Introduction

Among the existing criticisms of external interventionism in cases of post-violent conflict contexts, a recurrent one highlights the disregard for local dynamics of governance, both peaceful and violent. Peace interventions have progressively become action plans where the core concept is ‘peace as governance’. This has led to a very technical approach to peacebuilding, focusing on institution, state and capacity building always geared towards governance, presented as a means to peace. This technical approach is usually implemented from the outside in, that is, externally promoted, implemented and monitored, and following a topdown approach. Consequently, after the intervention, the intervened country is left with an institutional architecture focusing on democratic governance and security which has been externally transposed into the national context. And even when the local elites have participated or were heard regarding this model, the main problem remains the potential unsustainability of the process, with the new institutions lacking local embedment and legitimacy and, often, competing or even clashing with existing local dynamics of governance and peacebuilding.

These dynamics have been addressed from different perspectives but all build upon some analysis of local agency. Among these studies, one finds concepts such as hybridity, or frictions. Hybridity characterises situations in which the interaction between international and local norms, actors and practices results in new arrangements. Tsing has proposed to study frictions as processes characterised by ‘unexpected and unstable aspects of global interaction’. Both concepts focus on dynamics that result from the interaction between international and local norms terised by a strong international presence in the country. This presence is usually organised in the form of peace missions. What happens to these processes after peace missions exit, however, opens new avenues for research along these lines. Hybridity and frictions may still constitute valid and viable lenses of analysis but focusing on what locals do, once the imposing presence of the United Nations (or the European Union or other international organisation, for that matter) is lifted, allows the local agency to be studied from a different point of view. The underlying logic of international–local interaction is still valid but a deeper and wider space to tap into local norms and practices exists.