Refocusing the Boundary Spanner: Individuals, Their Activities and the Development of Relations between Conflict Parties

David J. Wilcox

International Negotiation: a journal of theory and practice2026https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-bja10130article
AJG 1ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

There is an increasing consideration of the role individuals – other than state leaders – can play in diplomacy and negotiations across various contexts. This article argues that the concept of the boundary spanner can be refocused beyond its current narrow use to consider the activities that individuals engage in when operating between conflict parties. At their core, boundary spanners are actors who operate along the boundary between units or a unit and its external environment and engage in four activities: relational, connectional, informational and entrepreneurial. I argue that refocusing on the core elements of the boundary spanner concept allows for considering the role individuals can play in shaping dialogue and diplomatic relations between conflict parties. Using a range of English-language discursive materials and interviews, I apply this concept to a single case study of Dr. Yair Hirschfeld’s activities in 1989–1993, which were crucial for establishing the Oslo Channel between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-bja10130

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{david2026,
  title        = {{Refocusing the Boundary Spanner: Individuals, Their Activities and the Development of Relations between Conflict Parties}},
  author       = {David J. Wilcox},
  journal      = {International Negotiation: a journal of theory and practice},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-bja10130},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Refocusing the Boundary Spanner: Individuals, Their Activities and the Development of Relations between Conflict Parties

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.