• Birgit Poopuu
Part of the Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies book series (RCS)


The concluding chapter reflects back on the central themes explored within the individual chapters and highlights a number of traits in the EU’s peacebuilding that have a bearing both on the particular brand of peacebuilding on offer and on the promise of its peacebuilding missions. Three issues—concerning the value attached to acting per se, the way in which the EU defines the problems it then goes on to solve, and finally the propensity to talk on behalf of local agency in the conflict zones—featuring most prominently in the empirical chapters are taken up once more to tease out some wider implications of these findings.


Acting per se EU’s brand of peacebuilding CSDP Multiple and significant others 


  1. Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. 2009. “Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: The Danger of a Single Story.” TEDGlobal Conference.
  2. Ashton, Catherine. 2010. “Address by Catherine Ashton at the Joint Debate on Foreign and Security Policy—European Parliament Plenary.” Strasbourg. In EU Security and Defence: Core Documents 2010, vol. XI, compiled by Catherine Glière, March 10. Paris: EUISS.Google Scholar
  3. Björkdahl, Annika, Stefanie Kappler, and Oliver Richmond. 2009. “The EU Peacebuilding Framework: Potentials and Pitfalls in the Western Balkans and the Middle East.” JAD-PbP Working Paper No. 3, 1–55.
  4. Björkdahl, Annika, Stefanie Kappler, and Oliver Richmond. 2011. “The Emerging EU Peacebuilding Framework: Confirming or Transcending Liberal Peacebuilding?” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24 (3): 449–469. Scholar
  5. Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Chabal, Patrick. 2012. The End of Conceit: Western Rationality After Postcolonialism. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  7. Fetherston, A. B. 2000. “Peacekeeping, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding: A Reconsideration of Theoretical Frameworks.” In Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution, edited by Tom Woodhouse and Oliver Ramsbotham, 190–218. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  8. Firchow, Pamina. 2018. Reclaiming Everyday Peace: Local Voices in Measurement and Evaluation After War. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamati-Ataya, Inanna. 2010. “Knowing and Judging in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Reflexive Challenge.” Review of International Studies 36 (4): 1079–1101. Scholar
  10. Kappler, Stefanie. 2012a. “‘Mysterious in Content’: The European Union Peacebuilding Framework and Local Spaces of Agency in Bosnia-Herzegovina.” PhD diss., University of St Andrews.Google Scholar
  11. Kappler, Stefanie. 2012b. “Liberal Peacebuilding’s Representation of ‘the Local’: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” In Hybrid Forms of Peace: From Everyday Agency to Post-Liberalism, edited by Oliver P. Richmond and Audra Mitchell, 260–276. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keukeleire, Stephan, Arben Kalaja, and Artan Çollaku. 2011. “The European Union’s Policy on Kosovo.” In European Foreign Policy Legal and Political Perspectives, edited by Panos Koutrakos, 172–202. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Muppidi, Himadeep. 2004. The Politics of the Global. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pogodda, Sandra, Oliver Richmond, Nathalie Tocci, Roger Mac Ginty, and Birte Vogel. 2014. “Assessing the Impact of EU Governmentality in Post-Conflict Countries: Pacification or Reconciliation?” European Security. Scholar
  15. Richmond, Oliver P. 2014. Failed State Building: Intervention and the Dynamics of Peace Formation. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birgit Poopuu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of International PoliticsAberystwyth UniversityAberystwythUK

Personalised recommendations