Peace is mostly boring: invest in the unglamorous machinery of dispute resolution

Wars attract attention; the quiet processes that prevent them do not. Mediation, court procedures, hotlines between militaries, shared inspection rules and routine diplomatic contact rarely make headlines, because when they work, nothing dramatic happens.

We think countries and funders should treat these mechanisms like fire prevention: unexciting, steady and worth far more than their cost. Mediation, for instance, is a structured process in which a neutral third party helps opposing sides reach an agreement, and bodies such as the International Court of Justice give states a legal forum for disputes that might otherwise escalate.

The honest objection is that mechanisms cannot restrain a party determined to fight, and that some disputes are not about misunderstanding but about real interests. That is true. Our claim is narrower: most disputes begin below that threshold, and cheap, early, well-staffed processes can keep them there.

What would change our mind: evidence that early mediation and legal forums have no measurable effect on whether disputes escalate.

A practical test of any government's seriousness: how much does it spend on prevention compared with response?