Suchergebnisse

Afghanische basisdemokratische und feministische Akteure äußern deutlich ihren Widerspruch zum externen Peacebuilding - doch sie werden nicht gehört. Ihre Analysen und Ideen werden von Politik und Wissenschaft weitgehend ausgeschlossen. Darin schlägt sich, so kann Mechthild Exo zeigen, die koloniale, epistemische Gewalt in der Weltpolitik nieder. Anschaulich und lebendig stellt sie das "unerwünschte Wissen" von vier afghanischen Organisationen vor, die in der künstlerischen Menschenrechtsarbeit, der feministischen Frauenorganisierung seit den 1970ern mit RAWA, dem Kampf gegen die Straflosigkeit von Kriegsverbrechern beziehungsweise dem besatzungskritischen Aufbau demokratischer Strukturen tätig sind. Die Studie ist eine bahnbrechende Pionierarbeit der dekolonialen Friedensforschung.

In a grassroots effort to counter the institutional and state-centred narratives on disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR) processes conceptualised by the Integrated DDR Standards of the United Nations, the NGO Corporación Descontamina has organised local projects around what it has identified as significant problems in previous work carried out in a Bucaramanga men's jail where ex-paramilitaries and ex-guerrilleros live together. In fact, two main problems have been observed: the socioeconomic and emotional situation of the ex-combatants, preventing their reintegration, and the social stigmatisation surrounding their return to civil society. As such, drawing upon decolonial theory, the objective of this article is to present the peacebuilding project 'Toys for Reconciliation' that was developed by Corporación Descontamina with the aim of advancing reconciliation in the context of the Colombian armed conflict.

Hybridity on the Ground in Peacebuilding and Development engages with the possibilities and pitfalls of the increasingly popular notion of hybridity. The hybridity concept has been embraced by scholars and practitioners in response to the social and institutional complexities of peacebuilding and development practice. In particular, the concept appears well-suited to making sense of the mutually constitutive outcomes of processes of interaction between diverse norms, institutions, actors and discourses in the context of contemporary peacebuilding and development engagements. At the same time, it has been criticised from a variety of perspectives for overlooking critical questions of history, power and scale. The authors in this interdisciplinary collection draw on their in‑depth knowledge of peacebuilding and development contexts in different parts of Asia, the Pacific and Africa to examine the messy and dynamic realities of hybridity 'on the ground'. By critically exploring the power dynamics, and the diverse actors, ideas, practices and sites that shape hybrid peacebuilding and development across time and space, this book offers fresh insights to hybridity debates that will be of interest to both scholars and practitioners.

Recent years have seen the emergence of a policy consensus around the need for fundamental reforms of global drug policies. This is reflected in the call for 'development-oriented drug policies' that align and integrate drug policies with development and peacebuilding objectives, as captured in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These calls have been important in acknowledging the damage caused by the war on drugs and in drawing attention to how drugs are inextricably linked to wider development and peacebuilding challenges. Yet there is surprisingly limited academic research that looks critically at the drugs-development-peace nexus and which asks whether the goals of a 'drug-free world', 'sustainable development' and 'the promotion of peace' are commensurate with one another, can be pursued simultaneously, or are indeed achievable. This article studies these policy fields and policy-making processes from the geographical margins of the state – frontiers and borderland regions – because they offer a privileged vantage point for studying the contested nature of policymaking in relation to the drugs-development-peace nexus. We set out a historical political economy framework to critically assess the assumptions underlying the integrationist agenda, as well as the evidence base to support it. By developing the notion of a policy trilemma we are critical of the dominant policy narrative that 'all good things come together', showing instead the fundamental tensions and trade-offs between these policy fields. In exploring the interactions between these policy fields, we aim to advance discussion and debate on how to engage with the tensions and trade-offs that this integrationist agenda reveals, but which have to date been largely ignored.

Recent years have seen the emergence of a policy consensus around the need for fundamental reforms of global drug policies. This is reflected in the call for 'development-oriented drug policies' that align and integrate drug policies with development and peacebuilding objectives, as captured in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These calls have been important in acknowledging the damage caused by the war on drugs and in drawing attention to how drugs are inextricably linked to wider development and peacebuilding challenges. Yet there is surprisingly limited academic research that looks critically at the drugs-development-peace nexus and which asks whether the goals of a 'drug-free world', 'sustainable development' and 'the promotion of peace' are commensurate with one another, can be pursued simultaneously, or are indeed achievable. This article studies these policy fields and policy-making processes from the geographical margins of the state – frontiers and borderland regions – because they offer a privileged vantage point for studying the contested nature of policymaking in relation to the drugs-development-peace nexus. We set out a historical political economy framework to critically assess the assumptions underlying the integrationist agenda, as well as the evidence base to support it. By developing the notion of a policy trilemma we are critical of the dominant policy narrative that 'all good things come together', showing instead the fundamental tensions and trade-offs between these policy fields. In exploring the interactions between these policy fields, we aim to advance discussion and debate on how to engage with the tensions and trade-offs that this integrationist agenda reveals, but which have to date been largely ignored.

Our Brains at War: The Neuroscience of Conflict and Peacebuilding suggests that we need a radical change in how we think about war, leadership, and politics. Most of us, political scientists included, fail to appreciate the extent to which instincts and emotions, rather than logic, factor into our societal politics and international wars. Many of our physiological and genetic tendencies, of which we are mostly unaware, can all too easily fuel our antipathy towards other groups, make us choose 'strong' leaders over more mindful leaders, assist recruitment for illegal militias, and facilitate even the most gentle of us to inflict violence on others. Drawing upon the latest research from emerging areas such as behavioral genetics, biopsychology, and social and cognitive neuroscience, this book identifies the sources of compelling instincts and emotions, and how we can acknowledge and better manage them so as to develop international and societal peace more effectively.