Despite an ever widening base of literature in the field of conflict management, the seemingly simple question of what is meant by 'success’in the context of mediation outcomes remains unsatisfactorily addressed. As such, a framework intended to begin to rectify this has been developed out of two basic theories. The first suggests that success is not, as it is often depicted, a singular phenomena, but rather that it exists on a continuum of possible mediation outcomes. To this end, a continuum is created indicating the extremes of success and failure and suggesting a transitory zone within which success at its most modest and failure at its most marginal meet. It is suggested that it is by identifying what distinguishes success at this point that it can best be understood. The second theory, suggesting that mediation outcomes are ongoing social processes, rather than discrete, singular events is then utilised to inform the selection of a number of determinant factors it is suggested may feature in separating success from failure. These are: the nature of the agreement, re『entry,impact and durability. In order to advance these theories, the framework is tested by way of two detailed qualitative case studies; Camp David and the Oslo process. As a result of this testing, it is suggested that while one study alone cannot hope to comprehensively address such a broad concept as that of success, a number of conclusions can be made that reinforce the merits of placing success on a continuum. The practical method of tracing the developmental process of a mediation outcome also delivers some interesting insights into the manner in which post agreement features of a mediated agreement, such as re-entry and durability may actually serve as more useful indicators of success than a simple impact assessment. The thesis finishes with some practical suggestions for both conflict management research and policy making.