Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2020
The International Relations (IR) literature has strongly criticised the invasive and top-down nature of liberal peace, facilitating a reinterpretation of the practice of international intervention in conflict-affected societies. Today, sustaining peace policy approaches advance longer-term missions, give a secondary role to external practitioners, and increasingly accept risks and failures. What is striking is that even when these policy discourses hold out the promise of liberating peacebuilding from dominant and top-down models of liberal intervention, the mood in the field is one of despair. By drawing on John Dewey's work on pragmatism and interviewing practitioners in Bosnia and Kosovo, the article reflects on the morass practitioners find themselves, diagnoses the source of the frustrations, and anticipates the direction of sustaining peace. Pragmatism adumbrates the idea of ‘peacebuilding without peace’, encouraging practitioners to experiment, give primacy to their doings and explore this world without hope of success and dreams of otherworldliness.
1 Nadarajah, Suthaharan and Rampton, David, ‘The limits of hybridity and the crisis of liberal peace’, Review of International Studies, 41:1 (2015), pp. 49–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 United Nations (UN), ‘Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ (United Nations General Assembly, 2015).
3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ‘Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ (Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2015).
4 United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), ‘The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030’ (Sendai: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015).
5 UN, ‘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, 2015), pp. 7, 8, 18.
6 UN, ‘Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace: Report of the Secretary-General’ (General Assembly and Security Council, 2018), p. 1.
7 UN, ‘The Challenge of Sustaining Peace’, p. 9; UNSG, ‘Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict’ (New York: United Nations, 2014), p. 2.
8 Department for International Development (DFID), ‘Saving Lives, Preventing Suffering and Building Resilience: The UK Government's Humanitarian Policy’ (London: Department for International Development, 2011); Interpeace, ‘Fostering Resilience for Peace’ (Geneva: Interpeace, 2015); UN, ‘United Nations Conflict Prevention and Preventive Diplomacy in Action: An Overview of the Role, Approach and Tools of the United Nations and its Partners in Preventing Violent Conflict’ (United Nations Department of Political Affairs, 2018); United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), ‘Local Knowledge, Global Goals’ (Paris: UNESCO, 2017); UNISDR, ‘Progress and Challenges in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Contribution towards the Development of Policy Indicators for the Post-2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction’ (Geneva: The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2014).
9 Aoi, Chiyuki, De Coning, Cedric, and Thakur, Ramesh Chandra, Unintended Consequences of Peacekeeping Operations (Tokyo and New York: United Nations University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.
10 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), ‘Assessing the Impact of the Scale-up of DFID's Support to Fragile States’ (Independent Commission for Aid Impact, 2015), p. 20; see also Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), ‘Good Development in Fragile, at-Risk and Crisis Affected Contexts: OECD Development Policy Papers’ (2016); World Bank, ‘Machine Learning for Disaster Risk Management: A Guidance Note on How Machine Learning Can be Used for Disaster Risk Management’ (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2018).
11 The idea of resilience epitomises this risk-sensitive approach that resists working out principles in the abstract and instead proceeds with practice-driven responses; rather than exporting tools, builds on systems’ self-organising capacities; and rather than imposing solutions onto reality, adapts to it as it unfolds. Biggs, Reinette, Schlüter, Maja, and Schoon, Michael (eds), Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stockholm Resilience Centre, ‘Applying Resilience Thinking: Seven Principles for Building Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems’ (Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre and Stockholm University, 2015); For a critique, see Joseph, Jonathan, Varieties of Resilience: Studies in Governmentality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Campbell, Susanna, Chandler, David, and Sabaratnam, Meera, A Liberal Peace? The Problems and Practices of Peacebuilding (London and New York: Zed Books, 2011)Google Scholar.
13 Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, ‘Towards a practice turn in EU studies: The everyday of European integration’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 54:1 (2016), pp. 87–103Google Scholar.
14 The anxiety in the field contrasts with confidence in policy reports as well as in the perspectives of EU diplomats in Brussels (both at the European External Action Service and at the European Commission), who accept that post-conflict transitions and Enlargement processes are lengthy (Interviews 8 and 9). As an EC official put it: ‘All strategies for peace in the Balkans are directed toward Enlargement … It is a long-term process. It is an incentive, it maintains hope’ (Interview 8).
15 Autesserre, Séverine, Peaceland: Conflict Resolution and the Everyday Politics of International Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bojicic-Dzelilovic, Vesna and Martin, Mary, ‘Wholly local? Ownership as philosophy and practice in peacebuilding interventions’, Peacebuilding, 6:3 (2018), pp. 218–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Coning, Cedric, ‘Adaptive peacebuilding’, International Affairs, 94:2 (2018), pp. 301–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Lemay-Hébert, Nicolas and Kappler, Stefanie, ‘What attachment to peace? Exploring the normative and material dimensions of local ownership in peacebuilding’, Review of International Studies, 42:5 (2016), pp. 895–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ginty, Roger Mac and Richmond, Oliver P., ‘The fallacy of constructing hybrid political orders: A reappraisal of the hybrid turn in peacebuilding’, International Peacekeeping, 23:2 (2016), pp. 219–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallis, Joanne, Jeffery, Renee, and Kent, Lia, ‘Political reconciliation in Timor Leste, Solomon Islands and Bougainville: The dark side of hybridity’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70:2 (2016), pp. 159–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Björkdahl, Annika and Höglund, Kristine, ‘Precarious peacebuilding: Friction in global–local encounters’, Peacebuilding, 1:3 (2013), pp. 289–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Randazzo, Elisa, ‘The paradoxes of the “everyday”: Scrutinising the local turn in peace building’, Third World Quarterly, 37:8 (2016), pp. 1351–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sabaratnam, Meera, ‘Avatars of Eurocentrism in the critique of the liberal peace’, Security Dialogue, 44:3 (2013), pp. 259–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolff, Jonas and Zimmermann, Lisbeth, ‘Between Banyans and battle scenes: Liberal norms, contestation, and the limits of critique’, Review of International Studies, 42:3 (2016), pp. 513–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Dewey, John, The Public and its Problems (Athens: Shallow Press Books, Ohio University Press, 1954)Google Scholar; James, William, Pragmatism (Lexington: Renaissance Classics, 2012)Google Scholar; Peirce, Charles S., James, William, Lewis, Clarence Irving, Dewey, John, and Mead, George Herbert, Pragmatism: The Classic Writings, ed. Thayer, H. S. (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1982)Google Scholar.
19 Cohen, Tom, Colebrook, Claire, and Miller, Hilis J., Twilight of the Anthropocene Idols (London: Open Humanities Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morton, Timothy, Humankind: Solidarity with Nonhuman People (London and New York: Verso, 2017)Google Scholar; Tsing, Anna L., The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.
20 Haack, Susan, ‘Pragmatism, old and new’, Contemporary Pragmatism, 1:1 (2004), pp. 3–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Latour, Bruno, Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018)Google Scholar.
22 Boltanski, Luc and Thévenot, Laurent, On Justification: Economies of Worth (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.
23 Franke, Ulrich and Weber, Ralph, ‘At the Papini hotel: On pragmatism in the study of International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:4 (2011), pp. 669–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaag, John and Kreps, Sarah, ‘Pragmatism's contributions to International Relations’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25:2 (2012), pp. 191–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Bauer, Harry and Brighi, Elisabetta, Pragmatism in International Relations (London and New York: Routledge, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sil, Rudra and Katzenstein, Peter J., ‘Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions’, Perspectives on Politics, 8:2 (2010), pp. 411–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Franke and Weber, ‘At the Papini hotel;’ Kratochwil, Friedrich, ‘Of false promises and good bets: A plea for a pragmatic approach to theory building (the Tartu lecture)’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 10:1 (2007), pp. 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 Adler, Emanuel and Pouliot, Vincent (eds), International Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berger, Tobias and Esguerra, Alejandro (eds), World Politics in Translation: Power, Relationality and Difference in Global Cooperation (London: Routledge, 2018)Google Scholar; Bueger, Christian and Gadinger, Frank, International Practice Theory: New Perspectives (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014)Google Scholar.
27 Friedrichs, Jörg and Kratochwil, Friedrich, ‘On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance International Relations research and methodology’, International Organization, 63:4 (2009), pp. 701–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hellmann, Gunther, ‘Pragmatism and International Relations’, International Studies Review, 11:3 (2009), pp. 638–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Nyman, Jonna, ‘What is the value of security? Contextualising the negative/positive debate’, Review of International Studies, 42:5 (2016), pp. 821–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 Bellamy, Alex, ‘Pragmatic solidarism and the dilemmas of humanitarian intervention’, Millennium, 31:3 (2002), pp. 473–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoover, Joe, ‘Developing a situationist global justice theory: From an architectonic to a consummatory approach’, Global Society, 33:1 (2019), pp. 100–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 Lederer, Markus, ‘The practice of carbon markets’, Environmental Politics, 21:4 (2012), pp. 640–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31 Moe, Louise Wiuff and Stepputat, Finn, ‘Introduction: Peacebuilding in an era of pragmatism’, International Affairs, 94:2 (2018), p. 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 Chandler, David, ‘Resilience and the “everyday”: Beyond the paradox of “liberal peace”’, Review of International Studies, 41:1 (2015), pp. 27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘Governing through failure and denial: The new resilience agenda’, Millennium, 44:3 (2016), pp. 370–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Juncos, Ana E., ‘Resilience in peacebuilding: Contesting uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity’, Contemporary Security Policy, 39:4 (2018), pp. 559–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 Richmond, Oliver P., Kappler, Stefanie, and Björkdahl, Annika, ‘The “field” in the age of intervention: Power, legitimacy, and authority versus the “local”’, Millennium, 44:1 (2015), pp. 23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 Dewey, The Public and its Problems, pp. 64–9.
35 See also Lippmann, Walter, The Phantom Public (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993)Google Scholar.
36 Duffield, Mark, Post-Humanitarianism: Governing Precarity in the Digital World (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jahn, Beate, ‘Liberal internationalism: Historical trajectory and current prospects’, International Affairs, 94:1 (2018), pp. 43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 Ghani, Ashraf and Lockhart, Clare, Fixing Failed States: A Framework for Rebuilding a Fractured World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 4Google Scholar.
38 Chesterman, Simon, Ignatieff, Michael, and Thakur, Ramesh, Making States Work: State Failure and the Crisis of Governance (Tokyo: United Nations Univeristy Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Paris, Roland, At War's End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 Chandler, David, Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-Building (London: Pluto Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Hehir, Aidan and Robinson, Neil (eds), State-Building. Theory and Practice (London: Routledge, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pupavac, Vanessa, ‘The politics of emergency and the demise of the developing state: Problems for humanitarian advocacy’, Development in Practice, 16:3–4 (2006), pp. 255–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Cooper, Neil, Pugh, Michael, and Turner, Mandy, Whose Peace? Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008)Google Scholar.
41 de Guevara, Berit Bliesemann, ‘Introduction: The limits of statebuilding and the analysis of state-formation’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 4 (2010), pp. 114–15Google Scholar.
42 Bourbeau, Philippe and Ryan, Caitlin, ‘Resilience, resistance, infrapolitics and enmeshment’, European Journal of International Relations, 24:1 (2018), pp. 221–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Distler, Werner, Stavrevska, Elena B., and Vogel, Birte, ‘Economies of peace: Economy formation processes and outcomes in conflict-affected societies’, Civil Wars, 20:2 (2018), pp. 139–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ginty, Roger Mac, ‘A material turn in International Relations: The 4x4, intervention and resistance’, Review of International Studies, 43:5 (2017), pp. 855–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 Brusset, Emery, de Coning, Cedric, and Hughes, Bryn (eds), Complexity Thinking for Peacebuilding Practice and Evaluation (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moe, Louise W., ‘The strange wars of liberal peace: Hybridity, complexity and the governing rationalities of counterinsurgency in Somalia’, Peacebuilding, 4:1 (2016), pp. 99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Torrent, Ignasi, ‘Problematising UN-local civil society engagement in peacebuilding: Towards non-modern epistemes through relationality’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 13:5 (2019), pp. 618–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Dewey, The Public and its Problems, p. 20.
45 Ibid., p. 25.
46 Moe, ‘The strange wars of liberal peace’; Richmond, Oliver P., ‘A pedagogy of peacebuilding: Infrapolitics, resistance, and liberation’, International Political Sociology, 6:2 (2012), pp. 115–31Google Scholar.
47 Dewey, The Public and its Problems, p. 68.
48 Ibid., p. 94.
49 Millar, Gearoid, ‘Disaggregating hybridity: Why hybrid institutions do not produce predictable experiences of peace’, Journal of Peace Research, 51:4 (2014), pp. 501–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
50 Heathershaw, John, ‘Seeing like the international community: How peacebuilding failed (and survived) in Tajikistan’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2:3 (2008), pp. 329–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
51 Dewey, The Public and its Problems, pp. 30, 84, 95; see also Latour, Bruno, The Pasteurization of France, trans. Sheridan, Alan and Law, John (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.
52 Brigg, Morgan, ‘Relational and essential: Theorizing difference for peacebuilding’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 12:3 (2018), pp. 352–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 Blieseman de Guevara, ‘Introduction’, p. 15.
54 de Almagro, Maria Martin, ‘Hybrid clubs: A feminist approach to peacebuilding in the Democratic Republic of Congo’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 12:3 (2018), pp. 319–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McLeod, Laura, ‘A feminist approach to hybridity: Understanding local and international interactions in producing post-conflict gender security’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 9:1 (2015), pp. 48–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
55 Wallis, Jeffery, and Kent, ‘Political reconciliation in Timor Leste, Solomon Islands and Bougainville’.
56 Forsyth, Miranda, Kent, Lia, Dinnen, Sinclair, Wallis, Joanne, and Bose, Srinjoy, ‘Hybridity in peacebuilding and development: A critical approach’, Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 2:4 (2017), pp. 407–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
57 EU-CIVCAP, ‘Improving the EU's Local Capacity Building Efforts in Post-Conflict Environments’ (2017), p. 2.
58 Martin, Mary, Bojicic-Dzelilovic, Vesna, and Benraïs, Linda, ‘Introductory article: Mind the gaps. A whole-of-society approach to peacebuilding and conflict prevention’, Peacebuilding, 6:3 (2018), p. 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 Bojicic-Dzelilovic and Martin, ‘Wholly local?’.
60 Autesserre, Peaceland, pp. 25–45, 115–30.
61 Ibid., p. 25.
62 Dewey, John, The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action (Wokin: Unwin Brothers, 1930), pp. 12, 50, 81, 242Google Scholar.
63 Autesserre, Peaceland, pp. 247–74.
64 Beauclair, Alan, ‘John Dewey's quest to make experience intelligible’, Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 93:1/2 (2010), pp. 63–82Google Scholar.
65 Haldrup, Soren and Rosén, Frederik, ‘Developing resilience: A retreat from grand planning’, Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses, 1:2 (2013), p. 130CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
66 United Nations Security Council (UNSC), ‘United Nations Peacekeeping Operations’ (New York, NY: United Nations Security Council, 2018), p. 3.
67 UNSG, ‘Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict’, p. 10.
68 UN, ‘The Challenge of Sustaining Peace’, pp. 18–19.
69 Millar, Gearoid, ‘Ethnographic peace research: The underappreciated benefits of long-term fieldwork AU’, International Peacekeeping, 25:5 (2018), pp. 653–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
70 European External Action Service (EEAS), ‘Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe: A Global Strategy for the European Union's Foreign And Security Policy’ (European Union Global Strategy, 2016), pp. 9–10.
71 Hirschmann, Gisela, ‘Organizational learning in United Nations’ peacekeeping exit strategies’, Cooperation and Conflict, 47:3 (2012), pp. 368–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
72 Distler, Werner, ‘Intervention as a social practice: Knowledge formation and transfer in the everyday of police missions’, International Peacekeeping, 23:2 (2016), pp. 326–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
73 UNESCO, ‘Local Knowledge, Global Goals’.
74 UN, ‘The Challenge of Sustaining Peace’, p. 21.
75 Paffenholz, Thania, ‘International peacebuilding goes local: Analysing Lederach's Conflict Transformation theory and its ambivalent encounter with 20 years of practice’, Peacebuilding, 2:1 (2014), pp. 11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
76 Interpeace, ‘Fostering Resilience for Peace’; United Nations Developement Programme (UNDP), ‘Empowered Youth, Sustainable Future: UNDP Youth Strategy, 2014–2017’ (New York: United Nations Development Programme, 2014).
77 Latour, Down to Earth.
78 Dewey, The Quest for Certainty, p. 85, emphasis in original.
79 Hellmann, ‘Pragmatism and International Relations’; Pospisil, Jan, Peace in Political Unsettlement: Beyond Solving Conflict (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
80 CDA, ‘Do No Harm Workshop Trainer's Manual’ (Cambridge, MA: CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, 2016).
81 Halas, Matus, ‘In error we trust: An apology of abductive inference’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 28:4 (2015), pp. 701–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joseph, ‘Governing through failure and denial'.
82 Bargués-Pedreny, Pol and Schmidt, Jessica, ‘Learning to be postmodern in an all too modern world: “Whatever action” in international climate change imaginaries’, Global Society (2019), pp. 45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
83 Chandler, ‘Resilience and the “everyday”'.
84 Ibid., p. 30.
85 Autesserre, Séverine, ‘The responsibility to protect in Congo: The failure of grassroots prevention’, International Peacekeeping, 23:1 (2016), pp. 29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ejdus, Filip, ‘Local ownership as international governmentality: Evidence from the EU mission in the Horn of Africa’, Contemporary Security Policy, 39:1 (2018), pp. 28–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mac Ginty and Richmond, ‘The fallacy of constructing hybrid political orders'.
86 Autesserre, Peaceland, pp. 115–58.
87 Sahin, Selver B., ‘The rhetoric and practice of the “ownership” of security sector reform processes in fragile countries: The case of Kosovo’, International Peacekeeping, 24:3 (2017), pp. 461–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
88 Puljek-Shank, Randall and Verkoren, Willemijn, ‘Civil society in a divided society: Linking legitimacy and ethnicness of civil society organizations in Bosnia-Herzegovina’, Cooperation and Conflict, 52:2 (2016), pp. 184–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
89 Rampton, David and Nadarajah, Suthaharan, ‘A long view of liberal peace and its crisis’, European Journal of International Relations, 23:2 (2017), pp. 441–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Randazzo, ‘The paradoxes of the “everyday”’.
90 Dewey, The Public and its Problems, pp. 116–17.
91 Ibid., p. 110.
92 Ibid., p. 126.
93 Ioannides, Isabelle, ‘Peace and Security in 2018: An Evaluation of EU Peacebuilding in the Western Balkans’ (Brussels: European Parliament, 2018)Google Scholar.
94 Belloni, Roberto, ‘Civil society and peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Journal of Peace Research, 38:2 (2001), pp. 163–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knaus, Gerald and Martin, Felix, ‘Lessons from Bosnia and Herzegovina: Travails of the European Raj’, Journal of Democracy, 14:3 (2003), pp. 60–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
95 Weller, Marc and Wolff, Stefan, ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina ten years after Dayton: Lessons for internationalized state building’, Ethnopolitics, 5:1 (2006), pp. 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
96 Björkdahl, Annika and Gusic, Ivan, ‘“Global” norms and “local” agency: Frictional peacebuilding in Kosovo’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 18:3 (2015), pp. 265–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
97 Bargués-Pedreny, Pol, ‘From promoting to de-emphasizing “ethnicity”: Rethinking the endless supervision of Kosovo’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 10:2 (2016), pp. 222–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
98 European Union Rule of Law Mission Kosovo (EULEX), ‘Compact Progress Report: Assessing Progress between July 2017–June 2018’ (2018); European Commision, ‘Key Findings of the 2018 Report on Kosovo’ (Brussels: European Commission, 2018); European Commission, ‘Key Findings of the 2018 Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina’ (European Commission, 2018).
99 European Commission, ‘Commission Opinion on Bosnia and Herzegoina's Application for Membership of the European Union’ (Brussels: European Commission, 2019), p. 16.
100 Ibid., p. 19.
101 As a EEAS official argued: ‘these countries are realising that they need to apply reforms with more determinacy [to join the EU]’ (Interview 9).
102 Council of the EU, ‘EULEX Kosovo: New Role for the EU Rule of Law Mission’ (Brussels: Council of the European Union, 2018); EULEX, ‘EULEX at the Launch of Justice 2020’ (2018).
103 EULEX, ‘EULEX at the Launch of Justice 2020’.
104 Krogstad, Erlend G., ‘Local ownership as dependence management: Inviting the coloniser back’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 8:2–3 (2014), pp. 105–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
105 European Commision, ‘Key Findings of the 2018 Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina', p. 1.
106 EULEX, ‘Compact Progress Report', p. 4.
107 Ibid., p. 4.
108 European Commission, ‘Key Findings of the 2018 Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina'.
109 Kappler, Stefanie, Local Agency and Peacebuilding: EU and International Engagement in Bosnia- Herzegovina, Cyprus and South Africa (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kappler, Stefanie and Richmond, Oliver, ‘Peacebuilding and culture in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Resistance or emancipation?’, Security Dialogue, 42:3 (2011), pp. 261–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
110 OSCE, ‘A Vision of Unity: Jajce's Student Movement for Inclusive Multi-ethnic Education’ (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2018).
111 Ibid.
112 Ibid.
113 Brusset, de Coning, and Hughes (eds), Complexity Thinking for Peacebuilding Practice and Evaluation.
114 Dewey, The Public and its Problems, p. 109.
115 Ibid., p. 126.
116 Ibid., p. 12.
117 Dewey, The Quest for Certainty, p. 38.
118 Ibid., p. 35.
119 Grosz, Elisabeth, Becoming Undone: Darwinian Reflections on Life, Politics, and Art (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2011), p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
120 Dewey, The Quest for Certainty, p. 24.
121 Dewey, John, ‘What if we talked politics a little?’, Contemporary Political Theory, 2:2 (2003), pp. 153–4Google Scholar.
122 Dewey, The Quest for Certainty, pp. 38, 289.
