Advertisement

Conclusion: Visions, Divisions, Tensions and Solutions

  • Gijsbert M. van Iterson ScholtenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies book series (RCS)

Abstract

In this concluding chapter all visions are summarized and compared, using the peace cube as a conceptual tool. Three main faultlines are identified. First a professional one: governmental peace workers see peace as a limited goal, whereas civil society peaceworkers see it as a holistic process. Second, a geographical divide: Dutch peace workers tend to see peace as a political objective—dubbed ‘Security Council peace’—whereas for peace workers from Lebanon and Mindanao, it is primarily a personal endeavour—they work on ‘UNESCO peace’, or peace in the minds of men and women. Finally, a hierarchical divide: privileged groups tend to work on civil peace, or peace-as-harmony, whereas peaceworkers from marginalized groups favour peace-as-justice. These observations are tied back into the literature on peacebuilding, discussing both the four alternatives to liberal peace identified in Chap.  2, as well as more recent developments such as the notion of sustaining peace.

References

  1. Abu-Nimer, M., Ed. (2001). Reconciliation, justice, and coexistence: Theory and practice. Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  2. Advisory Group of Experts (2015). The challenge of sustaining peace. Report of the Advisory Group of Experts for the 2015 Review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  3. Aggestam, K., F. Cristiano, et al. (2015). “Towards agonistic peacebuilding? Exploring the antagonism–agonism nexus in the Middle East peace process.” Third World Quarterly 36(9): 1736–1753.Google Scholar
  4. Allan, P. (2006). “Measuring international ethics: A moral scale of war, peace, justice, and global care.” In What is a just peace. P. Allan and A. Keller (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 90–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, M. B. and L. Olson (2003). Confronting war: Critical lessons for peace practitioners. Cambridge: Collaborative for Development Action.Google Scholar
  6. Autesserre, S. (2010). The trouble with the Congo: Local violence and the failure of international peacebuilding. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Banks, M. (1987). “Four conceptions of peace.” In Conflict management and problem solving: Interpersonal to international applications. D. J. D. Sandole and I. Sandole-Staroste (Eds.). London: Pinter: 259–274.Google Scholar
  8. Beirne, M. and C. Knox (2014). “Reconciliation and human rights in Northern Ireland: A false dichotomy?” Journal of Human Rights Practice 6(1): 26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belloni, R. (2012). “Hybrid peace governance: Its emergence and significance.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 18(1): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berents, H. and S. McEvoy-Levy (2015). “Theorising youth and everyday peace (building).” Peacebuilding 3(2): 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Björkdahl, A. and S. Kappler (2017). Peacebuilding and spatial transformation: Peace, space and place. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Björkdahl, A. and J. Mannergren Selimovic (2016). “A tale of three bridges: Agency and agonism in peace building.” Third World Quarterly 37(2): 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bloomfield, D. (2006). On good terms: Clarifying reconciliation. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.Google Scholar
  14. Boege, V. (2012). “Hybrid forms of peace and order on a South Sea Island: Experiences from Bougainville (Papua New Guinea).” In Hybrid forms of peace: From everyday agency to post-liberalism. O. Richmond and A. Mitchell (Eds.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boege, V., M. A. Brown, et al. (2008). “States emerging from hybrid political orders: Pacific experiences The Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies Occasional Papers Series.” Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. The Occasional Papers 10(11): 1–41.Google Scholar
  16. Brusset, E., C. De Coning, et al. (2016). Complexity thinking for peacebuilding practice and evaluation. Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Burns, R. J. and R. Aspeslagh (2014). Three decades of peace education around the world: An anthology. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Call, C. T. (2008). “Knowing peace when you see it: Setting standards for peacebuilding success.” Civil Wars 10(2): 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chandler, D. (2010). “The uncritical critique of ‘liberal peace’.” Review of International Studies 36(S1): 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chandler, D. (2014). Resilience: The governance of complexity. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chandler, D. (2017). Peacebuilding: The twenty years’ crisis, 1997–2017. Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Chandler, D. and O. Richmond (2015). “Contesting postliberalism: Governmentality or emancipation.” Journal of International Relations and Development 18(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chenoweth, E. and M. J. Stephan (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Chopra, J. and T. Hohe (2004). “Participatory intervention.” Global Governance 10(3): 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cooper, N., M. Turner, et al. (2011). “The end of history and the last liberal peacebuilder: A reply to Roland Paris.” Review of International Studies 1(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
  26. Cramer, C. (2006). Civil war is not a stupid thing. Accounting for violence in developing countries. Hurst & Company.Google Scholar
  27. De Carvalho, B. and C. De Coning (2013). Rising powers and the future of peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Oslo: Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre (NOREF).Google Scholar
  28. De Coning, C. (2016). “From peacebuilding to sustaining peace: Implications of complexity for resilience and sustainability.” Resilience 4(3): 166–181.Google Scholar
  29. De Coning, C. (2018a). “Adaptive peacebuilding.” International Affairs 94(2): 301–317.Google Scholar
  30. De Coning, C. and K. Friis (2011). “Coherence and coordination: The limits of the comprehensive approach.” Journal of International Peacekeeping 15(1–2): 243–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. De Jong, A. (2011). The silent voice: Palestinian and Israeli nonviolent activism and resistance. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  32. De la Rey, C. and S. McKay (2006). “Peacebuilding as a gendered process.” Journal of Social Issues 62(1): 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dietrich, W. (2002). “Farewell to the one peace.” Peace Review 14(1): 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dietrich, W. (2012). Interpretations of peace in history and culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dietrich, W. and W. Sützl (1997). A call for many peaces. Peace Center Burg Schlaining.Google Scholar
  36. Donais, T. (2009). “Empowerment or imposition? Dilemmas of local ownership in post-conflict peacebuilding processes.” Peace & Change 34(1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fernandez-Taranco, O. (2016). “Sustaining peace is a core activity of the UN.” Global peace operations review. Retrieved from https://peaceoperationsreview.org/commentary/sustaining-peace-is-a-core-activity-of-the-un/.
  38. Firchow, P. (2018). Reclaiming everyday peace: Local voices in measurement and evaluation after war. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Fraser, N. (2005). “Reframing justice in a globalizing world.” New Left Review 36: 79–88.Google Scholar
  40. Funk, N. C. (2012). “Building on what’s already there: Valuing the local in international peacebuilding.” International Journal 67(2): 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Galtung, J. (1969). “Violence, peace, and peace research.” Journal of Peace Research 6(3): 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Galtung, J. (2007). “Introduction: Peace by peaceful conflict transformation—The transcend approach.” In Handbook of peace and conflict studies. C. Webel and J. Galtung (Eds.). London and New York: Routledge: 14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gleditsch, N. P., J. Nordkvelle, et al. (2014). “Peace research—Just the study of war?” Journal of Peace Research 51(2): 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Grewal, B. S. (2003). “Johan Galtung: Positive and negative peace.” Retrieved April 5, 2013, from http://www.activeforpeace.org/no/fred/positive_negative_peace.pdf.
  45. Heathershaw, J. (2013). “Towards better theories of peacebuilding: Beyond the liberal peace debate.” Peacebuilding 1(2): 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hilhorst, D. and M. Van Leeuwen (2005). “Grounding local peace organisations: A case study of Southern Sudan.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 43(4): 537–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Höglund, K. and M. S. Kovacs (2010). “Beyond the absence of war: The diversity of peace in post-settlement societies.” Review of International Studies 36(2): 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson, K. and M. L. Hutchison (2012). “Hybridity, political order and legitimacy: Examples from Nigeria.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(2): 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Klem, B. (2018). “The problem of peace and the meaning of ‘post-war’.” Conflict, Security & Development 18(3): 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lederach, J. P. (2015). Little book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  53. Lopes Cardozo, M. T. and R. Shah (2016). “A conceptual framework to analyse the multiscalar politics of education for sustainable peacebuilding.” Comparative Education 52(4): 516–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mac Ginty, R. (2008). “Indigenous peace-making versus the liberal peace.” Cooperation and Conflict 43(2): 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mac Ginty, R. (2010). “Hybrid peace: The interaction between top-down and bottom-up peace.” Security Dialogue 41(4): 391–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mac Ginty, R. (2011). International peacebuilding and local resistance: Hybrid forms of peace. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mac Ginty, R. (2012). “Routine peace: Technocracy and peacebuilding.” Cooperation and Conflict 47(3): 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mac Ginty, R. (2014). “Everyday peace: Bottom-up and local agency in conflict-affected societies.” Security Dialogue 45(6): 548–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mac Ginty, R. and P. Firchow (2016). “Top-down and bottom-up narratives of peace and conflict.” Politics 36(3): 308–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mac Ginty, R. and O. P. Richmond (2013). “The local turn in peace building: A critical agenda for peace.” Third World Quarterly 34(5): 763–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mac Ginty, R. and O. Richmond (2016). “The fallacy of constructing hybrid political orders: A reappraisal of the hybrid turn in peacebuilding.” International Peacekeeping 23(2): 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mac Ginty, R. and G. Sanghera (2012a). “Hybridity in peacebuilding and development: An introduction.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(2): 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mahmoud, Y. and A. Makoond (2017). Sustaining peace: What does it mean in practice. Issue Brief. New York: International Peace Institute.Google Scholar
  64. Mallat, C. (2015). Philosophy of nonviolence: Revolution, constitutionalism, and justice beyond the Middle East. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Millar, G. (2014). “Disaggregating hybridity: Why hybrid institutions do not produce predictable experiences of peace.” Journal of Peace Research 51(4): 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Millar, G. (2016). “Local experiences of liberal peace.” Journal of Peace Research 53(4): 569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nagle, J. (2014). “From the politics of antagonistic recognition to agonistic peace building: An exploration of symbols and rituals in divided societies.” Peace & Change 39(4): 468–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Noma, E., D. Aker, et al. (2012). “Heeding women’s voices: Breaking cycles of conflict and deepening the concept of peacebuilding.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(1): 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nowak, A., L. Bui-Wrzosinska, et al. (2012). “Sustainable peace: A dynamical systems perspective.” In Psychological components of sustainable peace. Springer: 265–281.Google Scholar
  70. Paarlberg-Kvam, K. (2018). “What’s to come is more complicated: Feminist visions of peace in Colombia.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 21(2): 1–30.Google Scholar
  71. Paffenholz, T. (2014). “International peacebuilding goes local: Analysing Lederach’s conflict transformation theory and its ambivalent encounter with 20 years of practice.” Peacebuilding 2(1): 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Paffenholz, T. (2015). “Unpacking the local turn in peacebuilding: A critical assessment towards an agenda for future research.” Third World Quarterly 36(5): 857–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Paris, R. (2004). At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Paris, R. (2010). “Saving liberal peacebuilding.” Review of International Studies 36: 337–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Parlevliet, M. (2015). Embracing concurrent realities: Revisiting the relationship between human rights and conflict resolution. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  76. Polat, N. (2010). “Peace as war.” Alternatives 35(4): 317–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pugh, M. (2010). “Welfare in war-torn societies: Nemesis of the liberal peace?” In Palgrave advances in peacebuilding: Critical developments and approaches. O. Richmond (Ed.). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 262–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pugh, M., N. Cooper, et al., Eds. (2008). Whose peace? Critical perspectives on the political economy of peacebuilding. New Security Challenges. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  79. Puljek-Shank, R. (2017). “Dead letters on a page? Civic agency and inclusive governance in neopatrimonialism.” Democratization 24(4): 670–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ramsbotham, O. (2010). Transforming violent conflict: Radical disagreement, dialogue and survival. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Richards, P. (2005). No peace, no war: The anthropology of contemporary armed conflicts. James Currey.Google Scholar
  82. Richmond, O. P. (2005). The transformation of peace. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Richmond, O. P. (2008b). “Welfare and the civil peace: Poverty with rights?” In Whose peace? Critical perspectives on the political economy of peacebuilding. M. Pugh, N. Cooper, and M. Turner (Eds.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Richmond, O. P. (2009a). “A post-liberal peace: Eirenism and the everyday.” Review of International Studies 35: 557–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Richmond, O. P. (2009b). “The romanticisation of the local: Welfare, culture and peacebuilding.” The International Spectator 44(1): 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Richmond, O. P. (2011). A post-liberal peace. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. Richmond, O. P. and J. Franks (2009). Liberal peace transitions: Between statebuilding and peacebuilding. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Richmond, O. P. and A. Mitchell, Eds. (2012). Hybrid forms of peace. From everyday agency to post-liberalism. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  89. Rumelili, B. and A. B. Çelik (2017). “Ontological insecurity in asymmetric conflicts: Reflections on agonistic peace in Turkey’s Kurdish issue.” Security Dialogue.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010617695715.
  90. Sabaratnam, M. (2013). “Avatars of Eurocentrism in the critique of the liberal peace.” Security Dialogue 44(3): 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schia, N. N. and J. Karlsrud (2013). “‘Where the rubber meets the road’: Friction sites and local-level peacebuilding in Haiti, Liberia and South Sudan.” International Peacekeeping 20(2): 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sharp, G. (2012). From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  93. Shinko, R. E. (2008). “Agonistic peace: A postmodern reading.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 36(3): 473–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sriram, C. L. (2010). “Resolving conflicts and pursuing accountability: Beyond ‘justice versus peace’.” In Palgrave advances in peacebuilding: Critical developments and approaches. O. Richmond (Ed.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 288–290.Google Scholar
  95. Stamnes, E. and K. M. Osland (2016). “Synthesis report: Reviewing UN peace operations, the UN peacebuilding architecture and the implementation of UNSCR 1325.”Google Scholar
  96. Tadjbakhsh, S. and A. M. Chenoy (2012). Human security: Concepts and implications. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  97. van Leeuwen, M., W. Verkoren, et al. (2012). “Thinking beyond the liberal peace: From utopia to heterotopias.” Acta Politica 47(3): 292–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wallensteen, P. (2015a). Quality peace: Peacebuilding, victory and world order. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Whitt, S. (2010). “Institutions and ethnic trust: Evidence from Bosnia.” Europe-Asia Studies 62(2): 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zizek, S. (2009). Violence: Six sideways reflections. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations