India’s ‘Silent Contestation’ of the EU’s Perspective on Local Ownership

  • Lara KlossekEmail author
Part of the Norm Research in International Relations book series (NOREINRE)


Local ownership has become a central theme in today’s discourse on peacebuilding, with the EU being very vocal in embracing the norm. On the surface, it thus seems that the EU is supported in its perspective on local ownership by the international community at large. Looking more closely at the discourse surrounding peacebuilding practices, it becomes however apparent, that local ownership remains contested, particularly among emerging countries such as India. The chapter, therefore, sets out to explore why and how India is contesting the EU on local ownership, and how far this impacts the legitimacy of the EU’s norm. Using document analysis on India and the EU’s speeches at the UN, as well as policy documents outlining their peacebuilding strategies, the chapter finds that while India is critical of the content of the norm and the degree of its institutionalization, it chooses more indirect modes of contestation, such as ‘silent contestation’. As a result, the European Union has not been receptive to India’s critique. This is amplified, as the EU has developed its perspective on local ownership among like-minded countries, within the OECD-DAC context and hence relies on internal legitimization of the norm.


  1. Adhikari, M. (2018). India in South Asia: Interaction with liberal peacebuilding projects. India Quarterly, 74(2), 160–178.
  2. Bloomfield, A. (2015). India and the Libyan crisis: Flirting with the responsibility to protect, retreating to the sovereignty norm. Contemporary Security Policy, 36(1), 27–55.  
  3. Bojicic-Dzelilovic, V., & Martin, M. (2018). Wholly local? Ownership as philosophy and practice in peacebuilding interventions. Peacebuilding, 6(3), 218–232. Scholar
  4. Bose, S. (2019, February 19). South Asia weekly report (Vol. XII, Issue 7). Afghanistan: A role for India in the peace process? Observer Research Foundation. Retrieved from
  5. Brasilia Declaration. (2010). India-Brazil-South Africa dialogue forum fourth summit of heads of State/Government Brasilia declaration. Retrieved from
  6. Brechenmacher, S., & Carothers, T. (2018). Examing civil society legitimacy. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved from
  7. Carothers, T. (2015). The deeper struggle over country ownership. In A. Whaites, E. Gonzalez, S. Fyson, & G. Teskey (Eds.). A governance practioner’s notebook: alternative ideas and approaches (pp. 249–257). OECD, Paris,
  8. Chanana, D. I. (2010). India’s transition to global donor: Limitations and prospects. Real Instituto Elcano—ARI 123/2010. Retrieved from:
  9. Chandler, D. (2011). The liberal peace: Statebuilding, democracy and local ownership. In S. Tadjbakhsh (Ed.), Rethinking the liberal peace: External models and local alternatives (pp. 77–88). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Chesterman, S. (2007). Ownership in theory and in practice: Transfer of authority in UN statebuilding operations. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1(1), 3–26. Scholar
  11. De Carvalho, B., & De Coning, C. (2013). Rising powers and the future of peacekeeping and peacebuilding (NOREF Report, 14). Oslo: Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre (NOREF). Retrieved from
  12. De Coning, C., & Call, C. T. (2017). Rising powers and peacebuilding breaking the mold? Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Destradi, S. (2014). Regional powers and security governance: ISAF withdrawal, regional competition, and domestic norms in India’s Afghanistan policy. Asian Perspective, 38(4), 565–587.
  14. Development Assistance Committee. (1996). Shaping the 21st century: The contribution of development co-operation. Retrieved from
  15. Donais, T. (2009). Empowerment or imposition? Dilemmas of local ownership in post-conflict peacebuilding processes. Peace and Change, 34(1), 3–26. Scholar
  16. Dursun-Ozkanca, O., & Vandemoortele, A. (2012). The European Union and security sector reform: Current practices and challenges of implementation. European Security, 21(2), 139–160.
  17. Edgar, A. D. (2019). International norms and future peacebuilding. In A. Kulnazarova & V. Popovski (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global approaches to peace (pp. 717–729). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EEAS. (2016). Speech by G. Wiegand, Managing Director for Asia Pacific, EEAS on “The EU’s New Global Strategy and Asia”, Delhi. Retrieved from
  19. EEAS. (2017a, October 25). European Union statement by Ms. Narcisa Vladulescu, Counsellor, Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations. Retrieved from–-united-nations-4th-committee-comprehensive-review-peacekeeping-operations_enS.
  20. EEAS. (2017b, December 12). Speech by High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini at the European Parliament Plenary Session on European Foreign Security and Defence Policy. Retrieved from
  21. EEAS. (2018). EU Member States decide to strengthen civilian CSDP missions. Retrieved from
  22. EEAS. (2019, March 26). High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini visits Afghanistan. Retrieved from
  23. Ejdus, F. (2017). “Here is your mission, now own it!” The rhetoric and practice of local ownership in EU interventions. European Security, 26(4), 461–484. Scholar
  24. Ejdus, F. (2018). Local ownership as international governmentality: Evidence from the EU mission in the Horn of Africa. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(1), 28–50. Scholar
  25. Ejdus, F., & Juncos, A. E. (2018). Reclaiming the local in EU peacebuilding: Effectiveness, ownership, and resistance. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(1), 4–27. Scholar
  26. EUGS. (2016). Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe. A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. Brussels: European External Action Service.Google Scholar
  27. European Commission. (2017a). EU country roadmaps for engagement with civil society. Retrieved from
  28. European Commission. (2017b, October 6). Joint statement 14th India-EU summit. (Press release). Retrieved from
  29. Ghimire, S. (2018). Rising powers and security: A false dawn of the pro-south world order? Global Change, Peace and Security, 30(1), 37–55. Scholar
  30. Gibbons-Neff, T., & Barnes, J. E. (2019, February 28). Under peace plan, U.S. miltiary would exit Afghanistan within five years. The New York Times. Retrieved from:
  31. Glanville, L. (2015). Does R2P matter? Interpreting the impact of a norm. Cooperation and Conflict, 51(2), 184–199. Scholar
  32. Hansen-Magnusson, H., Vetterlein, A., & Wiener, A. (2018). The problem of non-compliance: knowledge gaps and moments of contestation in global governance. Journal of International Relations and Development. Scholar
  33. Hayes, J. (2016). Talented Democrats in a Modern State: Indian Identity 2010. In T. Hopf & B. B. Allan (Eds.), Making identity count: Building a national identity database (pp. 3–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hofmann, G. (2015). R2P ten years on: Unresolved justice conflicts and contestation. Global Responsibility to Protect, 7(3–4), 275–299. Scholar
  35. Howorth, J. (2016). EU global strategy in a changing world: Brussels’ approach to the emerging powers. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 389–401. Scholar
  36. Indian Embassy Kabul. (n.d.). India-Afghanistan Relations. Retrieved from
  37. Joshi, S. (2017). The prospects for EU–India security cooperation. European View, 16(2), 271–279. Scholar
  38. Kavalski, E. (2015). India’s Bifurcated look to ‘Central Eurasia’: The Central Asian Republics and Afghanistan. In D. M. Malone, C. Raja Mohan, & S. Raghavan (Eds.), The oxford handbook of Indian foreing policy (pp. 424–437). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kenkel, K. M. (2016). Peace and the emerging countries: India, Brazil, South Africa. In O. P. Richmond, S. Pogodda, & J. Ramović (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of disciplinary and regional approaches to peace (pp. 376–386). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lemay-Hébert, N., & Kappler, S. (2016). What attachment to peace? Exploring the normative and material dimensions of local ownership in peacebuilding. Review of International Studies, 42(5), 895–914. Scholar
  41. Lettinga, D., & Van Troost, L. (Eds.). (2015). Shifting power and human rights diplomacy. Amnesty International Netherlands. Retrieved from
  42. Linton, S. (2018). India and China before, at, and after Rome. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 16(2), 265–294. Scholar
  43. Mac Ginty, R. (2018). The limits of technocracy and local encounters: The European Union and peacebuilding. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(1), 166–179. Scholar
  44. Mac Ginty, R., & Richmond, O. P. (2013). The local turn in peace building: a critical agenda for peace. Third World Quarterly, 34(5), 763–783. Scholar
  45. Malone, D. M., Mohan, C. R., & Raghavan, S. (2015). The Oxford handbook of Indian foreign policy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Martin, I. (2012). The United Nations and Support to Nepal’s peace process: The role of the UN mission in Nepal. In S. Von Einsiedel, D. M. Malone, & S. Pradhan (Eds.), Nepal in transition from people’s war to fragile peace (pp. 201–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mawdsley, E. (2012). The changing geographies of foreign aid and development cooperation: Contributions from gift theory. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(2), 256–272.
  48. Mawdsley, E. (2014). Human rights and South-South development cooperation: Reflections on the “rising powers” as international development actors. Human Rights Quarterly, 36(3), 630-652.
  49. Mawdsley, E. (2018). The ‘Southernisation’ of development? Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 59(2), 173–185.
  50. Mawdsley, E. (2019). South–South cooperation 3.0? Managing the consequences of success in the decade ahead. Oxford Development Studies, 1–16.
  51. Mawdsley, E., & Roychoudhury, S. (2016). Civil society organisations and Indian development assistance: emerging roles for commentators, collaborators, and critics. In S. Chaturvedi & A. Mulakala (Eds.), India’s approach to development cooperation (pp. 79–94). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Miglani, S. (2014, July 8). India asks U.N. team on Kashmir to leave Delhi Premises. Reuters. Retrieved from
  53. Ministry for External Affairs (India). (2017, August 25). Speech by Foreign Secretary at the Research and Information System for developing countries. Retrieved from
  54. Mishra, A. (2018, February 4). Assessing India’s strategic partnership with Afghanistan: Reigonal interests and future implications. South Asian Journal. Retrieved from
  55. Mohan, C. R., Kumar, A., & Xavier, C. (2016, November 1). Securing Afghanistan prospects for India-EU cooperation. Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI) and Carnegie India. Retrieved from
  56. Mukherjee, R. (2015). India’s international development programme. In C. Raja Mohan, D. Malon, & S. Rhagavan (Eds.), The Oxfort handbook of Indian Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Mullen, R. D. (2017). India in Afghanistan: Understanding development assistance by emerging donors to conflict-affected countries. Stimson Center. Retrieved from
  58. OECD. (2005). Paris declaration on aid effectiveness. Retrieved from
  59. OECD. (2007). Ownership in practice. Report of a conference in Paris, 27–28 September. Retrieved from
  60. OECD. (2008). Accra agenda for action. Retrieved from
  61. OECD. (2011). Busan partnership for effective development cooperation. Retrieved from
  62. Ollapally, D. (2018). India and the international order: Accommodation and adjustment. Ethics and International Affairs, 32(1), 61–74. Scholar
  63. Peral, L. (2012). Introduction: Setting the EU-India partnership in Motion. In L. Peral & V. Sakhuja (Eds.), In the EU-India partnership time to go strategic? (pp. 7–25). Paris, France: EU Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
  64. Pierobon, C. (2017). Civil society in the EU development and human rights agenda: The case of DG DEVCO-EIDHR. In R. Marchetti (Ed.), International series on public policy. partnership in international policy making. Civil society and public institutions in global and European affairs (pp. 195–213). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  65. Pogodda, S., Mac Ginty, R., & Richmond, O. P. (2014). Intimate yet dysfunctional? The relationship between governance and conflict resolution in India and the European Union. Conflict Security and Development, 14(1), 33–59. Scholar
  66. Prime Minister’s Office. (2015). Text of PM’s statement at the third India-Africa Forum Summit, Retrieved from
  67. Rayroux, A., & Wilén, N. (2014). Resisting ownership: The paralysis of EU peacebuilding in the Congo. African security, 7(1), 24–44. Scholar
  68. Reich, H. (2006). Local ownership in conflict transformation projects. partnership, participation or patronage? Retrieved from
  69. Richmond, O. P. (2012). Beyond local ownership in the architecture of international peacebuilding. Ethnopolitics, 11(4), 354–375. Scholar
  70. Richmond, O. P., & Tellidis, I. (2014). Emerging actors in internationanal peacebuilding and statebuilding: status quo or critical states. Global Governance, 20, 563–584. Scholar
  71. Ryerson, C., Algar-Faria, G., Juncos, A. E., Đokić, K., Ignjatijević, M., Habbida, N., Abdi, K., Savannah, S., & Gilette, E. (2018). EU-CIVCAP preventing and responding to conflict. Developing EU civilian capabitlies for a sustainable Peace. Report on best practises in EU local capacity building. Retrieved from
  72. Sachdeva, G. (2014). India-EU and Afghanistan challenge. In J. Zajączkowski, J. Schöttli, & M. Thapa (Eds.), India in the contemporary world. Polity, economy and international relations (pp. 409–428). London: Routledge India.Google Scholar
  73. Sachdeva, G. (2016). The India-Afghanistan development partnership. In S. Chaturvedi & A. Mulakala (Eds.), India’s approach to development cooperation (pp. 110–125). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Seaman, K. (2014). UN-tied Nations. The UN, Peacekeeping and the development of global security governance. Routledge: London. Google Scholar
  75. Sedra, M. (2013). The hollowing-out of the liberal peace project in Afghanistan: The case of security sector reform. Central Asian Survey, 32(3), 371–387. Scholar
  76. Singh, Lt. Gen. (ret.) P. K. (2017). Peacebuilding through development partnership: An Indian perspective. In C. d. Coning & C. T. Call (Eds.), Rising powers and peacebuilding. Breaking the mold (pp. 69–93). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  77. Sinha, S. (2017). Peacebuilding through development partnership: An Indian perspective. In C. D. Coning & C. T. Call (Eds.), Rising powers and peacebuilding. Breaking the mold (pp. 69–93). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  78. Strand, H., Rustad, S. A., Urdal, H., & Nygård, H. M. (2019). Trends in armed conflict, 1946–2018. Conflict Trends. Oslo: PRIO.Google Scholar
  79. Suhrke, A. (2011). Virtues of a narrow mission: The UN peace operation in Nepal. Global Governance, 17(1), 37–55. Retrieved from
  80. Tardy, T. (2017). The EU: From comprehensive vision to integrated action. European Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), Issue Brief 5 (2017). Retrieved from
  81. Tartir, A., & Ejdus, F. (2018). Effective? Locally owned? Beyond the technocratic perspective on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(1), 142–165. Scholar
  82. Tocci, N. (2007). The EU and conflict resolution. Promoting peace in the backyard. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. United Nations. (1992). An agenda for peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping: Report of the Secretary-General. Retrieved from
  84. United Nations. (2000). Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (Brahimi report). Retrieved from
  85. United Nations. (2009). Report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict. Retrieved from
  86. United Nations. (2011a, January 21). Statement by Mr. H.S. Puri, (S/PV.6472), New York. Retrieved from
  87. United Nations. (2011b, October 31). Statement by MOS Shri E. Ahamed at UNSC on “Post-Conflict Peace-building”. Retrieved from
  88. United Nations. (2011c, March 23). Statement by Mr. H.S. Puri, (S/PV.6503), New York. Retrieved from
  89. United Nations. (2011d, February 11). Statement by Mr. S.M. Krishna. Retrieved from
  90. United Nations. (2012, October 1). Statement by Mrs Sushma Swaraj, at the General Debate of the 67th United Nations General Assembly, New York. Retrieved from
  91. United Nations. (2014b, November 24). Statement by Mr Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi, (A/C.3/69/SR.51), New York. Retrieved from
  92. United Nations. (2014d, April 28). Statement by Mr Mukerji, (S/PV.7161), New York.Google Scholar
  93. United Nations. (2015a, April 16). Statement by Mr. Mukerji, (A/64/PV.85), New York. Retrieved from
  94. United Nations. (2015b, November 18). Statement by Mr. M. Joshi, (A/C.3/70/SR.49), New York.Google Scholar
  95. United Nations. (2017, July 5). Statement by Mr. Kumar, (A/C.5/71/SR.34), New York.Google Scholar
  96. United Nations. (2018a). Baku Declaration of the 18th Midterm Ministerial Meeting of the Baku Declaration of the 18th Midterm Ministerial Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement Baku, Republic of Azerbaijan. Retrieved from
  97. United Nations. (2018b, April 24). Statement by Mr Mimica, (A/72/PV.83), New York.Google Scholar
  98. Viraj, S. (2018, June 1). India boosts relations with Myanmar, where Chiense influence is growing. The International Institute for Strategic Studies. Retrieved from
  99. Vogel, B. (2016). Civil society capture: Top-down interventions from below? Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 10(4), 472–489. Scholar
  100. Welsh, J. M. (2013). Norm contestation and the responsibility to protect. Global Responsibility to Protect, 5(4), 365–396. Scholar
  101. Wiener, A. (2004). Contested compliance: Interventions on the normative structure of world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 10(2), 189–234. Scholar
  102. Wiener, A. (2014). A theory of norm contestation. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wiener, A. (2017). A reply to my critics. Polity, 49(1), 165–184. Scholar
  104. Wiener, A. (2018). Contestation and constitution of norms in global international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  105. Williams. P. D. (2018, October 23). In US failure to pay peacekeeping bills, larger UN financing questions raised. The Global Observatory. Retrieved from
  106. Yhome, K. (2018). Why UN’s report and sanctions are unlikely to change Myanmar. Observer Research Foundation. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)BellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations