Beyond the “Liberal Peace”

Zaum, Dominik

doi:10.1163/19426720-01801010

Cited by 53 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In its final substantive section, the article asks, 'Where next for critical thinking on peace and conflict? (Zaum, 2012: Heathershaw, 2013. We conclude this article by highlighting avenues of research that might be fruitfully explored.…”

Section: Outline Of the Articlementioning

confidence: 90%

Where now for the critique of the liberal peace?

Richmond¹,

Ginty

2014

Cooperation and Conflict

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article seeks to take stock of the critique of the liberal peace and identify what it has and has not achieved. It also asks 'where do we go from here?' The article surveys an agenda for future research and can also be read as a rebuttal of some recent literature that has attempted to shut down the liberal peace debate. The article opens with a quick recap of the bases of the critique of the liberal peace. It then outlines the 'achievements' of the debate and examines the failings and oversights of the original critique. Questions are raised about the epistemology and terms of the debate, and of the ability of critical intellectual projects to break through the material power held by mainstream intellectual and policy actors. In its final substantive section, the article asks 'where next for the critique of the liberal peace?' We conclude by highlighting avenues of research that might be fruitfully explored.

show abstract

Section: Outline Of the Articlementioning

confidence: 90%

Where now for the critique of the liberal peace?

Richmond¹,

Ginty

2014

Cooperation and Conflict

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Resistance and disobedience have the potential to revitalise the political life of society, where bottom‐up initiatives attempt to safeguard the pluralist nature of public affairs, critique the prevailing legitimacy and authority of local and international governance, encourage citizen activism, and hold the government accountable and responsible for its actions (Richmond, ; Visoka, ). However, there are also other groups who mobilise social forces to block imposed peacebuilding efforts (Zaum, : 12). These groups defy these peacebuilding efforts through performing everyday public nationalism, which directly contributes to peace‐breaking and can range from symbolic resistance and non‐violent discursive antagonisms to different varieties of violent action against the social and material defining features of other ethnic groups.…”

Section: Everyday Nationalism and Peacebuildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Everyday peace capture: Nationalism and the dynamics of peace after violent conflict

Visoka

2020

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nationalism is arguably one of the most detrimental peace‐breaking factors in conflict‐affected societies. This article examines how ethno‐nationalist elites, subterranean movements, and ordinary people can become blockages to sustainable peace and reconciliation after violent conflict. It argues that peacebuilding and state‐building imposed from outside as conflict transformation approaches without acceptable peace settlement and resolute solution of the disputes among parties in conflict risk enabling the co‐optation of power‐sharing arrangements by ethno‐nationalist elites, contestation of peace and reconciliation by subterranean mono‐ethnic movements, and the occurrence of vernacular peace‐breaking acts. This negative mutation of nationalism not only harms peace, justice, and development but also undermines the rights and needs of distinct identity groups. Under these conditions, escaping the nationalism trap in conflict‐affected societies requires seeking political change through post‐ethnic politics and reconciliation through everyday pacifist acts undertaken by the affected communities themselves. The article draws on Kosovo to illustrate empirically the dynamics of peace‐breaking and practices of everyday nationalism. It seeks to bridge debates on nationalism and post‐conflict peacebuilding and offer alternative pathways for rethinking strategies of peace in divided societies.

show abstract

“…It is a line of criticism shared by those who have come to view the IFIs and Western donors more generally as pursuing what amounts to a "liberal peace project," a "project" that not only "ignores the socio-economic problems confronting war-torn societies" but actively "aggravates the vulnerability of sectors of the populations to poverty and does little either to alleviate people's engagement in shadow economies or to give them a say in economic reconstruction" (Pugh 2005: 25). The actual existence of a coherent "project" pursued by Western donors to impose a "liberal peace" has for good reasons been called into question, not only as an empirical reality but also as a useful conceptual construct (Zaum 2012). Even so, writers on the "liberal peace" have offered an important and critical corrective to the more technocratic and unreflective donor discourse on development and peacebuilding.…”

Section: Goals Tasks and Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peacebuilding and Development

Berdal¹

2014

International Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The attempt to explore, through philosophical reflection or academic inquiry, the relationship between war and development has a long history. It is only with the end of the Cold War, however, that "peacebuilding" came to be identified as a distinctive concept referring to activities by external actors aimed at establishing foundations for lasting peace and development. The chapter examines the post-Cold War rise of peacebuilding as an activity that has come to involve a major role for development and development actors. It considers the geo-political and normative background to the rise, and traces the initial efforts to operationalize the concept of "post-conflict peacebuilding". It is specifically concerned with the challenges that war-torn societies have posed for development actors wedded to "traditional," often technocratic and self-consciously apolitical modes of engagement. It also considers the growing importance attached to local context and local realities in discussions of peacebuilding and development.

show abstract

Beyond the “Liberal Peace”

Cited by 53 publications

References 4 publications

Where now for the critique of the liberal peace?

Where now for the critique of the liberal peace?

Everyday peace capture: Nationalism and the dynamics of peace after violent conflict

Peacebuilding and Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About