Understanding the impact of geographies and space on the possibilities of peace activism

Abstract

Current peace research has provided scholars with a range of conceptualizations of what peace is. Further, there is a substantial body of literature on the processes used to build peace – the how of peacebuilding. However, there is little research that examines the question of where peace and peacebuilding occur and how these spaces shape the possibilities of non-state actors to achieve their objectives. This article makes a theoretical and empirical contribution to the emerging debate by sketching out the concept of peace spaces and applying it to the United Nations’ controlled Buffer Zone in Cyprus, the geographical home of inter-communal peacebuilding. To determine how geographies impact on the possibilities of non-state peacebuilding actors, the article focuses on three elements, specifically, on how the physical space impacts on: (a) inclusion/exclusion of participants; (b) protection/control through elite actors; and (c) its influence on the discourses and solutions that can be imagined. The article finds that local and international actors alike make a clear connection between the physical space and political viewpoints, which has both enabling and restricting implications.

Spaces and Institutional Logics in Post-Conflict Settings of Mitrovica

“…As the spatial turn in conflict studies indicates, organization of space matters in structuring patterns of interaction in post-conflict societies (Chojnacki and Engels 2016). In some cases, specific spaces are created by international peace-building actors with the purpose of fostering peaceful patterns of interaction of conflicting parties (Vogel 2018). Yet, arguably, such spaces also represent relatively extraordinary circumstances and do not necessarily foster a sense of normalcy in the daily lives of the locals.…”

Place, peace and security in Solomon Islands

“…Dominant narratives of insecurity, and in particular problems attributed to the Solomon Islands state, have served to obfuscate the active processes and relations orientated towards forms of everyday peacebuilding (see Brigg, 2018). What occurs ‘on the ground’ in place is spatially and temporally detached in security discourses given that the state continues to be the ‘key reference point’ for analysis (Vogel, 2018: 433). This article draws upon the spatial critique of dominant approaches in peace and security thinking (Björkdahl and Buckley-Zistel, 2016) through an examination of how peacebuilding occurs ‘in place’ in Solomon Islands.…”

“…This article draws upon the spatial critique of dominant approaches in peace and security thinking (Björkdahl and Buckley-Zistel, 2016) through an examination of how peacebuilding occurs ‘in place’ in Solomon Islands. There is methodological value in acknowledging the ‘intuitive obviousness’ of space (Massey, 2005: 26) so as to ‘examine the question of where peace and peacebuilding occur’ (Vogel, 2018: 433; original emphasis). Therefore, in this article, I employ ‘place’ as a relational scale (Sayre, 2009) to examine how emplaced institutions, practice and processes produce peace and security in the Solomon Islands context.…”

“…This means analysing the forms of power emerging from the ‘very local’ to the ‘supranational’ (Dinnen and Allen, 2018: 136–137), as they interact in place. Place as an observational scale acknowledges the reality that the state is not the ‘principal security agent’ (Wilson and Bakker, 2016: 290) against which one can measure levels of security/insecurity (Brigg, 2018; Brown, 2017: 26; Vogel, 2018: 433). This also enables us to shift our analytical lens to the ways in which state power manifests and interacts within particular locales (Mitchell, 2006).…”

Radical Responses: Architects and Architecture in Urban Development as a Response to Violence in Medellín, Colombia

“…Spatial planning can provide the interventions needed to address the issues underpinning divisions (Hamdi, 2004). Spatial theorists (Kohn, 2003; Lefebvre, 1991; Mouffe, 2007; Vogel, 2018) have long argued that space is crucial to democracy, activism, and agency, and is therefore a powerful tool in the building of peace (Kohn, 2003), but what impact, if any, can architectural design have on a city battling with deeply rooted issues of inequality, segregation, poverty, and extreme levels of violence? It is in asking this question that this article studies how architects and architecture delivered and were utilized as a means of proliferating a philosophy of collaboration and inclusivity that defines planning approaches in the city today.…”