Christine Schweitzer: Introduction - Civilian peacekeeping. A barely tapped ressource (7-16); Rolf Carrière: The world needs 'another peacekeeping' (17-24); Tim Wallis: Best practices for unarmed civilian peacekeeping (25-34); Rachel Julians: Peacekeeping with nonviolence: protection strategies for sustainable peace (35-42); Christine Schweitzer: Humanitarian protection as an additional function of humanitarian, development and peace projects - or rather a task requiring experts? (43-52); Christine Schweitzer: The responsibility to protect: towards an expanded role for global civil society (53-64).
"While there is an increasing number of articles and studies identifying lessons from the record of UN peacebuilding operations, it is striking how little we know about the UN's very capacity for organizational learning on peacebuilding, and about learning in international organizations in general. This pilot study seeks to lay the foundations for an in-depth investigation of the UN's record on organizational learning. Our study is motivated by both, a research and a policy imperative. On the research front, studying organizational learning within the UN peacebuilding bureaucracy contributes to opening up the 'black box' of international organizations. So far, mainstream work in the discipline of International Relations (IR) has produced surprisingly few studies on the everyday workings of international organizations, let alone their ability to learn. Studying organizational learning calls for an interdisciplinary approach bringing together IR (including peace and conflict studies), public management and the sociology of organizations. This has the potential of advancing conceptual debates within the discipline of IR. The study proceeds in three steps. The first step surveys the relevant literature from different disciplines and concludes that peace research, IR and organization theory do not offer ready-made frameworks for the analysis of organizational learning in international organizations. Building on existing research, we identify key elements of a new framework starting with a definition of the key term, organizational learning: We define organizational learning "as a process of cognitive change through the questioning of the means and/or ends of addressing problems. The process manifests itself in the development and implementation of new rules and routines guiding the organization's actions." In a second step, we survey the evolution of the "infrastructure of learning" in the UN peacebuilding bureaucracy over the past 15 years. We hold that a number of factors (lack of will both within member states and the UN Secretariat as well as the lack of resources and appropriate incentive structures) contributed to the very slow recognition of the UN's learning needs. Major crises (such as the soul-searching after Rwanda and Srebrenica) plus the Brahimi Report in 2000 provided a certain momentum that brought the need to build up the UN's learning capacity higher on the agenda. Still, a lot of work remains to be done. In a third step, we present a list of variables that influence learning that need to be considered in a future in-depth study. This list of factors includes power, organizational culture, leadership, human capital, staff mobility, knowledge management systems, as well as access to external knowledge. Outlining an agenda for future research, we present a draft model of the learning process that includes 1) knowledge acquisition, 2) advocacy/ decision- making, and 3) institutionalization." (excerpt)
Kriegsschauplätze in aller Welt stehen täglich im Mittelpunkt der medialen Aufmerksamkeit. Friedensarbeit hingegen ist unspektakulär, langwierig und wenig attraktiv. Was aber macht einen Ort, eine Initiative, eine künstlerische Arbeit zu einem Schauplatz des Friedens? Wie können den asymmetrischen Sichtbarkeits-verhältnissen alternative Perspektiven entgegen gestellt werden? Ist Frieden überhaupt sichtbar und darstellbar? Die Ausstellung versammelt künstlerische und aktivistische Strategien, die verdeckte Hintergründe an verschiedenen Krisenschauplätzen der Welt sichtbar machen, in öffentliche Diskurse intervenieren und sich der Kriegslogik widersetzen.
This volume documents the speeches given on July 7, 2006 in Hamburg on the occasion of the ceremonial opening of the Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker Center for Science and Peace Research (Zentrum für Naturwissenschaft und Friedensforschung, ZNF). The keynote speakers were Alyson J. K. Bailes, Head of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), former Minister of State, Prof. Egon Bahr, former Head of the Hamburg Peace Research Institute (scientific peace research has gained a unique institutional foothold in Germany. Together with the Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitpolitik, IFSH), Prof. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, a son of the namesake of the ZNF, and Prof. Wolfgang Panofsky from Stanford, USA.With the founding of the Centre at the University of Hamburg, headed by Prof. Dr. Martin Kalinowski, scientific peace research has gained a unique institutional foothold in Germany. Together with the IFSH in Hamburg an inter- and multidisciplinary research network is being established which will open up new opportunities to explore the interaction of natural sciences, conflicts and international security against the background of the guiding principles of peace and sustainability and to integrate them into the training of natural scientists
Coordination between different United Nations (UN) departments, funds, agencies, and programmes has become an issue of increasing concern for scholars and practitioners alike. With the United Nations taking on ever more ambitious roles in countries emerging from conflict ; no single unit or agency can master the task of post-conflict reconstruction ; also known as peacebuilding ; alone; instead ; a concerted effort is called for. Recent efforts at reorganizing the way the United Nations works in peacebuilding missions have not yielded the desired results of achieving a more coherent ; and in that way more efficient and more effective UN presence. In order to offer fresh inputs for the debate ; this paper looks at the issue of coordination from a theoretical perspective. Informed by organization theory ; a framework for interorganizational coordination is developed and then applied to the United Nations and peacebuilding. The main finding is that in order to improve interorganizational coordination and in lieu of trying to become one streamlined hierarchical organization ; the United Nations should acknowledge its network character and cultivate those social and structural control mechanisms which facilitate coordination in networks. ; Die Koordination zwischen verschiedenen Einheiten des Systems der Vereinten Nationen (VN) hat in den letzten Jahren sowohl für Praktiker als auch für Akademiker zunehmend an Bedeutung gewonnen. Da die Vereinten Nationen immer ambitioniertere Aufgaben der Konfliktnachsorge ; der Demokratisierung und des Wiederaufbaus in Krisenregionen übernehmen ; wird der Ruf nach einem koordinierten Vorgehen immer lauter – denn keine einzelne VN Unterorganisation kann die Fülle der Aufgaben allein bewältigen. Trotzdem haben die Bemühungen der letzten Jahre hin zu mehr Koordination und Integration bisher nicht die erhofften Ergebnisse gezeigt. Dieses Papier möchte zur aktuellen Debatte beisteuern ; indem es zuerst das Thema "Koordination" von einem theoretischen Blickwinkel aus beleuchtet. Basierend auf den Erkenntnissen der Organisationslehre wird ein theoretisches Modell der Koordination entwickelt – dieses wird dann auf die Vereinten Nationen als Unternehmer von Friedensmissionen angewandt. Haupterkenntnis ist hierbei ; dass ; um interorganisationelle Koordination innerhalb der Vereinten Nationen zu verbessern ; die sozialen und strukturellen Koordinationsmechanismen gestärkt werden sollten ; die dem netzwerkartigen Charakter des Systems entsprechen – anstatt weiterhin zu versuchen ; über das ganze System hinweg eine straffe Hierarchie durchzusetzen.
