Peacebuilding: What Is in a Name?

Abstract

This article surveys and analyzes twenty-four governmental and intergovernmental bodies that are currently active in peacebuilding in order to, first, identify critical differences in how they conceptualize and operationalize their mandate, and, second, map areas of potential concern. We begin by briefly outlining the various terms used by different actors to describe their peacebuilding activities and correlate these terms with differing core mandates, networks of interaction, and interests. We then identify the divisions regarding the specific approaches and areas of priority. Thus far most programs have focused on the immediate or underlying causes of conflict-to the relative neglect of state institutions. We conclude by raising concerns about how peacebuilding is institutionalized in various settings, including at the UN's Peacebuilding Commission.

Performance under ambiguity: International organization performance in UN peacekeeping

“…In such environments, the sources of conflict, the best path to sustainable peace, and appropriate roles of external actors are often contested and subject to different interpretations. Moreover, the meanings of concepts such as peacekeeping, peacebuilding, and peace operations are themselves subjects of contestation and varying interpretations (Barnett et al 2007). Integrated peacekeeping missions are subordinate to multiple principals with different preferences, and comprised of diverse organizational actors with different institutional cultures and missions.…”

The UN Peacebuilding Commission and the potential of water in post-conflict development, governance and reconciliation

“…Often, the way peace-building is defined greatly depends on the mandates, ideologies and interests of actors, whether national governments, international organizations or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Barnett, Kim, O'Donnell, & Sitea, 2007). As Chetail (2009, p. 6) points out, '[t]he recurrent ambiguity of post-conflict peacebuilding perpetuates the ongoing debates among policymakers, practitioners, and analysts as to its exact scope and meaning'.…”

Towards deliberative peace: a Habermasian critique of contemporary peace operations

“…The changing character of peace operations 'Peace operations' is a contested term, used by academics and practitioners to describe the many activities the international community employs to assist contending parties establish a self-sustaining peace (Zisk 2004;Barnett et al 2007;Call and Cousens 2008). These activities include peace-making, peaceenforcement, peace-keeping, peace-building and so forth.…”