Interventionary order and its methodologies: the relationship between peace and intervention

Abstract

Recently there have been calls from policymakers around the world for practically engaged research to produce evidence-based policy for peace, security, and development. Policymakers aim to align three types of methodological approaches to knowledge about peace, security and development in international order: methodological liberalism at state and international levels, aligned with 'methodological everydayism', in order to constrain methodological nationalism. Policy operates through broad forms of intervention, spanning military, governmental, and developmental processes, which scholarship is expected to refine. Critical scholarship is sensitive about the subsequent 'interventionary order', however, often connecting methodological everydayism with global justice frameworks rather than methodological nationalism or liberalism. "Sir Philip Mitchell, later colonial governor of Uganda, Fiji, and Kenya, responded to Malinowski's claims [that the British government needed the support of Anthropologists] with great scepticism, emphatically expressing a preference for the "practical man" rather than the scientist." 2

The political economy of Norwegian peacemaking in Myanmar’s peace process

“…Beyond the ideological dimension, however, peacemaking states in the Global North are also seen to be driven by a desire to access untapped markets in the Global South and further their own capital investments, under a sort of 'capitalist peace' doctrine (Weede 2005, 34). Pursuing this strategy also supports the continuation of the existing international order, which liberals accept as the most successful peace architecture (Richmond 2020). Through this 'capitalist peace' prism, it would be entirely consistent for Norway to concomitantly promote this neoliberal ideal through peacemaking and pursue capital expansion in the Global South (Bandarage 2011, 233).…”

“…More critical political economists, however, argue that doing so is effectively a covert strategy for the Global North to perpetuate their interests and consolidate their hegemony (Pugh 2005;Richmond 2020). States in the Global North, having dictated the international system for the past two centuries, are essentially employing tools through which to prolong their dominance, with this strategy characterising contemporary North-South interactions, with interventionist peacemaking states being legitimised by being seen as a benign 'international community' (Hughes 2003).…”

Knowledge production and its politicization within International Relations and Peace Studies

“…Knowledge production within the field has been instrumental in setting liberal peace as the standard approach and reproducing it through problem-solving methodologies that remedy its defective features. In Richmond's terms, the field has produced knowledge through approaches that are characterized by 'methodological nationalism' and 'methodological liberalism' (Richmond, 2019). The former maintains that peace, security and order depend on the balance of power and a strict preservation of the international system that relies on the principle of non-intervention.…”

“…Richmond's critique suggests that the field avoids politically informed knowledge production to seek guidelines for technical rationalities that can serve as handy tools for the liberal peace project. In this regard, the 'practical man' expects peace research to come up with efficient standard operating procedures for intervention frameworks (Richmond, 2019). Since theoretical debates inevitably provoke the politicization of action, this practical logic stands aloof to deep theory.…”

“…'To avoid being misused by power politics in providing alternatives to power holders that support their power systems, Critical Peace Research needs to face the challenge of being policy relevant in a responsible way' (Paffenholz, 2014: 45). Focusing on the 'everyday' and basing the praxis of peacebuilding on 'methodological everydayism' (Richmond, 2019) are offered as options that can bridge critical thinking and policy-relevance.…”