Search results

Everyday Resistance, Peacebuilding and State-making addresses debates on the liberal peace and the policies of peacebuilding through a theoretical and empirical study of resistance in peacebuilding contexts. Examining the case of 'Africa's World War' in the DRC, it locates resistance in the experiences of war, peacebuilding and state-making by exploring discourses, violence and everyday forms of survival as quotidian acts that attempt to challenge or mitigate such experiences. The analysis of resistance offers a possibility to bring the historical and sociological aspects of both peacebuilding and the case of the DRC, providing new nuanced understanding on these processes and the particular case. The book also makes a significant contribution to the theorisation of resistance in International Relations.

La agenda de construcción de paz internacional está experimentando una serie de transformaciones que han llevado a la literatura a cuestionarse si seguimos dentro de lo que se venía llamando Paz Liberal – un conjunto de políticas, formas de entender y abordar los conflictos cuyo mayor objetivo era la consecución de la paz mediante la reforma de los estados en conflicto, promoviendo la democracia liberal, el desarrollo y los derechos humanos. Si bien este modelo ha estado prácticamente siempre en transformación y se ha tenido que ajustar a cada contexto, desde aproximadamente 2010 se ha consolidado una pérdida de fe en la consecución de la paz y en la reforma política de los estados, y una tendencia a buscar victorias militares y a incrementar la dotación de recursos para la guerra a los Estados en conflicto. Estos dos aspectos llevan aparejados otras consecuencias como la pérdida del contexto multilateral que había hecho posible la seguridad colectiva en el seno de Naciones Unidas, un giro hacia la protección del Estado y una condena de la población civil, a la que ahora se ve como una amenaza. En base a la sociología del militarismo, este artículo analiza las transformaciones de la Paz Liberal desde el punto de vista de los cambios acaecidos en las prácticas de legitimación y consecución de la guerra, argumentando que estamos transitando de un paradigma de Paz Liberal a uno de Paz Militar. Esto no necesariamente implica que vivamos en un mundo más militarizado o menos pacífico, sino que en contra del objetivo de monopolizar y regular la guerra que se encontraba en el seno de la Paz Liberal, el uso de la fuerza se ha desmonopolizado, haciendo de la guerra, y no la promoción de la democracia o el control de la fuerza, el instrumento por defecto en la promoción del orden internacional. Metodológicamente, el artículo se basa en un análisis temático de los principales documentos sobre la agenda de construcción de paz de la ONU desde 1992 hasta 2023 e incluye algunos ejemplos sacados de varias observaciones y entrevistas realizadas con oficiales de la ONU en República Democrática del Congo (RDC) y la República Centroafricana (RCA).

This article explores how European Union (EU) peacebuilding is being reconfigured. Whereas the EU was once a bulwark of liberal peacebuilding, promoting a rule of law–based international order, it is now downplaying the goal of good governance and placing military capacity as central for international peace and security. Several works have analysed these changes but have not theorised militarism, despite war-waging and war-preparation have marked EU peacebuilding's direction. The article argues that EU peacebuilding continues to expose elements of liberal militarism since its origins but is now changing from what Mabee and Vucetic call a nation-statist to an exceptionalist militarism. This shift implies that peace has ceased to be served by the intervention of sovereignty with a discourse based on the link between order, good governance, and human rights and is now premised on the upholding of sovereignty, even if that means the suspension of rights. The research draws on thematic analysis of EU documents and interviews undertaken with EU and G5 Sahel officials and managers of EU-funded peacebuilding programmes. It also briefly analyses the case of the Sahel as an example of how the build-up of states' military capacity is strengthening states' capacity to override human rights and repressing dissent.

A president reluctant to leave and persistent armed conflict motivated young people to pursue social and economic justice by peaceful means.

Attention to everyday forms of resistance in the liberal peace debates has provided a more sophisticated critique of peacebuilding but the concept of resistance remains limited. The paper argues that this is because leading approaches to resistance coming out the hybridity literature lack an account of class and privilege. These approaches have done a superficial application of the frameworks they were drawing on, primarily those of Michel De Certeau and James Scott. Resistance has been conceived as an international–local and liberal–non-liberal contention. The conclusion is that while the study of resistance is welcomed, this research agenda is limited and depoliticizing. Critics of hybridity have addressed similar points, taking issue with the account of the local, the lack of historicity and the reification of liberal norms. However, in seeing these problems as stemming from the everyday framework, they too have misread the importance of class and privilege therein. The article shows that Certeau and Scott have much to contribute to understanding peacebuilding processes by sustaining a sociological historicist and practice-based account of resistance as embodied in subordinate subjects. This has the potential to politicize, historicize and decolonize the liberal peace critique and to contribute to studying resistance in IR more generally.

Everyday resistance, peacebuilding and state-making develops a historical sociology of peacebuilding processes through a theoretical and empirical study of everyday forms of resistance in peacebuilding in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It speaks to critical debates on resistance, statebuilding liberal peace, hybridity and on the sources of the DRC conflict. Examining the case of 'Africa's World War' in the DRC, it locates resistance in the experiences of war, peacebuilding and state-making by exploring discourses, violence and everyday forms of survival as quotidian acts that attempt to challenge or mitigate such experiences. The analysis of resistance offers a possibility to bring the historical and sociological aspects of both peacebuilding and the case of the DRC, providing new nuanced understanding on these processes and the particular case. The book also makes a significant contribution to the theorisation of resistance in International Relations.

The last couple of decades have seen an upsurge of military interventions in Africa addressing issues threatening the global security agenda. Under the broad banner of the liberal peace, resilience and counter-human trafficking, these operations have aimed at strengthening states' government and security apparatus. Though the continent has historically experienced different forms of military intervention, at least quantitatively, there is an increase both in the number of interventions and of actual deployments. Several questions stem from here: if problems of security and conflict in Africa tend to be linked to issues of development and state reform, why are these issues addressed by military means? Why is Africa the most militarily targeted continent? How do these intervention relate to practices of world ordering? Following recent literature on militarism (E.g. Stavrianakis and Selby 2013, Shaw 2005), the paper argues that there is a new kind of militarism that signals, firstly, that practices of power and order-maintenance continue to rely on violence both for deterrence and for the constitution of institutions of authority; and secondly, that North-South relations rely on the distribution of force both between and within states. The paper explores this argument by following Mahmood Mamdani, focusing on the notions of patterns, practices and decentralised despotism. ; Presented at the Workshop on African Security and unbridled militarization? New approaches to African peace and security governance, The Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala, 22-23 November, 2017

The paper explores the balance between normative and foreign policy goals in European Union's (EU) peacebuilding policy. It shows that despite the swings between liberal and conservative approaches, the EU has focused on building military-capable states and not so much the good governed states it purports. This practice has the potential to undermine both EU's security, political and normative goals raising several paradoxes. These include the jeopardising of the good governance agenda, losing some control and autonomy over security provision, and the redefinition of security in military terms, away from the human security agenda. The article is focused on recent developments in the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), some aspects of the CSDP missions, the African Peace Facility and the new initiative to grant military support to third parties, the Capacity Building for support in Security and Development (CBSD). It shows that though peacebuilding has raised much controversy in how it is carried out and financed, the article argues that more than contestation, there is much consensus over peacebuilding and order and security goals through it. The swings, controversies and paradoxes rather demonstrate a lack of a coherent strategic framework where normative and foreign policy goals could be achieved.

The paper explores the balance between normative and foreign policy goals in European Union's (EU) peacebuilding policy. It shows that despite the swings between liberal and conservative approaches, the EU has focused on building military-capable states and not so much the good governed states it purports. This practice has the potential to undermine both EU's security, political and normative goals raising several paradoxes. These include the jeopardising of the good governance agenda, losing some control and autonomy over security provision, and the redefinition of security in military terms, away from the human security agenda. The article is focused on recent developments in the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), some aspects of the CSDP missions, the African Peace Facility and the new initiative to grant military support to third parties, the Capacity Building for support in Security and Development (CBSD). It shows that though peacebuilding has raised much controversy in how it is carried out and financed, the article argues that more than contestation, there is much consensus over peacebuilding and order and security goals through it. The swings, controversies and paradoxes rather demonstrate a lack of a coherent strategic framework where normative and foreign policy goals could be achieved.

This is a review article of two books that respond to convergences and turning points in how societies undergoing peacebuilding processes respond and engage with such processes. The two books demonstrate that these interventions are not an overpowering and coherent strategy, and even less so a practice. They suffer constraints and blowbacks in such a way that their moral, political and even military power is not as hegemonic or universally applicable as it was once portrayed in the literature. The different use of 'challenges' and 'resistance' to conceptualise these constraints and blowbacks points to the need for further research on how different actors interact beyond their role as interveners, peacekeepers or local actors.

Tomando como referencia los giros histórico y práctico en las Relaciones Internacionales, este artículo analiza los conceptos de "práctica" y "proceso". En ambos giros estos dos conceptos han servido para satisfacer preocupaciones éticas y metodológicas entorno al estudio de patrones de actuación, continuidad y cambio; la necesidad de ligar los niveles micro y macro; y el uso de la Historia como parte de la explicación teórica. Más aún, ambos giros han proclamado el estudio de procesos y prácticas como parte de una investigación más rigurosa, más ética e incluso emancipadora. No obstante, el hecho de que se hayan creado dos corrientes intelectuales aparentemente distintas – histórica y práctica - suscita no sólo una atención sobre esta herencia intelectual, sino también sobre la necesidad de explorar qué aportan estas categorías a la teoría y estudio de las relaciones internacionales. Para responder a estas cuestiones el artículo hace un recorrido intelectual y empírico a través los estudios de Michel De Certeau, Norbert Elias, y de los procesos de paz dentro del debate de la paz liberal. El artículo aporta una importante conclusión: si bien el estudio de prácticas y procesos promete resolver cuestiones metodológicas y éticas dentro de marcos teóricos, las inquietudes interdisciplinares y ontológicas de las Relaciones Internacionales no están satisfechas por el uso de determinadas categorías sino por el la dialéctica existente entre la metodología, la teoría y el argumento que lidera la investigación.