Search results

"In this paper, the author shall argue that the changed nature of armed conflict demands the Implementation of two tasks: the apprehension and punishment of the evildoers and the protection of the innocent. Both aim at the same final objective - the reduction and elimination of violent conflicts. But they require different techniques and instruments. The prosecution of perpetrators requires criminal justice mechanisms. The protection of civilian people needs combat capable military troops. Both are facilitated by a smooth, efficient, reliable, reciprocal and mutually trusted interface between military, civilian and criminal justice components of a whole-of-intervention protection agenda. They require active and dose collaboration between governmental, intergovernmental and nongovernmental actors; between local, national, regional and global actors; and between military, police, civilian and humanitarian actors. They also denote a connected agenda from preventing to managing, muting and resolving conflict through governance institutions. Consequently, unlike set-piece battles between armies of enemy states where war-fighting can be isolated from diplomacy and judged on its own results (victory, stalemate or defeat on the battlefield), the success of military missions for protection of civilians is woven more seamlessly into the civilian components of the integrated agenda. This too calls for an appreciation of the complementary roles at the civil-military interface. The argument proceeds in eight parts. The author will begin by mapping the changing security landscape in general since 1945, then spend some time on the changes in peacekeeping in particular. The responsibility to protect (Ren discussed in its three components of prevention, intervention and rebuilding before looking at the parallel responsibility to prosecute. In the last two sections the author examines regional peacekeeping and then focus on Afghanistan as a specific illustration of many of the arguments." (author's abstract)

"This chapter was borne out of a need to bring together two contending constituencies and their arguments about why and how to identify impact in peacebuilding initiatives in practice. The two constituencies, which the authoress calls 'frameworkers' and 'circlers', involve sets of people who blend across the lines of development and conflict transformation work and possess very different arguments about how to conceptualize and operationalize issues of impact and change in program design, monitoring and evaluation. The differences matter in a practical sense for workers in international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) because their views often clash during program design, monitoring and evaluation processes, and leave both sides dissatisfied. The groups also matter for conceptual reasons because they capture unspoken differences that hinder people's ability to talk clearly about impact and change, what matters, how people 'know what they know' about impact and change and, therefore, how they do their peacebuilding work. Unmasking the conceptual debates can improve our ability to speak about and achieve effectiveness and impact. The authoress receives diverse reactions to the arguments contained here. People who self-identify as circlers are often delighted to find an argument that recognizes them. For example, when one raises the topic in a course one co-teaches an peacebuilding monitoring, evaluation and learning there is a palpable sense of relief amongst some in the room who question linear causal logic and objective measures. Others, who are frameworker-orientated and work extensively in the field, tend to be open to the arguments below; they want frameworkers to be depicted positively but appreciate that different worldviews operate in the field and believe people need to be aware of differences and able to translate between them where possible. On infrequent occasions, academics steeped in positivist research have read the chapter and been appalled by the discussion regarding alternative worldviews, perceptions of reality and the questioning of causality; they find the suggestions disturbing and counter to their commitment to discover objective truths. Overall, these reactions reinforce for the authoress the importance of identifying and discussing assumptions at work in peacebuilding monitoring and evaluation; they also suggest that there are further issues to be addressed and that the authoress only begins to scratch the surface of the issues presented here. In this chapter, she begins by outlining the two basic constituencies: frameworkers and circlers. She briefly reviews the current status of peacebuilding monitoring and evaluation, which continues to grow and evolve. This is followed by an analysis of a series of topics that are debated between frameworkers and circlers; some of these topics are debated openly and addressed by other works that examine peacebuilding monitoring and evaluation, and some lie below the surface or are not articulated as debates. The tensions provide insights into the underlying issues that need to be identified in order to be fruitfully addressed. Finally, the authoress presents some concrete examples of ways that peacebuilding or other social change orientated programs have adopted to Bridge the positions in practice and identify practices that can strengthen particular areas that are currently under-developed and can benefit programs." (excerpt)