本文嘗試由「調解」（mediation）的角度來研究北韓核武危機，目的是針對其中的調解者進行分析，以加深吾人的認識。透過Thomas Princen在國際衝突的調解者一書當中所作出的分類，本文檢視爭端當中調解者的角色、特質和能力，並評估調解的結果與相關影響要素。研究發現如下：首先，在這場僵局當中，除美國、北韓與南韓等主要方之外，尚包括諸多國家或非國家形式的調解者。其次，在緩和衝突方面，中國與俄羅斯等主要調解者可以藉由實質利益或威脅要求爭端各方讓步。但因自身亦具有政治或地緣上之利益，所以難以使美國同意讓出調解程序的控制權。另外，國際原子能總署、聯合國秘書長（副秘書長）、以及美國前總統卡特等中立調解者，主要倚賴自身公正、公平或良好的名聲來博取爭端者的信任，其在緩和衝突上亦能有所貢獻。最後，除軍事武器布局與戰略規劃之外，筆者認為「調解」的思維是構建朝鮮核武僵局解決之道的另一個可行選項，值得未來深入探究。

This article attempts to study the North Korea nuclear crisis from the standpoint of “mediation”, particularly in efforts to enhance our understanding the concept of mediator. In the Intermediaries in International Conflict, Thomas Princen classified several types of actors in international conflicts. Applied this framework this article analyze the mediator’s role, characteristics, and capability, while also evaluates that mediation outcome and factors associated with successful mediation. This article has the following finds: first, besides such principal parties as U.S., North Korea and South Korea, this deadlock also includes many mediators who have characteristics of state or non-state actor. Second, China and Russia (principal mediators) can reconciliation this conflict by benefit and threat. But because they have interests of politics or geography, hence the U.S. Government cannot agree if they gain the control power in the conciliation process. Moreover, IAEA, UN Secretary General (Vice-Secretary General) and Jimmy Carter which neutral mediators also can settle this conflict rely on their just, fair or good reputation. Finally, in addition to military weapons and strategy plans, this article found that the thought of mediation is a feasible option to settle the North Korea nuclear crisis.