial feasibility.⁹⁹ During their training and subsequent deployment, mediators should be required to continuously reflect about religion in relation to their mandate objectives, and priorities. They could, for instance, be instructed to write a periodical evaluation report to assess the impact of their efforts to incorporate relevant religious elements into their work, gathering feedback from diverse stakeholders, and adjusting their strategies accordingly to ensure effectiveness and inclusivity.

My findings invite scholars of UN mediation to think in greater depth about the worldviews and normative lenses of actors in conflict and post-conflict spaces where the UN operates, including but not limited to religion. More research is needed to help researchers and practitioners gauge how religious norms, values, and identities shape the meaning-making structures of a society, and how these might be productive, in their own terms, to create the conditions for lasting peace and reconciliation. For instance, an insightful line of research would be to consider whether religion influences conflict dynamics differently in societies with religious homogeneity as opposed to those with religious heterogeneity, and how mediators might adapt their approaches to mediate more effectively across such markers of difference. As a final word, it is striking how often the scholarship and practice take for granted the normative principles and narratives, such as those linked to secularism, brought by the UN to the environments in which it intervenes. It is vital that future research on UN peacemaking encourages the organization to confront its own worldviews, values, and biases, and the impact that these may have on conflict relations and socio-political orders.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the participants of the PRIO PhD Course on International Mediation in June 2023, and in particular to Laurie Nathan, for the insightful discussions that prompted me to write this paper. Heartfelt thanks to Ruwa Mahdi, Hugo Ribeiro Mota, Ali Altiok, Eduardo Gutiérrez, Laurie Nathan, and two anonymous reviewers for tremendously helpful comments on earlier drafts. I thank an anonymous reviewer for their suggestion to include a visual representation of the three thematic levels.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alejandro Posada-Téllez

Alejandro Posada-Téllez is a doctoral candidate (DPhil) at the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford. His research focuses on the politics of victimhood, transitional justice, post-conflict transitions, and peacebuilding.

Notes

1 I thank an anonymous reviewer for this wording suggestion.

2 UN, “Guidance for Effective Mediation,” 3.

3 See, for example, Sampson, “Religion and Peacebuilding”; Matthews-Giba, “Religious Dimensions of Mediation”; Seul, “Mediating across Worldviews”; Abu-Nimer and Seidel, “Culture, Religion and Politics in International Mediation”.

4 Bercovitch and Kadayifci-Orellana, “Religion and Mediation”.

5 Snodderly, Peace Terms, 45.

6 See De Waal, “Mission Without End?”; Menkhaus, “International Peacebuilding”; Salem, “A Critique of Western Conflict Resolution”; Carnevale and Choi, “Culture in the Mediation of International Disputes”.

7 UN, “Guidance for Effective Mediation,” 4.

8 Sampson, “Religion and Peacebuilding”.

9 Randriamanantena, Institutions-Based Influence.

10 Iji, “The UN as an International Mediator,” 83; Fröhlich, “The Special Representatives of the United Nations Secretary-General”.

11 Bercovitch, “The United Nations and the Mediation of International Disputes,” 48.

12 UN, “Guidance for Effective Mediation,” 14; Donais, National Ownership and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding.

13 See, for example, Bercovitch, “The United Nations and the Mediation of International Disputes”; Skjelsbaek, “The UN Secretary-General and the Mediation of International Disputes”; Iji, “The Challenges of UN Mediation”.

14 Peck, “United Nations Mediation Experience”.

15 Biersteker, Brubaker, and Lanz, UN Sanctions and Mediation.

16 Convergne, “Learning to Mediate?”

17 See Richmond, Mediating in Cyprus; Fisher, “Cyprus”; Mirbagheri, Cyprus and International Peacemaking; Bölükbaşi, “The Cyprus dispute and the United Nations”.

18 Bartu, Libya's Political Transition; Watanabe, UN Mediation in Libya; Portela and Perroux, “UN Security Council Sanctions and Mediation in Libya.”

19 Hudáková, “Success in the Shadow of Failure”; Palik and Rustad, Mediation in the Yemeni Civil War.

20 Zartman, “UN Mediation in the Syrian Crisis”; Hinnebush and Zartman, UN Mediation in the Syrian Crisis; Lundgren, “Mediation in Syria,” 2016–19.

21 Mancini and Vericat, Lost in Transition.

22 Asseburg, Lacher, and Transfeld, Mission Impossible?

23 Nathan et al., Capturing UN Preventive Diplomacy Success.

24 Stanley and Holiday, “Peace Mission Strategy and Domestic Actors”.

25 Bergmann, “Same Table, Different Menus?”

26 Ben-Dror, Ralph Bunche and the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

27 Hellmüler, The Challenge of Forging Consent”.

28 Standfield, “Gendering the Practice Turn in Diplomacy”.

29 Klein, “The Role of Women in Mediation and Conflict Resolution”.

30 Pentikäinen, “Reforming UN Mediation”.

31 Convergne, “Learning to Mediate?”

32 Palik and Rustad, Mediation in the Yemeni Civil War.

33 Hellmüler and Wählisch, “Reflecting about the Past, Present, and Future of UN Mediation,” 6; see also Seul, ‘Mediating across Worldviews’.

34 Nathan et al., Capturing UN Preventive Diplomacy Success.

35 Pentikäinen, “Reforming UN Mediation”.

36 Mancini and Vericat, Lost in Transition.

37 UN, “Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace,” 13.

38 UN Peacemaker, “Mediation Resources”.

39 UN Peacemaker, “Key UN Documents”.

40 UN Peacemaker, “Mediation Guidance”.

41 UN Peacemaker, “UN Guidance for Effective Mediation”; OSCE, UN and OIC, “Developing Guidance for Effective Mediation”; Mediation Support Network, “Translating Mediation Guidance into Practice”; OSCE, “Regional Organizations in Conflict Mediation”.

42 UN Peacemaker, “Guidance on Mediation of Ceasefires”.

43 Standfield, “Gendering the Practice Turn in Diplomacy,” 600.

44 Convergne, “Learning to Mediate?”

45 Ibid.; Barnett and Finnemore, Rules for the World.

46 A Practice Note, for instance, can be expected to carry less weight in informing the work of UN mediators than the Guidance on Effective Mediation. I thank an anonymous reviewer for this comment.

47 These included 24 United Nations Guidance documents, 12 Secretary-General’s Reports, 6 General Assembly Resolutions, 7 Security Council Resolutions, 6 Practice Notes, and 2 Security Council Presidential Statements.

48 Attride-Stirling, “Thematic Networks”.

49 Farahani, Azadfallah, and Rashidi, “After Thematic Analysis,” 400.

50 UN, “The State of Global Peace and Security,” 18.

51 UN, “UN Support to Local Mediation,” 19.

52 UNDPA and UNEP, “Natural Resources and Conflict,” 36.

53 UN General Assembly, “Strengthening the Role of Mediation,” 35.

54 UN, “Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace,” 4.

55 UN Security Council, “Women and Peace and Security,” 15.

56 UN, “Conflict-Related Sexual Violence,” 9.

57 UN, “Handbook for United Nations Field Missions,” 103.

58 UN General Assembly, “Strengthening the Role of Mediation,” 53.

59 Ibid., 72.

60 UN, “UN Support to Local Mediation,” 20.

61 UN General Assembly, “Strengthening the Role of Mediation,” 16.

62 Ibid., 15.

63 UN, “UN Support to Local Mediation,” 14.

64 Ibid., 19.

65 UN, “United Nations Activities in Support of Mediation,” 13.

66 UN, “Guidance on Gender and Inclusive Mediation Strategies,” 25.

67 UN, “United Nations Activities in Support of Mediation,” 14.

68 OSCE, UN and OIC, “Developing Guidance for Effective Mediation,” 5.

69 Berghof Foundation and UNDPPA, “Constitutions and Peace Processes,” 64.

70 UNDPPA, “Guidance on Mediation of Ceasefires,” 30.

71 UN, “A Manual for UN Mediators,” 12.

72 UNDPPA, “Engaging at the Local Level,” 14.

73 UN, “United Nations Activities in Support of Mediation,” 15.

74 UNDPA and UNEP, “Natural Resources and Conflict,” 78.

75 UNDPPA, “The Implications of Climate Change for Mediation,” 11.

76 UN, “Guidance on Gender and Inclusive Mediation Strategies,” 16.

77 Ibid., 28.

78 UN General Assembly, “Strengthening the Role of Mediation,” 21.

79 Ibid., 82.

80 Berghof Foundation and UNDPPA, “Constitutions and Peace Processes,” 9.

81 UNDPPA, “The Implications of Climate Change for Mediation,” 6.

82 UN, “Handbook for United Nations Field Missions,” 16.

83 Ibid.

84 UNDPA and UNEP, “Natural Resources and Conflict,” 22.

85 See Wright and Khoo, “Empirical Perspectives on Religion and Violence”.

86 Bitter and Frazer, “The Instrumentalization of Religion in Conflict”.

87 Seul, “Mediating Across Worldviews,” 209.

88 Atran, Axelrod, and Davis, “Sacred Barriers to Conflict Resolution”.

89 UN Security Council, “Resolution 1325”.

90 See Wangila, Female Circumcision.

91 Fellin and Turner, “Women’s Mediator Networks,” 299.

92 See Nathan et al., Capturing UN Preventive Diplomacy Success.

93 Hirblinger and Landau, “Inclusion of Whom, and for What Purpose?”

94 Morris, “The Trusted Mediator,” 344.

95 See Goddard, “Uncommon Ground”; Svensson, “Fighting with Faith”.

96 Convergne, “Learning to Mediate?” 182.

97 Ibid.; Chandler, “Reconceptualizing International Intervention”.

98 United States Institute of Peace, 2021.

99 I thank an anonymous reviewer for their suggestion to add this discussion.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Search Terms

Religion

Religious

Religiosity

Confessional

Faith

Belief

Divine

Divinity

Worship

Sacred

Creed

Theology

Theological

Temple

Church

Mosque

Synagogue

Chapel

Shrine

Islam

Muslim

Christian

Christianity

Hindu

Hinduism

Jewish

Judaism

Buddhist

Buddhist

Sikh

Sikhism

Atheism

Atheist

Agnosticism

Agnostic

Appendix 2. Coding Framework: From Codes to Organizing Themes

Table A1. Organizing Theme 1: religious dimensions of conflict.

Table A2. Organizing Theme 2: religion as a peacemaking tool.

Table A3. Organizing Theme 3: mediation guidance.