Im Mittelpunkt des Aufsatzes stehen folgende Fragen: Inwieweit haben die gegenwärtigen Bildungsreformen in Bosnien-Herzegowina ihre Ziele erfüllt? In welchem Maße leisten sie einen Beitrag zur Friedenssicherung und Konfliktregelung? Welches sind die wesentlichen Akteure dieser Reformbemühungen und wer sind nur "Plünderer"? Wird die Bildung in Bosnien langfristig zur Segregration oder zur Integration führen? Es wird zunächst ein kurzer Überblick über das Bildungssystem im früheren Jugoslawien gegeben und die Folgen des Bürgerkrieges für Erziehung und Bildung erörtert. Anschließend werden die jüngsten Reformbemühungen in der Grundschule und im Sekundarbereich einer kritischen Betrachtung unterzogen, wobei auch die durch die EU angestoßenen Initiativen zur Bildungsreform analysiert werden. Es werden außerdem einige offene Fragen und zukünftige Herausforderungen des Bildungswesens in Bosnien-Herzegowina diskutiert, die sich u.a. auf die Bedeutung der nationalen Identität sowie die Rolle der Lehrer und ihrer Ausbildung und Qualifikation beziehen. (ICI).
Die Anzahl der Frauen, die in entscheidenden Positionen im Bereich der Friedens- und Sicherheitspolitik sitzen und die bei Fragen der Konfliktbearbeitung gleichberechtigt mitentscheiden, ist gering. Auf diesem Hintergrund ist für die Möglichkeiten der Krisenprävention und Konfliktbearbeitung weltweit eine Gender-Perspektive erforderlich. In diesem Zusammenhang diskutiert der Beitrag die UN-Resolution 1325, die am 31. Oktober 2000 einstimmig verabschiedet wurde und erstmals die wesentliche Rolle zivilgesellschaftlicher Frauengruppen in der Umsetzung von Friedensabkommen anerkennt. Der Beitrag beleuchtet die Gründe für die weltweiten Verstöße gegen die UN-Resolution, die vielfältigen Rollen der Frauen in der Friedenspolitik und Konfliktregelung sowie die frauen- und friedenspolitische UN-Lobbyarbeit der zwei UN-Institutionen CEDAW und UNIFEM. Zusätzlich wird ein Einblick in die Arbeit des Frauensicherheitsrats in der Bundesrepublik gegeben. Das abschließende Resümee betont, dass der massive Druck frauenpolitischer Zusammenschlüsse immerhin völkerrechtsverbindliche Normen für die Durchsetzung geschlechterorientierter Friedenspolitik geschaffen hat. In der feministischen Debatte steht allerdings die Klärung zu weiteren Fragen und Positionen an, wie z.B. das Verhältnis von Frauen zu Gewalt und Militär und ihre Beteiligung im Militär. An der konstruktiven Klärung solcher Fragen wird sich die Durchsetzungsfähigkeit der neuen feministischen Ansätze in der internationalen Sicherheitspolitik messen. (ICH)
"Cordula Reimann offers a general overview and a tentative interpretation of the state of the art in the field of conflict management. This includes a review of the field's research agenda and research questions on the one hand and an analysis of the role of theory and research methods on the other. The author introduces three distinct approaches: conflict settlement, conflict resolution and conflict transformation. One of the most important conclusions is that the concepts of conflict resolution and conflict settlement do not address the complexity of most protracted, intractable inter-state conflicts. Therefore it is necessary to synthesise and integrate different theoretical frameworks with actors and strategies. The author's discussion of the role of theory and research methods in the overall field makes clear why, and to what extent, theoretical complementarity must be given in ontological (the study of what is being analysed) and epistemological (the study of how it is being analysed) terms." (author's abstract)
Der Einsatz von Kindersoldaten modifiziert sowohl den Charakter eines Konflikts als auch die Chancen der Friedenssicherung nach der Beendigung des Konflikts. Er steigert einerseits das Ausmaß der Gewaltanwendung, macht Kriege leichter führbar, billiger und unberechenbarer und entzieht politischen Ideologien ihre Mobilisierungskraft. Andererseits tragen Kindersoldaten nach dem Ende eines Konflikts eine größere Last als erwachsene Soldaten. Auch die Probleme von DDR-Programmen (Entwaffnung, Demobilmachung, Reintegration) sind bei Kindersoldaten höher. Üblicherweise werden hier drei Phasen unterschieden: (1) Entwaffnung und Demobilisierung, (2) Rehabilitation in physischer und psychischer Hinsicht, (3) Reintegration in die Familie und die Gemeinschaft. In diesem Sinne werden abschließend politische Empfehlungen formuliert. (ICE).
"Whether an engineer, a doctor, a politician or a mother, everyone practices evaluation every day of their life. One evaluates whether the rice has finished cooking, whether the proposed law will address the problem at hand, which diagnostic tests to do in response to the patient's symptoms and whether the bridge design is adequate for extreme weather conditions. Each of these evaluative acts has a purpose in mind, requires information, and assesses that information against the context and against standards (explicitly and implicitly), in order to catalyze an action. Although everyone has this inherent familiarity with evaluation, in a professional setting it often becomes rife with misunderstandings, complexities and challenges. Therefore, it is useful to start with first principles - what is evaluation? Definitions abound within the professional evaluation field, with many of the major evaluation theorists having developed their own variations (Patton 2008; Rossi et al. 1999). Almost all of these have at their core a set of common characteristics: the systematic nature of the process, competent data collection methodology, and assessment or valuing of the findings. Overlaying these characteristics with peacebuilding, one can define evaluation for our purposes as the use of social science data collection methods (including participatory processes) to investigate the quality and value of programming that addresses the core driving factors and actors of violent conflict or supports the driving factors and actors of peace (Church 2008). In this definition, 'quality' refers to the caliber of the implementation; including the conflict analysis from which a peacebuilding strategy is derived, the planning as well as the implementation process (a blend of logistics, tactics and peacebuilding technique). 'Value', on the other hand, inquires into the changes associated with the intervention and their significance to the target population in terms of stopping violence or building peace. Both quality and value are essential components of program evaluation. This chapter explores the state of the art of evaluation in peacebuilding. After reviewing recent developments (section 2) and current practice (section 3), it proposes that peacebuilding evaluations are generally not delivering accountability and learning in the manner in which they should for two primary reasons. First, the average evaluation is not grounded in the basics of good evaluation practice. Significantly more attention is given to responding to peacebuilding's perceived `distinctiveness' and the challenges this distinctiveness raises than to ensuring that the basics are covered (see section 4). The second reason is that the core drivers of evaluation - accountability and learning - are rarely held at the heart of the process (see section 5). Section 6 gives some recommendations for improving evaluation in the peacebuilding field, followed by a short conclusion. Methodological challenges, of which there are many, are not covered in this chapter. While the field needs to address these challenges in a thoughtful manner, the issues of quality and the motivations behind evaluation are at the foundation of evaluation practice. No improvements in methodology will fundamentally change the contribution of evaluations if these issues are not adequately addressed." (excerpt)
"When originally written six years ago, the opening of this chapter made the point that it is unlikely that many corporate managers would read a chapter titled The Role of Business in Conflict Transformation. Not much has changed since. Most company managers would initially regard this topic as irrelevant to their operations, imposed by the outside world, and likely to distract them from their core business. Of course, managers think about the impact of conflict on their business. Some possibly even consider the secondary impacts their activities have on conflict, for example through the provision of revenues to authorities that are part of it. However, most companies do not see a role for themselves in conflict transformation. As a result, even though discussions about conflict transformation frequently focus on companies, they generally occur without the participation of those companies. A close look at how companies operate within countries that are in, or just coming out of, conflict reveals that many international companies are, in reality, already involved in conflict transformation practices. However, companies do not view their actions in terms of 'peace and conflict'. Rather, they consider their actions in terms of business sense as they serve to reduce risk exposure to the company and provide a more constructive working environment. Companies are unresponsive when approached with a conflict transformation agenda because conflict transformation is not linked to the business case. This divide between the conflict transformation community and the corporate community is remarkable, in spite of the significant overlap between a company's interest in establishing a stable and peaceful working environment and the conflict transformation agenda. So why is it that, generally speaking, companies and conflict transformation advocates have difficulties engaging with each other within this debate? Exploring the answers to this question is the starting point of this chapter. In order to address this query, it is necessary to gain an understanding of how companies view conflict transformation and what leverage companies have in relation to their project cycle. It is then possible to discuss some options that are available to both companies and conflict transformation advocates to increase their engagement and become more strategic in working together in areas of mutual interest and joint concern." (excerpt)
"The question at hand seems relatively simple and straightforward: whether and to what extent the protection and promotion of human rights is necessary for efforts to address conflict and build peace. The issue has been much debated over time. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights forcefully associated the protection of human rights with the prevention of violent conflict, stating that 'it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law' (UN 1948, preamble). Yet in 1996, an anonymous author in Human Rights Quarterly accused the international human rights movement of prolonging the war in Bosnia Herzegovina. There, human rights activists had rejected pragmatic deals that could have ended the violence and, from hindsight, were no worse than the eventual agreement in rewarding ethnic cleansing and aggression. In that author's view, it made 'today's living the dead of tomorrow' by pursuing a perfectly just and moral peace that would bring 'justice for yesterday's victims of atrocities' (Anonymous 1996, 259). Since then, the idea that the normative nature of human rights standards may complicate the practical demands of peacemaking has been a recurrent theme in discussions on the relationship between human rights and efforts to address violent conflict. This is especially the case when the latter is conceived of in terms of conflict settlement or resolution. Questions of definitions and objectives are thus key. Also relevant are the time frame, context and level of intervention one focuses on, though few authors on the subject make this explicit. In addition, narrow perceptions and generalizations abound in this debate as people working on human rights, peace and conflict have been grouped into categories of 'human rights activists' and 'conflict resolvers' as if these were homogenous and coherent clusters of actors. In this chapter, the authoress argues that considering human rights and conflict transformation in conjunction deepens one's analysis of what is involved in moving from violence to sustainable peace. It is informed by the idea that the two fill 'gaps' in one another, in that each contributes to a better understanding of the other by highlighting elements that are relatively under-explored in the theory and practice of each separate field. For conflict transformation, which will be the main focus here, the perspective of human rights forces a greater emphasis on structural conditions, especially the role of the state, systems of governance and issues of power in generating, escalating and transforming violent conflict. Considering human rights in relation to conflict transformation, moreover, highlights the need to employ a holistic, multidimensional understanding of human rights that does not reduce them to their legal foundations. This chapter suggests that conflict transformation, because of its explicit grounding in social justice, and hence inherently normative foundation, may provide a more nuanced and fruitful conceptual space for thinking about human rights, conflict and peace than conflict resolution and conflict management. Placing constructive social change at its core, conflict transformation acknowledges the need for addressing power imbalances and recognizes a role for advocacy and the importance of voices that challenge the status quo. Its concern with direct, structural and cultural violence is thus also highly relevant from a rights perspective. In order to place these ideas in context, the chapter will briefly comment on literature that has been published on human rights and approaches for addressing conflict and building peace (section 2). Section 3 proposes a framework for understanding the relationship between human rights and conflict transformation, using the metaphor of an iceberg, with its graphic image of things visible connected to matters unseen. It also introduces four dimensions of human rights that need to be taken into account in processes to build a just and sustainable peace. Section 4 discusses some of the practical implications of adopting a human rights perspective on conflict transformation. Nepal, South Africa, and other countries where the authoress has worked over the past 15 years, are used as illustrative examples throughout sections 3 and 4. Finally, section 5 concludes and points to some areas for further research." (excerpt)
