scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Peace settlements and human rights: A post-Cold War circular history

01 Nov 2017-Journal of Human Rights Practice (Oxford University Press)-Vol. 9, Iss: 3, pp 358-378
TL;DR: In this article, a broad shift in the relationship between peace settlements and human rights from 1990 to the present day is analyzed, pointing to three phases of development: 1990 to 2000, which saw a rise in peace processes and agreements and creative engagement with human rights; from 2000 to 2010, when new approaches to human rights and peacemaking were rapidly "normativized" in new international legal standards, but at a cost of a more nuanced political practice; and from 2010 to the current date, an "era of disillusionment" as regards the apparent failures of peacebuilding
Abstract: This article analyses the broad shifts in the relationship between peace settlements and human rights from 1990 to the present day. The article points to three phases of development: from 1990 to 2000, which saw a rise in peace processes and agreements and creative engagement with human rights; from 2000 to 2010, when new approaches to human rights and peacemaking were rapidly ‘normativized’ in new international legal standards, but at a cost of a more nuanced political practice; and from 2010 to the current date, an ‘era of disillusionment’ as regards the apparent failures of peacebuilding efforts, where human rights also have a more precarious global position. In the current era I suggest that we are witnessing renewed attention to the ‘politics of the local’ which questions and even rejects formalized human rights approaches to peacebuilding. Counter to the pessimism of the current era, I suggest that this new context may in fact offer new opportunities to return to the idea of human rights as a political practice. Rather than approaching rights as a set of external normative standards to propel liberal institution-building, human rights-based peacebuilding would aim to support a political practice in which rights are given meaning through the process by which they are ‘negotiated’ into being as part of an ongoing politics of inclusion. Such an approach would not only assist engagement with peace processes but might also invigorate a radical conflict prevention approach.

Summary (2 min read)

Introduction

  • The end of the cold war around 1990 saw a new practice of using peace settlements to end protracted social conflict within states.
  • I trace the practice of human rights-based peacebuilding through three decades: the first, 1990−2000, was a decade of heady experimental approaches to conflict resolution and human rights; the second, 2000−2010, a decade of institutionalization and normativization of peace settlement practice; and the third, now under way, of frustration and disillusionment with peace processes, transitions, and indeed human rights.
  • The move to institutionalization and normativization paved the way to the current decade which is one of disillusionment in which both peacebuilding and human rights practices are being questioned in a move that risks jettisoning what has been one of the most successful practices in ending violent conflict globally.
  • I approach this context deliberately with both sober realism and high optimism, suggesting that it may open the way to a more political practice of human rights again.

Setting the context

  • 1 See for example the statistics from the Global Peace Index, http://www.visionofhumanity.org.
  • The second defining feature of post-cold war peacemaking was that peace negotiations aimed to result in a formalized written publicly available ‘contract’ between the state and its non-state armed opponents.
  • First, the new approach to peacemaking put those who were at the heart of the conflict at the heart of the new political dispensation.
  • Through this journey the attempted application of human rights law and humanitarian law to dilemmas of transition for which they had not been designed saw legal standards reshaped by political settlements, even as they tried to shape them (see further Bell 2011, 2014).

1990−2000: The rise of peace settlements as experimental practice

  • In the early phase of post-cold war peacemaking and building, peace processes saw a level of experimentation.
  • Even at the level of civil society within conflict situations a division often existed between peacebuilding groups and human rights groups.
  • For a good overview of literature and developments see Parlevliet (2009).
  • While human rights in settled states often involve understanding human rights as prior political claims, and ‘trumps’ to political positions, human rights language and structures emerged in peace agreements in a much more negotiated and contingent way.

2000-2010: The fall of the peace agreement and new normativization

  • If the first decade of the practice involved a creative attempt to use human rights to challenge simple deals of ‘splitting the difference’ between state and non-state actors, the second decade saw both peacebuilding and human rights having to negotiate their place in an ever more complex global landscape.
  • Around the Peacebuilding Commission,7 and similar restructuring of regional organizations (for the African Union, see Engel and Porto 2010), to specific innovations such as the new UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence.
  • Standards relating to peace process applications of human rights multiplied, but also created new tensions within the discourse of human rights itself because they drew on human rights standards that had not been framed with the tensions and dilemmas of peace processes in mind.
  • In Europe, transitions in divided societies such as Bosnia or Northern Ireland seemed to be ‘stuck’ with their apparently liberal democratic institutions remaining hostage to the difficulty of sustaining power-sharing governments among groups whose ethnic divisions the arrangements appeared to freeze.

A circular history: the return to politics

  • Insofar as peacebuilding, development and international legal actors have formed common analysis of why their interventions have failed, across these varied actors it is that they have failed to sufficiently understand local political bargaining processes.
  • A recent report by the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) and the Kofi Annan Foundation, for example, examined truth commissions to explore the paradox that while truth commissions have expanded and shown a tendency towards uniformity based on their mandates, recent truth-seeking processes seemed to have gone through chronic crises.
  • Of course, this understanding also points to the likelihood of resistance from those who perceive themselves to be losing power, which will require to be navigated.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Edinburgh Research Explorer
Peace settlements and human rights
Citation for published version:
Bell, C 2017, 'Peace settlements and human rights: A post-Cold War circular history', Journal of Human
Rights Practice, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 358–378. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/hux025
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):
10.1093/jhuman/hux025
Link:
Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer
Document Version:
Peer reviewed version
Published In:
Journal of Human Rights Practice
Publisher Rights Statement:
This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Journal of Human Rights
Practice following peer review. The version of record Christine Bell; Peace Settlements and Human Rights: A
Post-Cold War Circular History, Journal of Human Rights Practice, Volume 9, Issue 3, 1 November 2017, Pages
358–378 is available online at: https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/article/9/3/358/4769339.
General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)
and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy
The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer
content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.
Download date: 10. Aug. 2022

Forthcoming+in+Journal(of(Human(Rights(Practice+9(3)+[2017,+November/December]+
Special+Issue+on+Human+Rights+and+Peacebuilding.+co-edited +by+M+Parlevliet+&+M+Roesdahl.+
+
1+
ARTICLE
Peace Settlements and Human Rights: A Post-Cold War Circular
History
Christine Bell
Abstract
This article analyses the broad shifts in the relationship between peace settlements and human rights
from 1990 to the present day. The article points to three phases of development: from 1990 to 2000,
which saw a rise in peace processes and agreements and creative engagement with human rights; from
2000 to 2010, when new approaches to human rights and peacemaking were rapidly ‘normativized’ in
new international legal standards, but at a cost of a more nuanced political practice; and from 2010 to
the current date, an ‘era of disillusionment’ as regards the apparent failures of peacebuilding efforts,
where human rights also have a more precarious global position. In the current era I suggest that we
are witnessing renewed attention to the ‘politics of the local’ which questions and even rejects
formalized human rights approaches to peacebuilding. Counter to the pessimism of the current era, I
suggest that this new context may in fact offer new opportunities to return to the idea of human rights
as a political practice. Rather than approaching rights as a set of external normative standards to
propel liberal institution-building, human rights-based peacebuilding would aim to support a political
practice in which rights are given meaning through the process by which they are ‘negotiated’ into
being as part of an ongoing politics of inclusion. Such an approach would not only assist engagement
with peace processes but might also invigorate a radical conflict prevention approach.
Keywords: conflict resolution; human rights; humanitarian law; peace agreements; peacebuilding
Introduction
The end of the cold war around 1990 saw a new practice of using peace settlements to end protracted
social conflict within states. This article attempts a brief narrative account of the key shifts and
controversies in the relationship between peacebuilding and human rights with reference to this
practice. It does so with a view to addressing the current context, which I suggest is one in which
disillusionment with peacebuilding is married with cynicism and retreat from human rights as
generally accepted international norms.
I trace the practice of human rights-based peacebuilding through three decades: the first, 19902000,
was a decade of heady experimental approaches to conflict resolution and human rights; the second,
20002010, a decade of institutionalization and normativization of peace settlement practice; and the
third, now under way, of frustration and disillusionment with peace processes, transitions, and indeed
human rights. I suggest that the move from the first to the second decade saw a move from a local
political practice of human rights which international actors attempted to accompany and support, to
an increasingly formalized approach of international legal regulation of peace processes through
human rights standards. This second decade saw specific peace process applications of human rights
norms given institutionalized forms within the international legal system in an attempt to regulate
particular outcomes to persistent peacebuilding dilemmas. I suggest that this shift from human rights
as a political practice to human rights as a regulator of peace processes had a price. The practice of
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The author (christine.bell@ed.ac.uk) is Assistant Principal (Global Justice), and Professor of Constitutional
Law at the University of Edinburgh.

Forthcoming+in+Journal(of(Human(Rights(Practice+9(3)+[2017,+November/December]+
Special+Issue+on+Human+Rights+and+Peacebuilding.+co-edited +by+M+Parlevliet+&+M+Roesdahl.+
+
2+
human rights-based peacebuilding moved from an approach to human rights that understood rights as
an integral part of political negotiations to one that saw human rights as a set of norms which stood
above and outside of the political process. The move to institutionalization and normativization paved
the way to the current decade which is one of disillusionment in which both peacebuilding and human
rights practices are being questioned in a move that risks jettisoning what has been one of the most
successful practices in ending violent conflict globally.
1
My main overarching purpose is to inform this current context of disillusionment. I approach this
context deliberately with both sober realism and high optimism, suggesting that it may open the way
to a more political practice of human rights again. Realism and optimism can be married by a return to
understanding the political nature of human rights practice as part of a much more creative localized,
political and constructive peacebuilding project. As a constructive project, peacebuilding involves
negotiating local concepts of the ‘just peace’ as at once a normative legal and pragmatic political
project, which attempts to create a space of dialogue in which to accommodate contested local and
global visions of what justice and peace require and entail.
Setting the context
The early 1990s saw a rapid proliferation of peace processes due to three main factors relating to the
end of the cold war: first, a rise in intra-state conflict and associated peace efforts to resolve them;
second, new possibilities for ending long-standing conflicts that had had geopolitical dimensions
which had now shifted; and third, increased international attention and new possibilities for
institutional responses such as peacekeeping that the end of the cold war enabled (see Bell 2008:
2831). The end of the cold war produced clear changes in how international and local actors engaged
with intra-state conflict, that is, conflict arising primarily within the borders of states. The term ‘intra-
state’ is preferred to the traditional distinction of ‘internal’, because such conflict had strong regional
and even international dimensions. The key changes between the post-1990 practice of conflict
resolution and earlier practices were threefold.
The first distinctive element of the post-cold war approach involved a move to resolve such conflicts
not through strategies of military victory, or co-option of key moderates in processes of pacification,
but through face-to-face negotiations between states and their armed non-state opponents that took
seriously the need to fundamentally revise the state to make it more inclusive. The post-cold war
approach to intra-state conflict involved the use of formalized negotiations between states and their
armed opponents, and sometimes also other stakeholders such as wider political parties and social
movements. Attempts to negotiate ends to conflict in the post-cold war period were not a completely
new practice. Informal negotiations between governments and armed opposition groups had often
been used to end protracted social conflict, including in the negotiations between the UK and the IRA
in the early 1970s, or the Italian state’s negotiation with the Red Brigades in the 1980s (see Maloney
2002; Meade 1990). However, by and large, these negotiations processes were secret or semi-secret,
and focused on the state’s offer of mechanisms for demobilization in return for amnesty and minor
legal adjustments related to returning combatants to ‘normal life’. In contrast, post-1990, conflict
contexts saw more ambitious efforts at restructuring the state with a view to moving it from being
‘owned’ by one section of a very divided society, to a more inclusive structure capable of
incorporating those who contested the state’s legitimacy into a fundamentally revised set of political
and legal institutions to which human rights and equality protections were central.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1
See for example the statistics from the Global Peace Index, http://www.visionofhumanity.org.

Forthcoming+in+Journal(of(Human(Rights(Practice+9(3)+[2017,+November/December]+
Special+Issue+on+Human+Rights+and+Peacebuilding.+co-edited +by+M+Parlevliet+&+M+Roesdahl.+
+
3+
The second defining feature of post-cold war peacemaking was that peace negotiations aimed to result
in a formalized written publicly available ‘contract’ between the state and its non-state armed
opponents. Across many varied conflict types and geographies, these processes involved the coupling
of commitments to ceasefire and demobilization to new more inclusive constitutional frameworks.
The idea of a ‘peace process’ as a process aimed at reaching ‘a peace agreement’ was born and
became an international phenomenon.
2
The peace agreements concluded typically involved quasi-
constitutional commitments establishing shared political institutions using mechanisms such as
power-sharing; fundamentally revised legal institutions reflecting human rights safeguards; and
mechanisms aimed at both ‘undoing the pastenabling displaced people to return, releasing
prisoners, and ‘repairing the past’, through processes of truth-telling, accountability and reparation.
Finally, the third common characteristic that distinguished post-cold war peacemaking from earlier
efforts was the acceptance, both by states and increasingly by international actors, that human rights
law and humanitarian law had relevance to peace negotiations and provided at least a regulatory
influence over negotiations (and their outcome). Rather than being viewed as a legal framework that
was in tension with practices of conflict resolution, human rights and humanitarian law were viewed
as facilitative of the practice, and perhaps even generative of it in varied ways. The end of the cold
war in its ‘end of history’ version (Fukuyama 1992) was understood as the triumph of concepts of
liberal democracy to which human rights were foundational: peacemaking served as a kind of
realization of the Kantian peace (Kant 1795). Further, a post-cold war rise in intra-state conflicts
created pressure to resolve them, not least because greater capacity for human rights monitoring of
conflict meant that atrocities by all sides were ever more visible and exposed. To little fanfare the
prior decade had seen increasing civic mobilization engaging with human rights monitoring in terms
of domestic and international rights standards, which had gone far in debunking the idea that states
were always perfect and automatically legitimate and non-state armed actors were purely and simply
terrorists driven by a commitment to violence. Human rights monitoring told a more nuanced story as
to the root causes of violence as connected to a complex breakdown of the social contract in which
human rights abuses were both causes and symptoms of violent conflict, and therefore required to be
addressed if conflict was to be ended. As regards humanitarian law, states in conflict often presented
internal conflict not as conflict, but as a massive crime wave which required a state of emergency (Ní
Aoláin and Gross 2006: 3289, 35963). While they did this because they feared giving status and
recognition to their armed opponents, at the point of seeking a settlement they often found that
reference to humanitarian law standards was useful to peacemaking. Humanitarian law standards
applicable to non-international conflict, such as common article 3 and Protocol II (and to a lesser
extent Protocol I) of the Geneva Conventions 1949, were useful to states seeking ends to armed
conflict precisely becauseunlike human rights lawthey applied not just to states but to non-state
armed actors and appeared to underwrite politically matters such as amnesty.
The three distinctive characteristics of peace processes that emerged in the post-cold war period also
set the ground for a parallel series of political, moral, and legal tensions that occupied the years to
come and still lie at the centre of both theory and practice.
First, the new approach to peacemaking put those who were at the heart of the conflict at the heart of
the new political dispensation. Those most responsible for the conflict were often those placed at the
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2
For peace agreement databases covering this period see PA-X (http://www.peaceagreements.org), UN
Peacemaker (http://peacemaker.un.org), the Peace Agreement Matrix of the Kroc Institute for International
Peace Studies (http://peaceaccords.nd.edu), or the Uppsala peace agreement database (available at
http://ucdp.uu.se/downloads/) .

Forthcoming+in+Journal(of(Human(Rights(Practice+9(3)+[2017,+November/December]+
Special+Issue+on+Human+Rights+and+Peacebuilding.+co-edited +by+M+Parlevliet+&+M+Roesdahl.+
+
4+
heart of post-conflict governance structures in ways that were responsive to human rights challenges
to the state’s inclusiveness, for example through power-sharing arrangements. Yet this form of
inclusion also raised new questions as to the legitimacy and competence of both state and non-state
actors who had been at the heart of the conflict to be builders of a new rule of law state capable of
good government in the future. While the peace/justice debate is currently especially associated with
tensions between amnesty and accountability (discussed further below), in fact it burst onto the scene
in academic terms in an article by ‘Anonymous’ relating to Bosnia which did not focus on lack of
accountability and transitional justice but with the entire peace process and political settlement itself
(Anonymous 1996; see also Gaer 1997).
3
Writing about the conflict in Bosnia in 1996, just after the
Dayton Peace Agreement (1995) had been signed, ‘Anonymous’ pointed to how human rights
advocates had opposed draft peace agreements on the ground that their constitutional arrangements
conceded too much territory and power to those responsible for ethnic cleansing (ibid.). The author
castigated the human rights community for prolonging the war in former Yugoslavia by insisting on
requirements of justice. By judging every peace blueprint primarily in terms of whether it rewarded
aggression and ethnic cleansing, human rights ‘pundits’ and negotiators, it was argued, had rejected
pragmatic deals which, with hindsight, were as good or better than the eventual settlement reached in
Dayton. The accusation against human rights actors was stark: ‘[t]housands of people are dead who
should have been alivebecause moralists were in quest of the perfect peace’ (ibid: 258).
Closely related to the first tension, a second tension arose from the common approach of combining
ceasefires with new constitutional frameworks. This coupling meant that the short-term demands of
peacemaking focused on ‘negative peace’ending conflict, demobilizing combatants and stabilizing
the security situationwere coupled with the longer-term demands of peacebuilding focused on
‘positive peace’establishing inclusive state structures based on fundamental reform of political and
legal institutions, establishing the rule of law, and repairing the past. Short and long-term
requirements of peacebuilding often appeared to be in tension with each other.
Third, a tension between the letter of human rights standards and the compromises necessary to
peacebuilding played out with reference to diverse issues implicated in peace negotiations. For
example, with regard to transitional justice, short-term demands of peacemaking, often with a human
rights imperative of ending the conflict, seemed to require forms of amnesty and inclusion of those
fighting the war. Longer-term attempts to build societies based on the rule of law, however, seemed to
require a measure of accountability however ‘soft’. Other tensions included tension over whether the
political settlement would focus on liberal democracy or group participation. A political settlement
focused on liberal democracy understands a singular political community to comprise the polis within
an agreed territory, with elections and individual equality rights to be central to the concept of a
unified demos. In contrast a political settlement based on group accommodation using forms of
complex power-sharing understands equality to require equal participation at the centre of the state’s
political and legal structures. Group equality measures can be in tension with individual equality
measures. Similarly tensions were also present in how return of refugees, displaced persons, and land
were managed. While issues associated with return could not be achieved easily in the short term, in
the longer term if conflict-fuelling diasporas were not to persist, or localized disputes around return
and land to re-ignite national conflict, then some sort of provision needed to be put in place. Yet
return of the displaced can destabilize political settlements as well as stabilize them, in particular
when it stands to rework ethnic demographics around which the new territorial divisions agreed in the
peace process have been based.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3
See also contribution by Simpson in this special issue.

Citations
More filters
Book
01 Jan 2003
TL;DR: The new US security strategy released by the White House in September 2002, is a remarkable document which requires more analysis than that received in the main media, perhaps partially because of the massive attention given to the Beltway sniper(s).
Abstract: The new US security strategy released by the White House in September 2002, is a remarkable document which requires more analysis than that received in the main media, perhaps partially because of the massive attention given to the Beltway sniper(s). The new strategy would justify pre-emptive strikes for the first time against any countries which the current or future US leadership believe might pose a threat in the future such as China or resurgent Russia or any other country or a group of countries. This bold assertion is justified by the threat of even more miniature weapons of mass destruction coupled with the hatred of America. This important document and the accompanying commentary provide essential and thought provoking reading.

376 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the interface between law and violent crises through history and across jurisdictions, bringing together insights gleaned from the Roman republic and Jewish law through to the initial responses to the July 2005 attacks in London.
Abstract: The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing war on terror have focused attention on issues that have previously lurked in a dark corner at the edge of the legal universe. The book presents systematic and comprehensive attempt by legal scholars to conceptualize the theory of emergency powers, combining post-September 11 developments with more general theoretical, historical and comparative perspectives. The authors examine the interface between law and violent crises through history and across jurisdictions, bringing together insights gleaned from the Roman republic and Jewish law through to the initial responses to the July 2005 attacks in London. The book examines three unique models of emergency powers that are used to offer a novel conceptualization of emergency regimes, giving a coherent insight into law's interface with and regulation of crisis and a distinctive means to evaluate the legal options open to states for dealing with crises. Particular attention is given to the interface between international law and regulatory mechanisms and emergency powers, as a key element of the contemporary political response to violent crises.

20 citations

01 Jan 2020
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the new UN vision to cope with critical challenges descending from complex preventive, contextual and post-conflict situations and to improve local knowledge to deal with root causes of conflict towards permanent positive peace and development opportunities.
Abstract: The new challenges to prevent, manage and find profitable exit-out solutions from contemporary civil conflicts have called on the International community and the United Nations (UN) system to provide for a renewed promotion of global peace and security for all peoples. Primary attention in this chapter is firstly put on exploring the new UN vision to cope with critical challenges descending from complex preventive, contextual and post-conflict situations and to improve local knowledge to deal with root causes of conflict towards permanent positive peace and development opportunities. To this purpose the United Nations has recently promoted the new concept of ‘sustaining peace’ as introduced by both the Report of the Advisory Group of Experts for the 2015 Review of the UN Peacebuilding Architecture and the Report of the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations. Its meaning was translated into the UN Security Council (UNSC) and UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions adopted in 2016 (S/RES/2282; A/RES/70/262). According to this relevant approach, also endorsed by the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) (A/72/707–S/2018/43), it is evident that peace and security, human rights and development are interlinked and mutually reinforcing, and that this interlinkage is a profitable means to confirm the crucial importance of selfdetermination as a key-component of the post-intrastate conflict environment.

11 citations

References
More filters
Book
01 Jan 1992
TL;DR: Fukuyama as mentioned in this paper identifies two powerful forces guiding our actions: the logic of desire (the rational economic process); and the desire for recognition, which he describes as the very motor of history.
Abstract: Fukuyama considers whether or not there is a direction to the history of mankind. He identifies two powerful forces guiding our actions: the logic of desire (the rational economic process); and the desire for recognition, which he describes as the very motor of history.

7,215 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

2,927 citations


"Peace settlements and human rights:..." refers background in this paper

  • ...The end of the cold war in its ‘end of history’ version (Fukuyama 1992) was understood as the triumph of concepts of liberal democracy to which human rights were foundational: peacemaking served as a kind of realization of the Kantian peace (Kant 1795)....

    [...]

BookDOI
13 Jan 2009
TL;DR: In this paper, Paris and Sisk discuss the "coordination problem" in post-war statebuilding, and present a new generation of statebuilding scholars who are confronted with the contradiction of postwar state building.
Abstract: Introduction: Understanding the Contradictions of Postwar Statebuilding Roland Paris and Timothy Sisk Part 1: Domestic and International Context 1. The Peacebuilder's Contract: How External Statebuilding Reinforces Weak Statehood Michael Barnett and Christoph Zuercher 2. Understanding the "Coordination Problem" in Postwar Statebuilding Roland Paris Part 2: Security 3. Foreign Militaries, Sustainable Institutions, and Postwar Statebuilding David Edelstein 4. Making Peacemakers out of Spoilers: International Organizations, Private Military Training, and Statebuilding After War Deborah Avant Part 3: Political Economy 5. Trajectories of Accumulation through War and Peace Cristopher Cramer 6. The Superficiality of Statebuilding in Cambodia: Patronage and Clientelism as Enduring Forms of Politics David Roberts Part 4: Institutional Design 7. Constitutional Choices and Statebuilding in Postconflict Countries Kirsti Samuels 8. Pathways of the Political: Electoral Processes after Civil War Timothy Sisk Part 5: Autonomy and Dependence 9. The Dangers of a Tight Embrace: Externally Assisted Statebuilding in Afghanistan Astri Suhrke 10. Dilemmas of Promoting Local Ownership: The Case of Postwar Kosovo Jens Narten Part 6: Reflections and Conclusions 11. A New Generation of Statebuilding Scholarship: Reflections on This Volume Miles Kahler 12. Confronting the Contradictions Timothy D. Sisk and Roland Paris

552 citations

Book
01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the re-inTERNATIONALization of state-minority relations, making sense of the sense of liberal MULTICULTURALISM, and the paradoxes in the global difference between the two worlds.
Abstract: PART I: THE (RE)-INTERNATIONALIZATION OF STATE-MINORITY RELATIONS PART II: MAKING SENSE OF LIBERAL MULTICULTURALISM PART III: PARADOXES IN THE GLOBAL DIFFUSION OF LIBERAL MULTICULTURALISM

467 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a four-part conceptual model is proposed to help visualize the interplay that leads to hybridized forms of peace, which is the result of the following: the compliance powers of liberal peace agents, networks and structures; the incentivizing powers of conservative peace agents and networks; the ability of local actors to resist, ignore or adapt liberal peace interventions; and the ability for local actors, networks, and structures to present and maintain alternative forms of peacemaking.
Abstract: This article is interested in the interface between internationally supported peace operations and local approaches to peace that may draw on traditional, indigenous and customary practice. It argues that peace (and security, development and reconstruction) in societies emerging from violent conflict tends to be a hybrid between the external and the local. The article conceptualizes how this hybrid or composite peace is constructed and maintained. It proposes a four-part conceptual model to help visualize the interplay that leads to hybridized forms of peace. Hybrid peace is the result of the interplay of the following: the compliance powers of liberal peace agents, networks and structures; the incentivizing powers of liberal peace agents, networks and structures; the ability of local actors to resist, ignore or adapt liberal peace interventions; and the ability of local actors, networks and structures to present and maintain alternative forms of peacemaking.

457 citations


"Peace settlements and human rights:..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Forms of uneasy ‘peacebuilding contracts’ were said to exist (Mac Ginty 2010, 2011; see further Barnett and Zürcher 2009)....

    [...]

Frequently Asked Questions (1)
Q1. What are the contributions in "Peace settlements and human rights: a post-cold war circular history" ?

This article analyses the broad shifts in the relationship between peace settlements and human rights from 1990 to the present day. The article points to three phases of development: from 1990 to 2000, which saw a rise in peace processes and agreements and creative engagement with human rights ; from 2000 to 2010, when new approaches to human rights and peacemaking were rapidly ‘ normativized ’ in new international legal standards, but at a cost of a more nuanced political practice ; and from 2010 to the current date, an ‘ era of disillusionment ’ as regards the apparent failures of peacebuilding efforts, where human rights also have a more precarious global position. In the current era I suggest that the authors are witnessing renewed attention to the ‘ politics of the local ’ which questions and even rejects formalized human rights approaches to peacebuilding. Counter to the pessimism of the current era, I suggest that this new context may in fact offer new opportunities to return to the idea of human rights as a political practice.