Search

Researchers have shown how UN stabilization peace operations mix liberal and illiberal goals and strategies. Yet, further research is needed to theorize and comprehend illiberal peacebuilding features of stabilization operations. This article fills this gap by demonstrating how UN stabilization operations wield illiberal peacebuilding practices. Building upon previous scholarship, we understand illiberal peacebuilding both as an approach and outcome which is oriented by and helps diffuse illiberal norms in the societies where illiberal peacebuilding is instrumentalized by local, regional and international actors. We frame UN stabilization operations in the CAR, the DRC, and Mali as illiberal peacebuilding processes infused with illiberal strategies and show that liberal actors can engage with illiberal strategies for peace promotion. We also analyse peace agreements that accompany these missions as illiberal peacebuilding outcomes and show how these are shaped by illiberal norms. Our key finding is that a set of illiberal norms – exclusion, violence, power inequality and authoritarianism – are central for both UN stabilization operations and peace agreements signed in CAR, DRC and Mali. Therefore, we challenge the UN discourse that stabilization is a needed first step towards liberal and inclusive peace agreements.

The spatial turn in peace and conflict studies brought valuable insights about space in (post-)conflict contexts. Nevertheless, critiques of this literature call for further engagement with spatial heterogeneity. I suggest that analyzing space–time relationships is a promising avenue, as understandings of space are substantiated by heterogeneous temporal experiences. To capture space–timeheterogeneity, I introduce the concept of ‘spatio-temporal conflicts’, which draws attention to how actors construct spatial narratives based on heterogeneous and conflicting temporalities. I illustrate the analytical usefulness of this concept by employing it to explore conflicting space–time narratives around the Partisan Memorial Cemetery in post-war Mostar.

The article analyses the advances, setbacks, and new and remaining challenges in the implementation of the Brahimi Report’s (2000) recommendations 20 years after its publication. Because of the innovations it proposed, the document is considered a milestone in the consolidation of a doctrinal culture of UN peace operations. However, we argue that the deployment of stabilisation operations, aimed at providing task-forces to support national authorities in neutralising non-state armed groups, undermines the Report’s guidelines and exacerbate intricate issues already identified in it. We discuss stabilisation to evidence how it is at odds with the doctrinal culture established before, creates new, and accentuates remaining challenges for peace operations. Methodologically, the article is based on an analysis of UN official documents to understand peace operations’ normative and practical adaptation in recent years., El artículo analiza los avances, retrocesos, nuevos y restantes desafíos en la aplicación de las recomendaciones del Informe Brahimi (2000), 20 años después de su publicación. Por las innovaciones propuestas, el documento se considera un hito en el establecimiento de la cultura doctrinal de las operaciones de paz. Sin embargo, sostenemos que el despliegue de operaciones de estabilización, cuyo objetivo es apoyar a las autoridades nacionales en la neutralización de grupos armados no estatales, socava las directrices del Informe y exacerba cuestiones intrincadas ya identificadas. Discutimos la estabilización para mostrar como está en desacuerdo com la cultura doctrinal estabelecida anteriormente, crea novos y acentúa los desafíos restantes para las operaciones de paz. Recurrimos a un análisis de documentos oficiales de la ONU para entender la adaptación normativa y práctica de las operaciones de paz en los últimos anos., O artigo traz uma análise dos avanços, retrocessos e desafios, novos e remanescentes, na implementação das recomendações do Relatório Brahimi (2000), 20 anos após sua publicação. Em função das inovações propostas, o documento é considerado um marco no estabelecimento da cultura doutrinal das operações de paz. Contudo, argumentamos que o destacamento de operações de estabilização, destinadas apoiar as autoridades nacionais na neutralização de grupos armados não estatais, mina as diretrizes do Relatório e exacerba problemas nele identificados. Discutimos a estabilização para mostrar como ela está em desacordo com a cultura doutrinária estabelecida previamente, cria novos e acentua desafios remanescentes para as operações de paz. Metodologicamente, o trabalho é baseado na análise de documentos oficiais da ONU para entender as adaptações normativas e práticas das operações de paz nos últimos anos.

In this article, we analyse the new and remaining challenges in implementingthe Brahimi Report’s (2000) recommendations more than twenty years afterits publication. The document is considered a milestone in consolidating adoctrinal culture of UN peace operations. However, we argue that this attemptto establish a doctrinal culture has been hampered by normative and practicalcontroversies, which will be explored, methodologically, using documentary analysis.

Inspired by the Critical Social Theory put forth by the Frankfurt School, Andrew Linklater has dedicated part of his career to elaborating a critical and emancipatory research agenda for International Relations. However, his recent research on the restriction of violence in international society, mostly influenced by the English School and by Eliasian Sociology, has pushed Linklater away from an explicit engagement with critical epistemologies and theoretical approaches. Although there is a possibility for close dialogue between these theoretical strands, we claim that Linklater did not articulate these approaches as much as he could have done. Therefore, we make an assessment of his work to discuss some of its epistemological and theoretical inconsistencies. Based on this, we provide a way to bridge Linklater’s initial critical agenda with his most recent analyses on processes of violence restriction and regulation of global harm in the international realm. We argue that by focusing on multiple global processes that contributed to the restriction of violence, Linklater failed to consider the particularities, pitfalls and side-effects of allegedly beneficial processes of violence restriction and, as a result, his work lost critical potential. Accordingly, this article demonstrates how Linklater would benefit from going back to his initial critical agenda to address the limitations of his scholarship on global harm.

In the early 1990s, with the recognition of conflict causes as being socially rooted prompted a normative shift within the United Nations (UN). The organization began to claim for a comprehensive international response to address the roots of intrastate conflict in the aftermath of civil wars. Thisnew idea was captured by the concept of post-conflict peacebuilding, that embraced the idea that building peace required not only the end of direct violence but also the reconstruction of the state and its democratic and market institutions. This paper aims to evidence that the UN peacebuilding approach seeks to ensure the commitment of post-war states to (Western) institutions and rules that underpin what the English School understands as an“international society”. From a critical perspective, I argue that this international society is not free from power relations and that the UNpeacebuilding strategy is a form to impose, through the Foucauldian techniques knows as biopower and discipline, a set of institutions and rules that prioritizes European assumptions of how state and society ought to beafter the end of warfare. To illustrate this argument, this article analyzes the peacebuilding process led by the UN peace operation deployed in Liberia between 2003 and 2018.

Commonly referred to as an intractable conflict, the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine already last decades and its end does not seem near. This article investigates whether there is an intervening relation between the increase of political violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, stalled peace talks attempts, and the recognition, by the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, of Jerusalem as the symbolic capital of Israel, a city that has been claimed by the parties in conflict. Departing from this initial argument, this article intends to identify how the US interference in a central resourcecan promote an increase in the number of violent events between the parties in conflict and intensify the intractable nature of the dispute. Taking into account the number of violent events; the perpetrators of violence; the number of reported fatalities; the territory in which violent events took place; the acts of everyday violence of Israeli against Palestinians, and, finally; the stagnation of the negotiations between the parties in conflict, our findings point out that the US interference in the dispute betweenIsrael and Palestine promoted an increase in violent clashes that contributed to the increased intractability of the conflict., Comumente referenciado como um conflito intratável, a disputa territorial entre Israel e Palestina já dura décadas e o seu fim não parece próximo. Este artigo investiga se há uma relação de interveniência entre o aumento da violência política no conflito Israel-Palestina, a paralisação de tentativas de negociações e o reconhecimento, por parte do presidente dos Estados Unidos da América (EUA), Donald Trump, de Jerusalém como a capital simbólica de Israel. Partindo deste argumento inicial, busca-se identificar de que maneira a interferência estadunidense em um recurso central na disputa pode aumentar o número de eventosviolentos entre as partes em conflito e intensificar a natureza intratável da disputa. Levando em consideração (1) o número de eventos violentos; (2) os atores perpetradores da violência; (3) o número de fatalidades reportadas; (4) o local de ocorrência da violência; (5) os atos de violência cotidiana de israelenses contra palestinos e (6) a estagnação de negociações entre as partes em conflito, constatou-se que a interferência estadunidense na disputa entre Israel e Palestina aumentou os enfrentamentos violentos que contribuíram para a intensificação da intratabilidade do conflito.

Commonly referred to as an intractable conflict, the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine already lasts decades and its end does not seem near. This article investigates whether there is an intervening relation between the increase of political violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, stalled peace talks attempts, and the recognition, by the President of the United States of America (USA), Donald Trump, of Jerusalem as the symbolic capital of Israel, a city that has been claimed by the parties in conflict. Departing from this initial argument, this article intends to identify how the US interference in a central resource can promote an increase in the number of violent events between the parties in conflictand intensify the intractable nature of the dispute. Taking into account (1) the numberof violent events; (2) the perpetrators of violence; (3) the number of reported fatalities; (4) the territory in which violent events took place; (5) the acts of everyday violence of Israeli against Palestinians, and, finally; (6) the stagnation of the negotiations between the parties in conflict, our findings point out that the US interference in the dispute between Israel and Palestine promoted an increase in violent clashes that contributed to the increased intractability of the conflict.

The United Nations (UN) peacebuilding strategy often establishes a nexus between security, democracy and development. This strategy states that sustainable peace could be achieved whenever institutional reforms towards democratization and economic development take place. In this paper, we intend to identify whether the strengthening of state institutions in the afore mentioned sectors contributes to tackling the root causes of intrastate warfare. Methodologically, this paper consists of a case study of the United Nations Mission in Liberia (2003-2018). To evaluate the effectiveness of the peacebuilding policies deployed in Liberia, we have gathered empirical data to identify advantages and flaws in the UN approach. Our findings show that although policies regarding the nexus between security, democracy and development have addressed some crucial post-conflict issues, reforms in these areas were unsuccessful tofragment local elites, avoid uneven economic development and ensure horizontal welfare for Liberians.

The United Nations (UN) peacebuilding strategy often establish a nexus between security, democracy and development. Therefore, it argues that sustainable peace could be achieved whenever institutional reforms towards democratization and economic development takes place. Thus, we intend to identify whether the strengthening of state institutions in the aforementioned sectors contributes to tackling the root causes of intrastate warfare. Methodologically, this paper consists of a case study of the United Nations Mission in Liberia (2003-2018). To evaluate the effectiveness of the peacebuilding policies deployed in Liberia, we have gathered empirical data to identify advantages and flaws in the UN approach. Our findings evidence that although policies regarding the nexus between security, democracy and development have addressed some crucial post-conflict issues, reforms in these areas were inadequate to fragment local elites, to avoid uneven economic development and to ensure horizontal welfare for Liberians., La estrategia de construcción de la paz de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) generalmente establece un nexo entre seguridad, democracia y desarrollo. Por lo tanto, argumenta que se puede lograr una paz sostenible siempre que se realicen reformas institucionales hacia la democratización y el desarrollo económico. Tenemos la intención de identificar si el fortalecimiento de las instituciones estatales en los sectores antes mencionados contribuye a abordar las causas principales de la guerra intraestatal. Metodológicamente, este artículo consiste en un estudio de caso de la Misión de las Naciones Unidas en Liberia (2003-2018). Para evaluar la efectividad de las políticas de construcción de la paz implementadas en Liberia, hemos reunido datos empíricos para identificar ventajas y fallas en el enfoque de la ONU. Nuestros hallazgos evidencian que, aunque las políticas relacionadas con el nexo entre seguridad, democracia y desarrollo han abordado algunos problemas cruciales posteriores al conflicto, las reformas en estas áreas fueron inadecuadas para fragmentar a las élites locales, para evitar el desarrollo económico desigual y garantizar el bienestar horizontal para los liberianos.

This article analyzes the enforcement character of the United Nations Multidimensiona lIntegrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), and it is focused on critically discussing this new normative tendency of the United Nations, problematizing the possible consequences of this modality of peace operations so that there is a permanent resolution of the conflict in Mali.

The aim of this article is to explore the possibilities for the continuation of the peace processbetween Colombia and FARC-EP after the beginning of Iván Duque’s mandate in Au-gust 2018. It is believed that the fundamental changes proposed by the new president canendanger the peace process as they target elements of the strategic calculation of the armedgroup in its decision to withdraw from the armed conflict.

Since the creation of the International Relations field, academic production has given a certain focus on the challenges concerning the maintenance of international peace and security. Within this subfield of international security, the study of armed conflicts is a widely discussed topic. Thus, this article aims to explore the Brazilian academic contributions on the topic, published in the electronic proceedings of Brazilian Association of International Relations (ABRI) events, between 2007 and 2017, in order to identify in which direction the articles produced in such period contribute to the studies on armed conflicts.

The present paper has as its central objective to analyze United Nations (UN) peace operations as a form of creating post-conflict States that carries a series of institutions that underpins what is understood as the International Society, firstly consolidated by European states in previous centuries. I rely on English School’s historical perspective on International Society in order to demonstrate the transmission of certain institutions through multidimensional peace operations, briefly exposing the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) case. By analyzing some primary documents concerning the mission that took place in Liberia, it is possible to infer that UN multidimensional peace operations promotes institutions built within a European and Western international order.