A Reinterpretation of the Melos Dialogue

Power, Morality, and Negotiation in the Belgrade–Pristina Dialogue

Abstract

The aim of this study is to interpret one of the most complex cases of contemporary, negotiated conflict management through Thucydides' Melian dialogue: the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. This iconic detail of the history of the Peloponnesian War is one of the first formulations of political realism, dramatically revealing the relationship between power, justice, and rationality. The basic premise of the study is that the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue is not merely a diplomatic process, but a modern replay of the "Melos" logic: an asymmetrical communication space where power and moral arguments are incompatible.

The research links Thucydides' realism with modern discourse analysis and conflict communication theories (Habermas, Fairclough) to reveal that during negotiations, the parties seek discursive dominance rather than mutual understanding. According to the study, the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue structurally follows the model of the Melos dialogue: the "weaker" party (Kosovo) builds on moral legitimacy, while the "stronger" party (Serbia and international mediators) dominates the language of strategic rationality.