Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Framework for Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Peacebuilding in the United Nations

Part of the book series: Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies ((RCS))

  • 404 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter outlines the research design informing the book, outlining the main questions addressed and providing an analytical ‘toolkit’ for answering them. After defining the core elements analysed in the book, namely the liberal democratic peace framework and the concept of peacebuilding, it theorizes about the dynamics through which the latter came into life influenced by the former in the context of the United Nations as well as the implications of this process for the UN approach to societies affected by armed conflicts. Finally, the methodological strategy adopted for the proposed analysis is also articulated in this chapter, according to an understanding that constructivist-inspired research should develop both subjective and objective knowledge about social reality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Given the scope of this book, the international organisations herein addressed are intergovernmental in nature.

  2. 2.

    Biermann et al. (2009) refer to the first of these dimensions as ‘normative framework’, but they fail to elaborate further on its definition. In developing more precisely what I understand by this first dimension, I employ the term ‘ideational dimension’ to capture a wider range and the distinct levels of non-material aspects of international organisations, including inter alia ideas, values, principles, norms, rules and concepts. As for the second dimension, I use ‘intergovernmental’ instead of ‘membership’ given the scope of this book, which addresses an international organisation that is intergovernmental in nature.

  3. 3.

    Or, in other words, that are minimally intelligible for individuals in the international organisation’s milieu. The notions of minimal intelligibility and milieu are elaborated below.

  4. 4.

    For an elaboration on the definition of membership and on other criteria for admission into the UN, see Simma et al. (2012: 342–352).

  5. 5.

    For an overview of the growth in UN membership, see United Nations (2013).

  6. 6.

    When referring to the liberal peace as a concept, the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’ are often used interchangeably in the specialised literature—see, for instance, the articles published in a special section of International Security (1994) dedicated to the topic and the exchange of notes published as Russett et al. (1995). When referring to the concept, I do not distinguish between ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’ in this book for two reasons: first, because it facilitates dialogue with the specialised literature that makes no distinction between the two; and second, because the visions of ‘democracy’ in the United Nations are inherently based on the Western liberal tradition, as discussed in this chapter.

  7. 7.

    For a genealogical analysis of the origins and intellectual roots of the liberal peace, including sources other than Kant, see Richmond (2005: esp. 23–51).

  8. 8.

    Henceforth, I use ‘liberal/democratic peace’ when referring to the concept, which denotes that ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’ are interchangeable terms (see footnote 6). I use ‘liberal democratic peace’ when referring to the framework to highlight that the envisaged ‘peace’ is both liberal and democratic.

  9. 9.

    Doyle uses the three aspects to explain not only the tendency of liberal states to act peacefully toward each other, but also to make war with non-liberal states.

  10. 10.

    A detailed review of theories within these two strands is found in Ish-Shalom (2013: 39–67). See also Kurki (2010: esp. 365–370).

  11. 11.

    Kant is rather eloquent in elaborating on citizens’ reluctance to easily consenting to war: “If [...] the consent of the subjects is required to determine whether there shall be war or not, nothing is more natural than that they should weigh the matter well, before undertaking such a bad business. For in decreeing war, they would of necessity be resolving to bring down the miseries of war upon their country. This implies: they must fight themselves; they must hand over the costs of the war out of their own property; they must do their poor best to make good the devastation which it leaves behind; and finally, as a crowning ill, they have to accept a burden of debt which will embitter even peace itself, and which they can never pay off on account of the new wars which are always impending” (Kant 1917: 122–123).

  12. 12.

    Or, conversely, that “authoritarian leaders and totalitarian ruling parties” have more “aggressive instincts [that] make for war” (Doyle 1986: 1151).

  13. 13.

    In this broader sense, the liberal peace is sometimes also referred to as ‘liberal internationalism’; see, e.g., Paris (1997) and Doyle (1997: esp. 258–277).

  14. 14.

    For accounts on the history, development and relevance of contemporary peace studies, see Wallensteen (1988, 2011), Wiberg (2005), Dunn (2005), Patomäki (2001), Singer (1976), and Reid and Yanarella (1976).

  15. 15.

    The definition is followed by a lengthy discussion on several underlying dimensions of violence; see Galtung (1969: 168–174).

  16. 16.

    The text usually quoted is a book chapter dated 1976 as the expanded version of an article published as Galtung (1975). I refer and quote the book chapter as it is the one more often cited by peacebuilding scholars.

  17. 17.

    References to peacebuilding as a process would only be found in UN documents much later; see, e.g. UN Doc. A/64/868-S/2010/393: para. 15).

References

Bibliography

  • Babst, D. V. (1964). Elective Governments—A Force for Peace. The Wisconsin Sociologist, 3(1), 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., Kim, H., O’Donnell, M., & Sitea, L. (2007). Peacebuilding: What Is in a Name? Global Governance, 13(1), 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Siebenhüner, B., Bauer, S., Busch, P.-O., Campe, S., Dingwerth, K., et al. (2009). Studying the Influence of International Bureaucracies: A Conceptual Framework. In F. Biermann & B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies (pp. 37–74). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S., Chandler, D., & Sabaratnam, M. (Eds.). (2011). A Liberal Peace? The Problems and Practices of Peacebuilding. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2004). The Responsibility to Protect? Imposing the ‘Liberal Peace’. International Peacekeeping, 11(1), 59–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2006). Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-Building. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2010). International Statebuilding: The Rise of Post-Liberal Governance. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Claude, I. L., Jr. (1996). Peace and Security: Prospective Roles for the Two United Nations. Global Governance, 2(3), 289–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. (1983a). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3), 205–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. (1983b). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(4), 323–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and World Politics. The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, M. (2001). Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, M. (2007). Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, D. J. (2005). The First Fifty Years of Peace Research: A Survey and Interpretation. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Executive Office of the Secretary-General (EOSG). (2006, September). Inventory: United Nations Capacity in Peacebuilding (164 pp.). New York: Executive Office of the Secretary-General, United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1964). An Editorial. Journal of Peace Research, 1(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1975). Three Realistic Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking and Peacebuilding. Impact of Science on Society, 26(1/2), 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1976). Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, and Peacebuilding. In J. Galtung (Ed.), Peace, War and Defence: Essays in Peace Research (Vol. II, pp. 282–304). Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1981). Social Cosmology and the Concept of Peace. Journal of Peace Research, 18(2), 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. London: PRIO and Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetze, C., & Guzina, D. (2008). Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, Nationbuilding—Turtles All the Way Down? Civil Wars, 10(4), 319–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzini, S. (2000). A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helman, G. B., & Ratner, S. (1993). Saving Failed States. Foreign Policy, 3(89, Winter), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Peacekeeping. (2009). Special Issue: Liberal Peacebuilding Reconstructed. International Peacekeeping, 16(5), 587–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Security. (1994). Special Section: Give Democratic Peace a Chance? International Security, 19(2), 5–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ish-Shalom, P. (2006a). Theory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism: The Democratic-Peace Thesis and the Politics of Democratization. European Journal of International Relations, 12(4), 565–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ish-Shalom, P. (2013). Democratic Peace: A Political Biography. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, M. (1999). New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1917). Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay. London: George Allen and Unwin [Orig. 1795].

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1988). International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, A., & Lynch, C. (2007). Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurki, M. (2010). Democracy and Conceptual Contestability: Reconsidering Conceptions of Democracy in Democracy Promotion. International Studies Review, 12(3), 362–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, P. (1995). A Question of Values: Johan Galtung’s Peace Research. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2006). No War, No Peace: The Rejuvenation of Stalled Peace Processes and Peace Accords. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2010). No War, No Peace: Why So Many Peace Processes Fail to Deliver Peace. International Politics, 47(2), 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2012). Routine Peace: Technocracy and Peacebuilding. Cooperation and Conflict, 47(3), 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. M. (1993). Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986. The American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAskie, C. (2010, January). 2020 Vision: Visioning the Future of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture (Working Paper, The Future of the Peacebuilding Architecture Project, 26 pp.). Ottawa, Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Centre for International Policy Studies (University of Ottawa). http://hdl.handle.net/11250/277924. Last accessed 24 January 2019.

  • Neumann, I. B. (2008). Discourse Analysis. In A. Klotz & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide (pp. 61–77). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, E., Paris, R., & Richmond, O. P. (2009a). Introduction. In E. Newman, R. Paris, & O. P. Richmond (Eds.), New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding (pp. 3–25). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, E., Paris, R., & Richmond, O. P. (Eds.). (2009b). New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, J. M. (1994). How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace. International Security, 19(2), 87–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, J. M. (1997). Liberal Peace, Liberal War: American Politics and International Security. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, R. (1997). Peacebuilding and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism. International Security, 22(2), 54–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, R. (2002). International Peacebuilding and the ‘Mission Civilisatrice’. Review of International Studies, 28(4), 637–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, R. (2004). At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patomäki, H. (2001). The Challenge of Critical Theories: Peace Research at the Start of the New Century. Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 723–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouliot, V. (2007). ‘Sobjectivism’: Toward a Constructivist Methodology. International Studies Quarterly, 51(2), 359–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, M. (2005). The Political Economy of Peacebuilding: A Critical Theory Perspective. International Journal of Peace Studies, 10(2), 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, M., Cooper, N., & Turner, M. (Eds.). (2008). Whose Peace? Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., & Miall, H. (2011). Contemporary Conflict Resolution (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, H. G., & Yanarella, E. J. (1976). Toward a Critical Theory of Peace Research in the United States: The Search for an ‘Intelligible Core’. Journal of Peace Research, 13(4), 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2004a). The Globalization of Responses to Conflict and the Peacebuilding Consensus. Cooperation and Conflict, 39(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2004b). UN Peace Operations and the Dilemmas of the Peacebuilding Consensus. International Peacekeeping, 11(1), 83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2005). The Transformation of Peace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2011). A Post-Liberal Peace. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P., & Franks, J. (2009). Liberal Peace Transitions: Between Statebuilding and Peacebuilding. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (2011). Liberal Peacebuilding and Global Governance: Beyond the Metropolis. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, R. J. (1983). Libertarianism and International Violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27(1), 27–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B. M. (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B. M., Layne, C., Spiro, D. E., & Doyle, M. W. (1995). Correspondence: the Democratic Peace. International Security, 19(4), 164–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabaratnam, M. (2011). The Liberal Peace? An Intellectual History of International Conflict Management, 1990–2010. In S. Campbell, D. Chandler, & M. Sabaratnam (Eds.), A Liberal Peace? The Problems and Practices of Peacebuilding (pp. 13–30). London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simma, B., Khan, D.-E., Nolte, G., & Paulus, A. (Eds.). (2012). The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (2 Vols., 3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press [Orig. 1994].

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, D. J. (1976). An Assessment of Peace Research. International Security, 1(1), 118–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadjbakhsh, S. (Ed.). (2011). Rethinking the Liberal Peace: External Models and Local Alternatives. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thakur, R. (2006). The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collective Security to the Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html. Last accessed 24 January 2019.

  • United Nations. (2007). Decisions of the Secretary-General 22 May 2007 Policy Committee Meeting: Decision No. 2007/28—Peacebuilding Support Office (4 pp.). Internal Document. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2013). Growth in United Nations Membership, 1945–Present. https://www.un.org/en/sections/member-states/growth-united-nations-membership-1945-present/index.html. Last accessed 24 January 2019.

  • Wallensteen, P. (1988). Peace Research: Achievements and Challenges. London: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallensteen, P. (2011). The Origins of Contemporary Peace Research. In K. Höglund & M. Öberg (Eds.), Understanding Peace Research: Methods and Challenges (pp. 14–32). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, C. A. B. (2001). Qualitative Interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method (pp. 83–101). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiberg, H. (2005). Investigação para a Paz: Passado, Presente e Futuro. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 71, 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

First-Hand Interview

  • Galtung, J. (2012). Founder and Director, Transcend International, via Phone, 29 October.

    Google Scholar 

Official Documents of the United Nations

  • A/46/882, General Assembly, 46th Session, Restructuring of the Secretariat of the Organization: Note by the Secretary-General, 21 February 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • A/47/277-S/24111, General Assembly; Security Council, An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-Keeping, Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to the Statement Adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992, 17 June 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • A/51/950, General Assembly, 51st Session, Report of the Secretary-General: Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, 14 July 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • A/55/305-S/2000/809, General Assembly; Security Council, Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations [Brahimi Report], 21 August 2000.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United Nations, Kabul, Afghanistan

    Fernando Cavalcante

Authors
  1. Fernando Cavalcante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cavalcante, F. (2019). Framework for Analysis. In: Peacebuilding in the United Nations. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03864-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation