The international community has a range of crisis management tools to choose from when responding to a nontraditional crisis. They include peacemaking, Article 41 enforcement action (sanctions), peacekeeping, postconflict peacebuilding, and peace enforcement.
Peacemaking is not unique to the post-Cold War era nor even to the twentieth century; the practice can be traced to the earliest times. It is not surprising, then, that when the framers of the UN Charter met in the closing days of World War II, they focused on peacemaking as one of two means (the other being collective security) by which the United Nations would carry out its primary task of maintaining international peace and security. Chapter VI of the Charter, “Pacific Settlement of Disputes, ” puts the onus on the parties to the dispute to seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means.
Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali defines peacemaking as “action to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter.” 1 Thomas Princen reinforces the diplomatic nature of peacemaking, arguing that because intermediaries cannot impose settlements, their only means of getting agreement is to promote communication, exchange, and, ultimately, substantive negotiations. 2 Along similar lines, Oran Young states that the role of third parties is basically persuasive