Liberal peacebuilding has become the target of considerable criticism. Although much of this criticism is warranted, a number of scholars and commentators have come to the opinion that liberal peacebuilding is either fundamentally destructive, or illegitimate, or both. On close analysis, however, many of these critiques appear to be exaggerated or misdirected. At a time when the future of peacebuilding is uncertain, it is important to distinguish between justified and unjustified criticisms, and to promote a more balanced debate on the meaning, shortcomings and prospects of liberal peacebuilding.
1 In this article, ‘peacebuilding’ refers to efforts ‘to identify and support structures that will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict’ (Boutros Boutros-Ghali, ‘An Agenda for Peace’, UN document A/47/277-S/24111 (17 June 1992), para. 21). For different definitions, see Michael Barnett, Hunjoon Kim, Madalene O'Donnell and Laura Sitea, ‘Peacebuilding: What's In a Name?’, Global Governance, 13:1 (January–March 2007), pp. 35–58; and Vincent Chetail (ed.), Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: A Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
2 For evaluations of the mixed record of these missions, see Mats Berdal, Building Peace After War (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2009); Lise Morjé Howard, UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Virginia Page Fortna, Does Peacekeeping Work? Shaping Belligerents' Choices After Civil War (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008); Nicholas Sambanis, ‘Short- and Long-Term Effects of UN Peace Operations’, World Bank Economic Review, 22:1 (2008), pp. 9–32; Charles T. Call and Elizabeth M. Cousens, ‘Ending Wars and Building Peace: International Responses to War-Torn Societies’, International Studies Perspectives, 9 (2008), pp. 1–21; and Michael W. Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis, Making War and Building Peace: UN Peace Operations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).
3 Recent works exploring these tensions and contradictions include: Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (London: Routledge, 2009); Anna K. Jarstad and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), From War to Democracy: Dilemmas of Peacebuilding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); and Stephen Baranyi (ed.), The Paradoxes of Peacebuilding Post-9/11 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2008).
4 On the distinction between ‘critical’ and ‘problem solving’ approaches, see Robert Cox, ‘Social Forces, States and World orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, in Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 204–54. On the importance of critical analysis in the study of peace operations, see Oliver P. Richmond, ‘Critical Research Agendas for Peace: The Missing Link in the Study of International Relations,’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 32:2 (April–June 2007), pp. 247–74; Alex J. Bellamy and Paul Williams, ‘Conclusion: What Future for Peace Operations? Brahimi and Beyond’, International Peacekeeping, 11:1 (Spring 2004), pp. 183–212; and Roland Paris, ‘Broadening the Study of Peace Operations’, International Studies Review, 2:3 (Fall 2000), pp. 27–44.
5 Recent surveys of the literature include Paul D. Williams, ‘Peace Operations’, unpublished essay prepared for the International Study Association's Compendium Project volume on security studies (forthcoming); Virginia Page Fortna and Lise Morjé Howard, ‘Pitfalls and Prospects in the Peacekeeping Literature’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11 (June 2008), pp. 283–301; and Catherine Goetze and Dejan Guzina,‘Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, Nationbuilding – Turtles All the Way Down?’, Civil Wars, 10:4 (December 2008), pp. 319–47.
6 Roland Paris, At War's End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
7 Gerald B. Helman and Steven R. Ratner, ‘Saving Failed States’, Foreign Policy, 89:92–93 (Winter 1993), pp. 3–20.
8 I make this argument on prudential grounds: that the principal alternatives examined in this article are less likely to yield lasting peace than some version of liberal peacebuilding. While I also believe that liberal political and economic principles are normatively preferable, this belief is not the foundation of my argument below.
9 Cox 1986, p. 208.
10 Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Harper Perennial, 1993).
11 Paris, 2004.
12 This quote is from Robert Pakenham's critique of modernisation theory in America in the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973).
13 ‘No Exit without Strategy: Security Council Decision-Making and the Closure or Transition of UN Peacekeeping Operations’, Report of the Secretary-General, UN document S/2001/394 (20 April 2001).
14 On the idea of statebuilding and its relationship to the broader goals of peacebuilding, see Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk, ‘Introduction: Understanding the Contradictions of Postwar Statebuilding’, in Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 1–20. Other works that focus on statebuilding include: Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart, Fixing Failed States: A Framework for Rebuilding a Fractured World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Charles T. Call and Vanessa Hawkins Wyeth (eds), Building States to Build Peace (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2008); and Francis Fukuyama, State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2004).
15 ‘Report of the Secretary-General on Timor-Leste Pursuant to Security Council resolution 1690 (2006)’, UN Security Council document S/2006/628 (8 August 2006), paras. 40 and 142.
16 David Chandler, Bosnia: Faking Democracy After Dayton (London: Pluto Press, 1999), pp. 3 and 154.
17 Jarat Chopra, ‘The UN's Kingdom in East Timor’, Survival, 42:3 (2000), pp. 27–40; and Jarat Chopra, ‘Building State Failure in East Timor’, Development and Change, 33:5 (2002), pp. 979–1000.
18 Astri Suhrke, ‘The Dangers of a Tight Embrace: Externally Assisted Statebuilding in Afghanistan’, in Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 227–51.
19 Jeffrey Herbst, ‘Let Them Fail: State Failure in Theory and Practice: Implications for Policy’, in Robert I. Rotberg (ed.), When States Fail: Causes and Consequences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 302. See also Jeffrey Herbst, ‘Responding to State Failure in Africa’, International Security, 21:3 (Winter 1996–97), pp. 120–44; and Boaz Atzili, ‘When Good Fences Make Bad Neighbors: Fixed Borders, State Weakness, and International Conflict’, International Security, 31:3 (Winter 2006–07), pp. 139–73.
20 Pierre Englebert and Denis M. Tull, ‘Postconflict Resolution in Africa: Flawed Ideas about Failed States’, International Security, 32:4 (Spring 2008), pp. 111 and 135.
21 Jeremy Weinstein, ‘Autonomous Recovery and International Intervention in Comparative Perspective’, (Washington, D.C.: Center for Global Development, Working Paper no. 57, 2005), p. 5; emphasis in original.
22 Ibid., p. 9.
23 However, Weinstein also noted that ‘the conditions under which autonomous recovery is likely to occur are rare and difficult to create’. Ibid., p. 5.
24 For example, Edward Luttwak, ‘Give War a Chance’, Foreign Affairs, 78:4 (July/August 1999), pp. 36–44; Monica Duffy Toft, ‘Peace Through Victory?’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 27–31, 2003, Philadelphia, Penn.; and Monica Duffy Toft, Securing the Peace: The Durable Settlement of Civil Wars (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2009). For a critique of this finding, see Caroline Hartzell and Matthew Hoddie, Crafting Peace: Power Sharing and the Negotiated Settlement of Civil Wars (University Park, Penn.: Penn State University Press, 2007).
25 William Bain, ‘In Praise of Folly: International Administration and the Corruption of Humanity’, International Affairs, 82:3 (2006), pp. 525–38.
26 David Chandler, Empire in Denial: The Politics of Statebuilding (London: Pluto Press, 2006); and ‘The Other Regarding Ethics of “Empire in Denial”’, in David Chandler and Volker Heins (eds), Rethinking Ethical Foreign Policy: Pitfalls, Possibilities and Paradoxes (London: Routledge, 2007), p. 176.
27 Michael Pugh: ‘Corruption and the Political Economy of Liberal Peace’, paper prepared for the International Studies Association annual convention (San Francisco, 26–28 March 2008); ‘Peacekeeping as Constant Gardening by Other Means’, paper prepared for the British International Studies Association conference (Cork, Ireland, 18–21 December 2006); ‘Towards a New Agenda for Transforming War Economies’ (co-authored with Mandy Turner), Conflict Security and Development, 6:3 (October 2006), pp. 471–9; and ‘The Political Economy of Peacebuilding: A Critical Theory Perspective’, International Journal of Peace Studies, 10:2 (Autumn/Winter 2005), pp. 23–42.
28 William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 6–7.
29 Omar G. Encarnacion, ‘The Follies of Democratic Imperialism’, World Policy Journal, 22:1 (Spring 2005), pp. 47–60.
30 Alejandro Bendaña, ‘From Peacebuilding to Statebuilding: One Step Forward and Two Steps Back?’, Development, 48:3 (2005), pp. 5–15.
31 Wolfram Lacher, ‘Iraq: Exception to, or Epitome of Contemporary Post-Conflict Reconstruction?’, International Peacekeeping, 14:2 (April 2007), p. 247.
32 Bendaña, (2005), p. 6.
33 John Gray, ‘The Death of this Crackpot Creed Is Nothing to Mourn’, Guardian, (July 31, 2007). For similar arguments, see also Tim Jacoby, ‘Hegemony, Modernization and Post-war Reconstruction’, Global Society, 21:4 (October 2007), pp. 534–5; Mark Duffield, ‘Development, Territories, and People: Consolidating the External Sovereign Frontier’, Alternatives, 32:2 (April–June 2007), pp. 225–46; and John Heathershaw, ‘Unpacking the Liberal Peace: The Dividing and Merging of Peacebuilding Discourses’, Millennium, 36:3 (May 2008), p. 620.
34 Michael Scheuer, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq (New York: Free Press, 2008), p. 37.
35 Bain, (2006); and Encarnacion, (2005), p. 47.
36 Gray, (2007).
37 Neil Cooper, ‘Review Article: On the Crisis of the Liberal Peace’, Conflict, Security and Development, 7:4 (December 2007), p. 610; and Oliver P. Richmond and Jason Franks, ‘Liberal Hubris? Virtual Peace in Cambodia’, Security Dialogue, 38:1 (March 2007), pp. 27–48.
38 Beate Jahn, ‘The Tragedy of Liberal Diplomacy: Democratization, Intervention and Statebuilding (Part II)’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1:2 (June 2007), p. 212.
39 Seumas Milne, ‘A System to Enforce Imperial Power Will Only be Resisted’, Guardian (28 February 2008).
40 Cooper, (2007), p. 605.
41 Diamond, Linz and Lipset, (1990), p. x.
42 Thomas Carothers, ‘Democracy's Sobering State’, Current History (December 2004), pp. 412–6.
43 Bendaña, (2005), p. 6.
44 It is also worth noting that the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq was initially justified on the grounds of pre-emptive self-defence. Only later, when weapons of mass destruction were not discovered in Iraq, did the Bush Administration rationalise the invasion as a means of ‘liberating’ the Iraqi people and spreading democracy to the Middle East.
45 Suhrke, ‘The Dangers of a Tight Embrace’ (2009).
46 David Edelstein, ‘Foreign Militaries, Sustainable Institutions, and Postwar Statebuilding’, in Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 81–103.
47 Roland Paris, ‘International Peacebuilding and the “Mission Civilisatrice”’, Review of International Studies, 29 (2002), pp. 637–56. Marina Ottaway and Bethany Lacina make a similar observation in ‘International Interventions and Imperialism: Lessons from the 1990s’, SAIS Review, 23:2 (Summer-Fall 2003), pp. 71–92.
48 As Bernard Waites writes, ‘It was no secret that the modern colonial empires were acquired for the advantages they brought the European states.’ Bernard Waites, Europe and the Third World: From Colonialism to Decolonization, c. 1500–1998 (New York: St. Martin's, 1999), p. 222.
49 Robert Aldrich, Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion (London: Macmillan, 1996), p. 91 and ch. 5.
50 Ronald Hyam, Britain's Imperial Century, 1815–1914: A Study in Empire and Expansion (London: B.T. Batsford, 1976), pp. 31–2.
51 Jorg Meyer, ‘The Concealed Violence of Modern Peace(-Making)’, Millennium, 36:3 (May 2008), p. 573.
52 There have been cases of international personnel accused of corruption and malfeasance, but these activities have not been sanctioned by peacebuilding agencies, which sets these transgressions apart from the colonial powers' systematic and deliberate exploitation of the territories they occupied. Indeed, for those who believe that only national interests (and not humanitarianism) should justify the deployment of military forces, it may seem ‘strategically irrational’ to contribute troops to a UN peacebuilding mission. See C. Dale Walton, ‘The Case for Strategic Traditionalism: War, National Interest and Liberal Peacebuilding’, International Peacekeeping, 16:5 (November 2009), pp. 717–34.
53 Crawford, (2002), p. 131.
54 Roland Paris, ‘Peacekeeping and the Constraints of Global Culture’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:3 (Sept. 2003), pp. 441–73.
55 For example, national interests play a role in the decisions of individual countries to contribute troops to specific international operations. See Laura Neack, ‘UN Peace-Keeping: In the Interest of Community or Self?’, Journal of Peace Research, 32:2 (May 1995), pp. 181–96.
56 For a discussion of ‘interpretive frames’ and their role in shaping understandings of particular issues or phenomena, see Robert D. Benford and David A. Snow, ‘Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26 (2000), pp. 11–39.
57 See Paris and Sisk (eds), Dilemmas of Statebuilding; and Simon Chesterman, You, the People: The UN, Transitional Administration and State-Building (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
58 See, for example, Oliver Richmond, The Transformation of Peace (London: Palgrave, 2005).
59 Oliver Richmond, ‘The Problem of Peace: Understanding the “Liberal Peace”’, Conflict, Security and Development, 6:3 (October 2006), p. 293.
60 Although the boundaries between liberalism and realism are diffuse, Richmond himself writes that the ‘victor's peace’ is associated more with realism than liberalism, yet he nevertheless maintains that the preference for military victory is ‘a key aspect’ of the liberal peace (Ibid., p. 310).
61 See, for example, the discussion Jeffrey Herbst's and Jeremy Weinstein's writings above.
62 Jahn, (2007).
63 Oisín Tansey, ‘Reply and Response to Jahn's “Tragedy of Liberal Diplomacy”’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2:1 (March 2008), p. 89.
64 Keith Krause and Oliver Jütersonke, ‘Peace, Security and Development in Post-Conflict Environments’, Security Dialogue, 36:4 (December 2005), pp. 447–62.
65 Determining what conditions would have been in the absence of a peacebuilding mission is a very difficult analytical task, but the evidence strongly suggests that peacebuilding missions have contributed to preserving peace in most countries that have hosted these operations: Fortna, (2008); Doyle and Sambanis, (2007); Michael J. Gilligan and Ernest J. Sergenti, ‘Do UN Interventions Cause Peace? Using Matching to Improve Causal Inference’, Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3 (2008), pp. 89–122; and J. Michael Quinn, T. David Mason and Mehmet Gurses, ‘Sustaining the Peace: Determinants of Civil War Recurrence’, International Interactions, 33 (May 2007), pp. 184–5.
66 Roberto Belloni, State Building and International Intervention in Bosnia (London: Routledge, 2007), p. 5.
67 Chandler, (1999) and (2006); and Richard Caplan, ‘Who Guards the Guardians? International Accountability in Bosnia’, International Peacekeeping, 12:3 (Autumn 2005), pp. 463–76.
68 Sumantra Bose, ‘The Bosnian State a Decade After Dayton’, International Peacekeeping, 12:3 (Autumn 2005), p. 331.
69 Gerald Knaus and Felix Martin, ‘Travails of the European Raj’, Journal of Democracy, 14:3 (July 2003), pp. 60–74.
70 Jahn, (2007).
71 Gray, (2007).
72 Doyle and Sambanis, (2006).
73 Oxfam International, Africa's Missing Billions: International Arms Flows and the Cost of Conflict, Briefing Paper 107 (October 2007).
75 Mark Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War (London: Polity, 2007), p. 27; and Duffield, “Development, Territories, and People: Consolidating the External Sovereign Frontier’, p. 230.
76 Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War, pp. 227–34; and Duffield, ‘Development, Territories, and People: Consolidating the External Sovereign Frontier’, p. 242.
77 Bain, (2006).
78 Ibid., pp. 536–8.
79 Roger MacGuinty, ‘Indigenous Peace-Making Versus the Liberal Peace’, Cooperation and Conflict, 43:2 (June 2008), p. 159. See below for other examples.
80 Michael Barnett, ‘Building a Republican Peace: Stabilizing States After War’, International Security, 30:4 (2006), pp. 87–112.
81 Ibid., p. 98.
82 Ibid., p. 96.
83 Ibid., p. 94.
84 Barnett hints at this when he acknowledges that liberalism and republicanism are frequently conflated and ‘with good reason’ (Ibid., p. 93).
85 David Chandler, ‘Back to the Future? The Limits of Neo-Wilsonian Ideals of Exporting Democracy’, Review of International Studies, 32:3 (2006), p. 480.
86 Chandler, Empire in Denial, p. 125.
87 Cooper, (2007), p. 606 (emphasis added).
88 In principle, however, there is no reason that ‘critical’ theorising cannot provide useful insights into ‘what to do’ questions. See Richard Price, ‘Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics’, International Organization, 62 (Spring 2008), pp. 191–220.
89 Duffield, (2007), ch. 9; and Pugh, (2005).
90 Duffield, (2007), p. 234.
91 Pugh, (2005).
92 Oliver P. Richmond, ‘Emancipatory Forms of Human Security and Liberal Peacebuilding’, International Journal, 62:3 (Summer 2007), p. 461.
93 Richmond, (2006), pp. 301 and 311.
94 Richmond, (2007).
95 Ibid., p. 460.
96 Human Security Brief 2007 (Vancouver, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University, Human Security Project, 2008).
97 Stephen D. Krasner, ‘Sharing Sovereignty. New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States’, International Security, 29:2 (2004), pp. 85–120.
98 Edelstein, (2009).
99 Anna K. Jarstad and Desirée Nilsson, ‘From Words to Deeds: The Implementation of Power-Sharing Pacts in Peace Accords’, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25:3 (July 2008), pp. 206–23; and Jack A. Goldstone and Jay Ulfelder, ‘How to Construct Stable Democracies’, Washington Quarterly, 28:1 (Winter 2004–05), pp. 9–20.
100 MacGuinty, (2008), pp. 144 and 151.
101 Ibid., p. 149.
102 Ibid., p. 155.
103 Ibid., p. 150.
104 Tanja Chopra, ‘When Peacebuilding Contradicts Statebuilding: Notes from the Arid Lands of Kenya’, International Peacekeeping, 16: 4 (August 2009), pp. 531–45.
105 Alex de Waal, ‘Mission without End? Peacekeeping in the African Political Marketplace’, International Affairs, 85:1 (January 2009), pp. 99–113.
106 Tobias Debiel, Rainer Glassner, Conrad Schetter and Ulf Terlinden, ‘Local State-Building in Afghanistan and Somaliland’, Peace Review, 21:1 (January 2009), pp. 38–44; David Roberts, ‘The Superficiality of Statebuilding in Cambodia: Patronage and Clientelism as Enduring Forms of Politics’, in Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 149–69; and Heidrun Zinecker, ‘Regime-Hybridity in Developing Countries: Achievements and Limitations of New Research on Transitions’, International Studies Review, 11:2 (June 2009), pp. 302–31.
107 Lisa A. Baglione, ‘Peacebuilding: A Time to Listen and Learn from Reconciliationism’, Polity, 40:1 (January 2008), pp. 120–35.
108 Richmond, (2006), p. 311; and Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh, ‘Conflicted Outcomes and Values: (Neo)Liberal Peace in Central Asia and Afghanistan’, International Peacekeeping, 16:5 (November 2009), p. 648.
109 Katia Papagianni, ‘Transitional Politics in Post-Conflict Countries: The Importance of Consultative and Inclusive Political Processes’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 3:1 (March 2009), pp. 47–63.
110 Kristoffer Lidén, ‘Building Peace between Global and Local Politics: The Cosmopolitical Ethics of Liberal Peacebuilding’, International Peacekeeping, 16:5 (November 2009), p. 621.
111 Timothy D. Sisk, ‘Pathways of the Political: Electoral Processes after Civil War’, in Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 196–223.
112 See Paris, (2004), pp. 166–8 and 199–205.
113 Sambanis, (2008).
114 Paul D. Williams, ‘International Peacekeeping: The Challenges of Statebuilding and Regionalization’, International Affairs, 81:1 (January 2005), p. 170.
115 Frances Stewart, ‘Policies towards Horizontal Inequalities in Post-Conflict Reconstruction’, World Institute For Development Economics Research, UN University, Research Paper No. 2006/149 (November 2006).
116 Stein Sundstøl Eriksen, ‘The Liberal Peace Is Neither: Peacebuilding, State building and the Reproduction of Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo’, International Peacekeeping, 16:5 (November 2009), p. 663.
117 Paris, (2004).
118 Andrea Kathryn Talentino, ‘Nation Building or Nation Splitting? Political Transition and the Dangers of Violence’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 21:3 (July 2009), pp. 378–400; Claire Mitchell, ‘The Limits of Legitimacy: Former Loyalist Combatants and Peace-Building in Northern Ireland’, Irish Political Studies, 23:1 (February 2008), pp. 1–19; and Katharina P. Coleman, International Organisations and Peace Enforcement: The Politics of International Legitimacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
119 Alexandra Gheciu and Jennifer Welsh, guest editors, Ethics and International Affairs, 23:3 (Summer 2009), special issue on ‘Postwar Justice and the Responsibility to Rebuild’.
120 Oisín Tansey, ‘The Concept and Practice of Democratic Regime-Building’, International Peacekeeping, 14:5 (November 2007), pp. 633–46; and Thomas Ohlson and Mimmi Söderberg Kovacs, ‘Peace Through Democracy? The Challenges of Post-War Democratization in Weak and War-Torn States’, in Ashok Swain, Ramses Amer and Joakim Öjendal (eds), The Democratization Project: Challenges and Opportunities (London: Anthem Press, 2009), ch. 10.
121 Papagianni, (2009); Jonathan Zartman, ‘Negotiation, Exclusion and Durable Peace: Dialogue and Peacebuilding in Tajikistan’, International Negotiation, 13:1 (2008), pp. 55–72; and Kirsti Samuels, ‘Constitutional Choices and Statebuilding in Postconflict Countries’ in Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 173–95.
122 Pippa Norris, Driving Democracy: Do Power-Sharing Institutions Work? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Jarstad and Nilsson, (2008); Anna K. Jarstad, ‘Power Sharing: Former Enemies in Joint Government’, in Anna K. Jarstad and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), From War to Democracy: Dilemmas of Peacebuilding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 105–33; and Hartzell and Hoddie, (2007).
123 Jonathan Goodhand and Mark Sedra, ‘Who Owns the Peace: Aid, Reconstruction, and Peacebuilding in Afghanistan’, Disasters, 34:S1 (January 2010), pp. S78–S102; Timothy Donais, ‘Empowerment or Imposition? Dilemmas of Local Ownership in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding Processes’, Peace and Change, 34:1 (June 2009), pp. 3–26; Simon Chesterman, ‘Ownership in Theory and Practice: Transfer of Authority in UN Statebuilding Operations’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1:3 (March 2007), pp. 3–26; and Jens Narten, ‘Dilemmas of Promoting Local Ownership: The Case of Postwar Kosovo’, in Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 252–83.
124 Séverine Autesserre, ‘Hobbes and the Congo: Frames, Local Violence, and International Intervention’, International Organization, 63 (Spring 2009) pp. 249–80; Paris, (2003); and Michael N. Barnett, ‘The UN Security Council, Indifference, and Genocide in Rwanda’, Cultural Anthropology, 12:4 (November 1997), pp. 551–78.
125 Touko Piiparinen, ‘Putting the Cart before the Horse : Statebuilding, Early Warning and the Irrationality of Bureaucratic Rationalization’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1:3 (November 2007), pp. 355–78; and Michael Barnett, ‘Illiberal Peacebuilding and Liberal States’, paper presented at the Roundtable on Humanitarian Action, New York, Social Science Research Council, (8 February 2005).
126 Michael Lipson, ‘Peacekeeping: Organized Hypocrisy?’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:1 (March 2007), pp. 5–34.
127 Michael Carnahan, Scott Gilmore and William Durch, ‘New Data on the Economic Impact of UN Peacekeeping’, International Peacekeeping, 14:3 (June 2007), pp. 384–402; Christopher Cramer, ‘Trajectories of Accumulation through War and Peace’, in Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk (eds), The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 129–48.
128 Nikolas Emmanuel and Donald Rothchild, ‘Economic Aid and Peace Implementation: The African Experience’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1:2 (June 2007), pp. 171–88.
129 Susan Rose-Ackerman, ‘Corruption and Government’, International Peacekeeping, 15:3 (June 2008), pp. 328–43.
130 Richard Caplan, ‘After Exit: Successor Missions and Peace Consolidation’, Civil Wars, 8:3 (2006), pp. 253–67; and Dominik Zaum, ‘The Politics of Exit: Transition and Exit from Post-Conflict Statebuilding Operations’, paper presented at the annual conference of the American Political Science Association (Chicago, IL August 2007).
131 Charles T. Call, ‘Knowing Peace When You See It: Setting Standards for Peacebuilding Success’, Civil Wars, 10:2 (2008), pp. 173–94.
* The author wishes to thank Alexandra Gheciu, Paul Williams, Christoph Zuercher, three anonymous reviewers, and seminar participants the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the City University of New York, Westminster University, the University of Ottawa, McGill University and the University of Montreal, for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed