You are on page 1of 24


Understanding the Liberal Peace1 Oliver P. Richmond2 Reader in International Relations University of St Andrews To remember Hiroshima is to commit oneself to eace.!" #Pa$ Invictis%& 'irt(e r(ns amo).!* Introduction +hat is eace, This essay e$amines the -enealo-y of the # roblem of eace%. the conse/(ence of conce t(alisin- eace as a ne-ative e istemolo-y. ta)in- as its startin- oint its ass(med conce t(alisation in most academic and olicy doc(mentation and literat(res.0 This may be described as the #liberal eace%.1 The liberal eace is ass(med to be (n roblematic in its internal str(ct(re2 and in its acce tance in ost.conflict 3ones2 tho(-ht its methodolo-ical a lication may be far from smooth.4 The liberal eace%s main com onents. democratisation2 the r(le of law2 h(man ri-hts2 free and -lobalised mar)ets2 and neo.liberal develo ment. are increasin-ly bein- criti/(ed from several different ers ectives. These criti/(es have foc(sed ( on the incom atibility of certain sta-es of democratisation and economic reform2 the ownershi of develo ment ro5ects and thic) and thin versions of the neo. liberal a-enda2 the ossible incom atibility of ost.conflict 5(stice with the stabilisation of society2 and the roblem of crime and corr( tion in economic and olitical reform and the establishment of the r(le of law. These terrains are relatively well e$ lored.6 +hat has received rather less attention is the sco e and conce t(alisation of the liberal eace itself. There a ear to be fo(r main strands of thin)in- within the liberal eace framewor). These incl(de the victor%s eace2 the instit(tional eace2 the constit(tional eace2 and the civil eace.78 The victor%s eace has evolved from the a-e.old ar-(ment that a eace that rests on a military victory2 and ( on the he-emony or domination of that victor is more li)ely to s(rvive. The instit(tional eace rests ( on attem ts to anchor states within a normative and le-al conte$t in which states m(ltilateral a-ree how to behave and how to enforce or determine their behavio(r. The constit(tional eace rests ( on the 9antian ar-(ment that eace rests ( on democracy2 trade2 and a set of cosmo olitan val(es that stem from the notion that individ(als are ends in themselves2 rather than means to an end. The civil eace is derived from the henomena of direct action2 of citi3en advocacy and mobilisation2 in the attainment or defence of basic h(man ri-hts and val(es. These as ects of the liberal eace are both contradictory and com limentary2 and each brin-s with it a certain intellect(al and em irical ba--a-e. The victor%s eace framewor) has been s(b5ect to the hamartia of territorial and strate-ic over.e$tension2 -reed2 and an inability to control (nr(ly s(b5ects des ite its im ositionary /(alities. The civil eace disco(rse often str(--les to be heard2 even

tho(-h it may be ro a-ated by non.state actors motivated by h(man sec(rity and social 5(stice2 who blame the state for war2 or liberal states for self.interest. The instit(tional eace disco(rse str(--les to co e with many discordant voices and the enormity of its systemic ro5ect2 which re/(ires the consent of a broad ran-e of actors. Its develo ment and im lementation and has drawn the U: system2 I;Is2 and a-encies into the /(a-mire of m(ltilateral -overnance. It str(--les to create consens(s or to comm(nicate with those involved at the civil level2 or to receive and res ond to feedbac) on its overall ro5ect. The constit(tional eace str(--les with those who do not want to share ower in domestic constit(tional sit(ations2 and who do not want the certainty of domestic le-al str(ct(res that mi-ht o(tlaw their activities. It str(--les to overcome the sim le binaries it de ends ( on. the territorial inside< o(tside2 and the identity of friend or enemy. How does one emanci ate witho(t dominatin-2 witho(t i-norin- difference2 witho(t )nowin- the mind of the other, How do these different disco(rses interweave2 lay themselves o(t2 and comm(nicate with each other2 witho(t com etin-2 dominatin- or ne-atin- each other. How can those who #)now% eace tal) to those who do not, So arises the /(estion of the nat(re of eace2 and how it is to be achieved. The fact that eace is so rarely o enly conce t(alised and e$ licitly defined in m(ch international disco(rse other than in ne-ative terms is2 in the li-ht of the above2 the # roblem of eace%.77 The liberal eace is a disco(rse2 framewor) and str(ct(re2 with a s ecific ontolo-y and methodolo-y. Its ro5ected reform of -overnance entails a comm(nicative strate-y on which de ends its viability and le-itimacy with its reci ients. This o erates both at a social and a state level. It cannot be achieved witho(t si-nificant reso(rces. The allocation of those reso(rces2 the ower to do so2 and their control2 is often the new site of ower and domination in ost conflict societies. It m(st be as)ed how this can be so while at the same time remainin- tr(e to the emanci atory claims of the liberal eace. It m(st also be said that the :=O and a-ency ersonnel2 those in the U:2 and +orld >an)2 di lomats and officials2 -enerally show -reat commitment to the co(ntries they are wor)in- in ?often in diffic(lt2 (ncomfortable2 and dan-ero(s conditions@2 and are to a lar-e de-ree im licitly2 if not e$ licitly2 aware of the roblems of the liberal eace model.72 Aany are committed to avoidin- the creation of de endency2 sensitive to the needs of local ownershi 2 caref(l not to tread on the toes of local2 district or central officials and -overnments2 even where they may also feel that interests and olitics are bloc)intheir ro-ress. They may be sensitive to s(ch roblems2 while also reco-nisin- that their rofessional roles or the ro5ects they are art of are in many ways inade/(ate. +hat little is done is normally better than nothin-. They can adhere to the in5(nction do no harm!27" recently written into the mandates of U:BP2 and the +orld >an)2 for e$am le2 beca(se they have an im licit if somewhat va-(e (nderstandin- that the liberal eace is what re/(ires rotectin- from harm at the most basic level. Understandin- the different conce t(alisations of eace2 and the different -rad(ations of the liberal eace2 therefore offers an im ortant contrib(tion towards (nravellin- the dilemmas and iss(es o(tlined above. These (nderstandin-s offer a better awareness of what the ob5ectives of m(lti le interventions en-endered in the contem orary # eaceb(ildin- consens(s% constr(ct2 and what different decisions2 actions2 and thin)in-2 im ly abo(t the achievement of these ob5ectives. To )now eace rovides a clearer (nderstandin- of what m(st be done2 and what m(st be avoided2 if it is to be achieved. ;irst2 we m(st )now eace. The followin- essay ar-(es that the liberal eace is s(b5ect to fo(r -rad(ations2 which carry im ortant im lications for intervention2 eace o erations2 and eaceb(ildin-2 for the


s(stainability of the eace to be constr(cted2 and for the e$it strate-ies of internationals and other interveners. Understanding Contemporary Thinking About Peace The im licit conce ts of eace and their (sa-es in the relevant2 mainly western literat(res and olicy disco(rses ?the dominant forms of # rint ca italism% 7& in the conte$t of eace@ are dominated by the liberal eace. This he-emonic2 conce t(alisation has (nderlined the ontolo-ical2 e istemolo-ical2 and normative as ects of the liberal eace. This o ens ( the conce t(alisations and ima-inin-s of eace as a serio(s research a-enda2 movin- away from the constant ass(m tion that eace is an ideal form. The emer-ence of the liberal eace reflects A(-(stinian thin)in- on #tran/(illity of order%7*2 the contradictions of Hobbesian thin)in- on containin- the state of nat(re270 and the ro5ect o(tlined by C(incy +ri-ht2 that eace is re resented by a comm(nity in which law and order revail2 both internally and e$ternally.71 +ar is made in the #minds of men% and therefore #Din the minds of men the defences of eace m(st be constr(cted%.74 This is tellin- of the liberal eace ro5ectE it merely constr(cts a defence a-ainst the worst e$cesses of the state of nat(re2 or anarchy and he-emony im licit in its victor%s eace com onent.76 The liberal eace is a hybrid of the a-e.old victor%s eace2 the Fnli-htenment and often Ghristian based wor) on constit(tional eace2 and the Twentieth cent(ry sec(lar attem ts ?b(t also tin-ed with non.sec(lar2 mainly western claims@ to create an instit(tional eace at the str(ct(ral2 international2 domestic2 and civil society level. Similar normative framewor)s are also inte-ral to the civil eace model2 tho(-h this is more stron-ly foc(sed ( on social 5(stice. The liberal eace is a Platonic ideal form28 and a 9antian moral im erativeE it is also a disco(rse or a master si-nifier that may sometimes silence any tho(-ht or disc(ssion of other alternatives. It is resented as an ideal form2 tho(-h there are divisions abo(t whether this ideal form is ractical or (nobtainable. The s(b5ectivity of the debate on the liberal eace is -enerally dis-(ised by the ob5ectification and (niversalisation of eace in theoretical and olicy (sa-e. +hat is clear from this debate is the rivile-in- of the western e$ erience of eacema)in-2 which of co(rse has been on an enormo(s scale since the Treaty of +est halia2 b(t in artic(lar d(rin- the Twentieth Gent(ry. The basic characteristics of both tho(-ht and ractice on eace are rooted in the Fnli-htenment2 and the notions of rationality and soverei-nty2 (nder inned by vario(s forms of liberalism and ro-ressivism fo(nd therein. All fo(r strands of thin)in- abo(t eace2 from the victor%s to the civil eace2 effectively nominate omniscient third arties which are then laced in a osition to transfer e$ternal notions of eace into conflict societies and environments. The liberal eace de ends ( on intervention2 and a balance of consent and coercion. All of this is meas(red a-ainst the liberal eace. Of co(rse2 the victor%s eace2 the constit(tional2 instit(tional2 and civil notions of eace2 have been stron-ly infl(enced by acificism27 in that they constr(ct the (se of force as either defensive or in the name of the liberal eace ?hence its im erial and neo.colonial overtones@.


Figure 1 A Genealogy of the Liberal Peace

'ictor%s Peace Pro5ect Gonstit(tional Peace Pro5ect ? eace as democracy2 law and trade@ Givil society Peace Pro5ect Peace as disarmament2 aid2 assistance Instit(tional Peace Pro5ect Peace as re-ime based2 (nder inned by international or-anisation

Gonstr(ction of the Hiberal Peace Re/(ires Aethodolo-y2 Tools2 F istemic Gomm(nities which have e$ ertise2 coalitions of or-anisations2 states2 instit(tions2 and :=Os2 and a conditional relationshi between them and actors ( on whom the Hiberal Peace is bein- visited.

Hiberal Peace

These notions have len-thy antecedents and the victor%s eace has remained a )ey as ect of the liberal eace2 even ossibly incl(din- the emanci atory disco(rses2 which still seem to de end on others bein- able to )now2 and install eace for those ca(-ht ( in conflict. >(t2 the victor%s eace increasin-ly become dil(ted and dis-(ised by the lon-.line of eace ro5ects in the ost Fnli-htenment eriod2 which were mainly F(ro ean in ori-in and e(ro.centric in nat(re2 the emer-ence of a rivate disco(rse on eace with the -rowth of :=Os and civil society actors2 and then in the Twentieth cent(ry the formalisation of an instit(tional disco(rse on eace. This later disco(rse2 a-ain (nder inned by the victor%s eace2 formed the basis for the hybrid form that was to become the liberal eace2 in which m(lti le actors at m(lti le levels of analysis in ri-id conditional relationshi s with each be-an its (niversal constr(ction accordin- to a mi$t(re of conservative2 liberal2 re-(lative2 and distrib(tive tendencies.22 This constr(ction re/(ires a s ecific ontolo-y of eace2 a methodolo-y2 mechanisms and tools de loyed by e istemic comm(nities which have the necessary e$ ertise2 by coalitions of or-anisations2 states2 instit(tions2 involved in a conditional relationshi between them and locations where the liberal eace is beinconstr(cted. The liberal eace is created thro(-h the methodolo-ies associated with a # eaceb(ildin- consens(s%2 where li)e.minded liberal states coe$ist in a western. oriented international society and states are characterised by democracy2 h(man ri-hts2 free mar)ets2 develo ment2 a vibrant civil society2 and m(ltilateralism. 2" This

re resents a s( erficial consens(s of states2 donors2 IOs2 ROs2 and :=Os as to the ob5ectives entailed in the different com onents of the liberal eace. At the same time2 there is also disa-reement on the methodolo-ies to be a lied for its creation2 and also which as ect of the liberal eace sho(ld be rioritised. Iet2 bein- art of this framewor) of liberal eace rovides certain ri-hts. 9nowin- eace em owers an e istemic comm(nity2 le-itimately able to transfer the liberal eace into conflict 3ones. This re resents a contin((m from war to absence of war or to eace. Bes ite the ass(red nat(re of the liberal eace from this ers ective the eaceb(ildin- consens(s is heavily contested both in disco(rse and in ractice. Indeed2 it has been ar-(ed that instit(tional and local ca acity is act(ally beindestroyed by intervention in conflict environments.2& This is artly beca(se those wor)in- from the to .down to constr(ct the liberal eace tend to foc(s more on the state and its instit(tions. This is often resisted by those wor)in- on bottom.( versions of eaceb(ildin-. Their conditional relationshi with reci ients2 donors2 international or-anisations and international financial instit(tions2 means that many non.state actors have develo ed the ca acity for the most intimate forms of intervention in states and in civil society in order to develo a civil eace and to contrib(te the broader liberal eace ro5ect. This im ortant ca acity is of co(rse of -reat benefit to the redominantly state.centric liberal eace ro5ect2 in which s(ch actors are de loyed as norm entre rene(rs romotin- the validity of its com onents. 2* The liberal eace conce t(alisation also re resents a hybrid of the main associated ontolo-ical and e istemolo-ical iss(esE it contains a hiloso hical strand that see)s to rovide a normative (nderstandin- of how eace wo(ld be robably in terms of a (niversal moral order. It contains a ositivist strand that see)s to create a basic level order thro(-h scientific investi-ation of the interactions of (nits vis.J.vis a re.orderin- of reso(rces and str(ct(res. It also contains a ost. ositivist strand2 foc(sin- on emanci ation from he-emony2 domination2 and mar-inalisation thro(-h either a (niversal critical order2 or thro(-h a reflection on an (nderlyin- ontolo-ical and e istemolo-ical (nderstandin- of bein- at2 and )nowin-2 a m(lti le or hybrid eace. The liberal eace is often claimed to be emanci atory in the conte$t of liberal and normative a roaches2 and effectively to conform to critical notions of eace. This means that victor%s eace contin(es to hold le-itimacy2 tho(-h it is heavily dis-(ised. It (nder ins the constit(tional and instit(tional eace. These versions of eace combine -overnance2 law2 civil society2 democracy2 and trade2 enshrined in domestic constit(tional doc(mentation2 and in international treaties at the heart of the new eace2 alon- with the emer-ence of a civil society and :=O disco(rse of eace ?the #civil eace%@. +hat is rarely disc(ssed in this conte$t2 is which of these strands of the eace are the most evident in any artic(lar ost conflict environment. This mainly de ends on where the observer is located2 b(t it is (ndeniable that the form of eace erceived is dominated by its main s onsors2 which in the conte$t of the liberal eace2 is witho(t /(estion the )ey states2 f(nders2 and e$ec(ters of its com onents thro(-h the many a-ents of the eace b(ildin- consens(s. Of co(rse2 these dynamics are also s(b5ect to chan-e2 so it is li)ely that different as ects of the liberal eace may receive more attention at different eriods in the ost. conflict eaceb(ildin- rocess. Iet2 the o(tcome normally reflects the wor) of the earliest olitical theorists in the western tradition2 and their foc(s ( on the form of -overnment re/(ired to create a d(rable eace. The reform of -overnance is directed by an alliance of actors2 which become c(stodians of the liberal eace. Their control of this rocess rests ( on a combination of ind(cement2 consent2 and co.o eration2 occasionally ver-in- ( on the coercive2 or even the o(tri-ht (se of force. There is

essentially a conditional relationshi between different states and other actors involved in ro5ectin- the liberal eace2 the a-ents they (se to constr(ct the eace2 and the reci ients of the liberal eace. There is little /(estionin- of the validity of the liberal eace2 or the way in which its vario(s com onents fit to-ether.20 Th(s2 it is ass(med that democratisation2 develo ment2 and economic reform2 are com limentary2 alon- with h(man ri-hts reform2 and le-al rocesses. There is also little /(estionin- of the motivation of the ro5ectors and a-ents of the liberal eace2 other than amon-st its reci ients2 who2 whether official or non.official actors2 tend to be s(s icio(s of o(tsiders% ob5ectives. Aost of the critical foc(s therefore tends to be on the methods (sed to constr(ct the liberal eace most effectively2 efficiently2 and as /(ic)ly as ossible. As a res(lt2 the different strands of thin)in- abo(t eace2 derived from debates in olitical theory and hiloso hy2 the constit(tional eace lans of the medieval eace2 the em owerment of civil society2 and the instit(tional eace lans of the im erial and ost. im erial eriods have conver-ed on a contem orary notion of what I term peace-asgovernance. This is the most common form of eace a lied thro(-h a methodolo-ical eaceb(ildin- consens(s in conflict 3ones where international actors become involved2 in which a reorderin- occ(rs in the distrib(tion of ower2 resti-e2 r(les and ri-hts. Peace. as.-overnance in state b(ildin- terms foc(ses on the instit(tions of state as the basis for the constr(ction of the liberal eace. ;or :=Os and a-encies2 it foc(ses on the -overnance of society. In terms of bottom.( eaceb(ildin- different actors contrib(te to the liberal eace model by installin- forms of associated with the re-(lation2 control2 and rotection of individ(als and civil society. The balance of ower2 he-emony2 instit(tionalism and constit(tionalism2 and civil society conver-e in this version of eace in an era of -overnmentality2 which is s( er.territorial2 and m(lti. layered.21 It incor orates official and rivate actors from the local to the -lobal2 instit(tionalised in the al habet so( of a-encies2 or-anisations2 and instit(tions. >(t2 in its to down -(ise it is also a form of the victor%s eace2 relyin- on dominant states2 in the conte$t of the states.system. A roaches to eace and conflict theory reflect this evol(tion clearly2 ass(min- that the liberal eace (n/(estionably forms the basis for theorisin- the endin- of conflict.24 Bebates on eaceb(ildin- have moved into the terrain of the reform or constr(ction of liberal modes of -overnance of economies2 olities2 and develo ment2 as a lo-ical e$tension of the debates on conflict mana-ement2 conflict resol(tion2 eace st(dies2 conflict transformation2 and eaceb(ildin-. This is rarely made e$ licit2 however. These -enerations of thin)in- abo(t a roaches to endinconflict each reflect as ects of the victor%s eace2 the constit(tional2 instit(tional2 and civil conce t(alisations of eace. The emer-ence of eaceb(ildin- a roaches since the 7668s have been effectively a hybrid reflectin- the liberal eace e$tremely closely. They -ive rise to #normalisin-% activities involvin- the methodolo-ical transfer of )nowled-e from eaceable comm(nities into conflict 3ones. This is also reflected in the im licit develo ment of conce ts of eace in IR theory. A realist eace lies in the state centric balance of ower2 dominated by a he-emon2 which o erates to moderate the worst e$cesses of the state of nat(re.26 Hiberal debates in IR theory2 and in artic(lar those associated with internationalism and2 instit(tionalism see eace as e$istin- in liberal instit(tions and international re-imes -overnin- international coo eration."8 Gosmo olitan versions of eace rovides a (niversal basis ?as with constr(ctivist acco(nts@ for the e$tension of internationalist and instit(tionalist ar-(ments abo(t coo eration2 res onsibility2 and ri-hts."7 Str(ct(ralist versions of eace re/(ire the re lacement of str(ct(ral violence2

he-emony and domination2 with social 5(stice. Gritical versions of eace e$tend the cosmo olitan ar-(ment in order to develo its treatment of social 5(stice and comm(nication to rovide a m(ch broader emanci atory disco(rse of eace. In these terms2 eace is fo(nd in a cosmo olitan transcendence of arochial (nderstandin-s of -lobal res onsibility and assistance. In t(rn2 ost.str(ct(ralist a roaches see eace as lyin- in the identification of str(ct(res of dominance and their com lete re lacement as a conse/(ence of that identification. Of co(rse2 most international actors tend to e/(ate challen-es to the liberal eace with develo ment and overty and in ractise most eaceb(ildin- strate-ies2 both to .down or bottom ( 2 tend to ro a-ate develo ment strate-ies in the first instance ?tho(-h many US a-encies and actors refer the historical US foc(s on democratisation@."2 Hi)e many of the afflictions of the develo in- world2 s(ch as overty and its associated im lications ?which have been (n ac)ed by Thomas Po--e@2"" the e/(ation of develo ment with the liberal eace may dis-(ise the lac) of ca acity of the self.defined liberal and # eacef(l% states and actors of the #international comm(nity% in their ro5ect to constr(ct the liberal eace. This is also indicative of the fact that eace is a sli ery conce t2 des ite -eneral as irations towards it. The -eneral deficit or oversi-ht in its e$ licit st(dy and conce t(alisation has in essence arisen beca(se the effort re/(ired to -ain a conc(rrence abo(t a # eace% acce table to all has in the ast seemed im ossible or (nli)ely. This has -iven rise to a certain intellect(al la3iness2 and a slei-ht of hand2 that has obsc(red the fact that this does not mean that there cannot and sho(ld not be any debate on these iss(es. Indeed2 a-ain to ara hrase Po--e2 this lac) of en-a-ement act(ally acts as an arbitrary discrimination rocess in which only certain actors2 mainly in the develo ed2 rich arts of the world2 have the le-itimate ca acity to s ea) of eace and then only fleetin-ly and in a s( erficial mode. There are many /(alifyin- moves which any actor or individ(al m(st ma)e before attractin- the -a3e of the liberal eacema)ers2 not least the (se of violence or h(manitarian catastro he2 to establish the basis for an order which the he-emonic a-ents of the liberal eace reco-nise as an o ort(nity for its installation. Th(s2 a disco(rse of eace is a closely -(arded rivile-e in the international comm(nity2 as well as in civil society. If we a-ree with the ar-(ment that develo ed states act(ally artici ate2 rather than revent2 the roblem of starvation beca(se of the nat(re of -lobal interde endence and res onsibility2"& the same co(ld be said of the roblem of war and eace. This discrimination and silence m(st be addressed if an emanci atory eace2 in liberal or other -(ise2 is to be achieved. The ne$t section e$amines the different -rad(ations of the liberal eace these debates. Conser ati e! "rthodo#! and $mancipatory Graduations %ithin the Liberal Peace Frame%ork The liberal eace ro5ect can be bro)en down into several different -rad(ations. There is first the conservative model of the liberal eace2 mainly associated with to down a roaches to eaceb(ildin- and develo ment2 tendin- towards the coercive and often seen as an alien e$ ression of he-emony and domination2 sometimes thro(-h the (se of force2 or thro(-h conditionality and de endency creation. This e/(ates to a he-emonic and often (nilateral2 state.led eace2 which di lomats are fond of describin- as the #art of the ossible%."* S(ch char-es are often levelled at the +orld >an) or the U:2 b(t more often at recent US (nilateral state.b(ildin- efforts. This

re resents a fear of movin- eaceb(ildin- into a terrain where coercion and even force may (sed to a ly it2 and where it becomes an e$ ression of e$ternal interest rather than e$ternal concern and res onsibility. The militarisation of eace in this conte$t2 es ecially as has been seen in Somalia2 the >al)ans2 Af-hanistan2 and Ira/ re resents a hyper-conservative model, heavily informed by the victor%s eace in reliminary sta-es of intervention. The ne$t disco(rse is rovided within an orthodox model of the liberal eace in which actors are wary and sensitive abo(t local ownershi and c(lt(re2 b(t still also determined to transfer their methodolo-ies2 ob5ectives2 and norms into the new -overnance framewor). This framewor) is dominated by consens(al ne-otiation. This e/(ates to a balanced and m(ltilateral2 and still state.centric eace. This is -enerally fo(nd a-ain within the international or-anisations and instit(tions2 which become involved2 as well as thro(-h international :=Os. It re resents a bottom ( a roach2 eaceb(ildin- eace via -rassroots and civil society oriented activities2 as well as a to down a roach2 thro(-h which eaceb(ildin- is led by states2 donors2 officials2 IOs2 and I;Is. It foc(ses ( on and contests needs.based and ri-hts.based activities."0 However2 to .down eaceb(ildin- activity tends to dominate artic(larly thro(-h the conditional models and ractices of donors2 or-anisations2 and instit(tions2 as does the interests of ma5or states and donors. This model is e$em lified by the U: family%s ractices of eaceb(ildin- and -overnance reform2 which started at the end of the Gold +ar and c(lminated in U: soverei-nty for a time over Fast Timor. >oth the conservative and orthodo$ models ass(me technical s( eriority over reci ient s(b5ects2 as well as the normative (niversality of the liberal eace. A third disco(rse is rovided by a more critical form of the liberal eace2 the emancipatory model2 which is concerned with a m(ch closer relationshi of c(stodianshi and consent with local ownershi 2 and tends to be very critical of the coerciveness2 conditionality and de endency that the conservative and orthodo$ models o erate on the basis of. This is mainly fo(nd within the bottom.( a roach2 and tends to veer towards needs.based activity and a stron-er concern for social 5(stice. This critical a roach to the liberal eace still envisa-es its (niversalism2 b(t accent(ates its disc(rsive and ne-otiated re/(irements. These different actors2 mainly local and international :=Os in association with ma5or a-encies and some state donors2 and associated ty es of the liberal eace2 tend to become more or less rominent in different hases of the conflict and the eaceb(ildin- rocess. This eace e/(ates to the civil eace2 and -enerally is not state.led2 b(t sha ed by rivate actors and social movements. These main as ects of the liberal eace model often tend to be combined in the eaceb(ildin- consens(s and are e$ ressed to different de-rees in any one eaceb(ildin- intervention2 de endin- ( on riorities associated with dominant state interests2 donor interests2 and the ca acity of eaceb(ildin- actors. Hocal actor%s res onses may also have some im act2 as has been seen in the case of the #Timorisation% cam ai-n in Fast Timor2"1 or in 9osovo."4 The nominal (nity of the eaceb(ildin- consens(s often brea)s down e$actly beca(se of the internal com etition2 interests2 and ca acity of its different com onents. Glearly2 conservative2 orthodo$2 and emanci atory versions of the liberal eace may act(ally contradict and (ndermine each other2 leadin- to disr( tion in the broader eaceb(ildin- rocess. B(rin- an emer-ency eriod the hy er.conservative or conservative version of the liberal eace may finds their raison detre at the to .down level and o erate artly as a way of f(lfillin- the norms of the liberal international comm(nity2 b(t also to reserve and reinforce the sanctity of the liberal eace model within the states.

system. In a ost.conflict reconstr(ction hase official actors may be-in to shift to the orthodo$ version of the liberal eace2 which foc(ses on the develo ment of instit(tional relationshi s2 instit(tions and constit(tions that reserve or redefine the state b(t also rovide for the interests and re/(irements of the -eneral o (lation. A-encies and :=Os often o erate in both hases ( on the basis of the more critical emanci atory version of the liberal eace2 mainly beca(se they are m(ch more de endent ( on local and donor consent. Those actors2 mainly a-encies and :=Os2 wor)in- within the critical model tend to be wary of the conservative a roaches and their associated actors2 while those wor)in- in the latter tend to be disdainf(l of consens(al re/(irements and local ownershi while #res(lts% are more ressin- than s(stainability in an emer-ency2 or immediate ost.conflict hase. Glearly2 however2 once s(stainability becomes )ey in a ost emer-ency hase2 and internationals be-in to thin) abo(t their e$it strate-ies2 even to .down actors be-in to move towards more critical emanci atory models of the liberal eace. This latter disco(rse a ears to be the most le-itimate of all of these models2 des ite its breadth2 and lac) of arsimony. All of these strands of the liberal eace are often resented as emanci atory in olicy disco(rse. This raises some im ortant olicy im lications in terms of the different versions of the liberal eace o(tlined above. It is clear that there seems to be shifts between these different a roaches2 de endin- ( on the conditions and thin)inrevalent within the international comm(nity and within conflict 3ones. One co(ld draw a broad teleolo-ical evol(tionary line in which the victor%s eace -ave way to a constit(tional eace2 to which was then added an instit(tional and civil eace in F(ro ean and +estern thin)in- and olicyma)in-. This has2 of co(rse2 occ(rred in the broader conte$t of a belief in the s( eriority2 infallibility2 and (niversality of the liberal eace. Be endin- on the stren-th this osition2 the ro5ect of the liberal eace moves from the conservative coercive models2 to the more consens(al orthodo$ model2 or even to the emanci atory model2 or contests a s ecific combination of all of the above.


Figure & Graduations of the Liberal Peace 'odel

This fi-(re ill(strates the wor)in- conce t(alisations of eace develo ed2 and the a$is alon- which the nat(re of the liberal eace can be located. (yper)Conser ati e
Geography* limited area of strate-ic allies

Conser ati e
Himited area of norm sharinallies.

Still -eo-ra hically bo(nded b(t aims at (niversal covera-e. +arK str(ct(ral violenceK identity conflictK (nder.develo mentK terrorismK obstacles to tradeK barriers to norms and re-imes.

Aims at (niversal covera-e +ar2 str(ct(ral violenceK identity conflictK (nder.develo mentK obstacles to tradeK terrorismK free comm(nication and re resentationK social 5(stice. com lete, li)ely in medi(m to lonterm

Threat* Re-(lar and irre-(lar Re-(lar and irre-(lar war and ca acity for warK war and ca acity for warK obstacles to necessary reso(rcesK obstacles to trade and reso(rcesK terrorism. terrorism.

+ustainability of PeaceE :e-li-ible $#it of Internationals* Unli)ely

limited ossible in lon- term,

hi-h Hi)ely in medi(m to lon- term

(yper)Conser ati e
'ethod Use of ;orce Actors State officials and re-(lar< irre-(lar military forces ,ature of Peace 'ictor%s eace defined solely by military s( eriority. "ntology of Peace Peace is not ossible2 very limited2 or is territorially bo(ndedK eace is (to ian

Conser ati e
'ethod ;orce and Bi lomacy2 military intervention leadinleadin- to ceasefire2 mediation or ne-otiation. Actors State officials and re-(lar< irre-(lar military forces ,ature of Peace 'ictor%s eace2 constit(tional eace settlement< international eace treaty ?b(t not an instit(tional eace@. C(asi military meas(res s(ch as eace)ee in- de loyed for lon- eriods. "ntology of Peace Peace is a rod(ct of force and elite di lomacyK (niversal form of eace sho(ld be as ired to b(t is (nreachable

'ethod To .down eaceb(ildin-K some bottom.( eaceb(ildinActors State officials and re-(lar< irre-(lar military forcesK IO2 RO2 I;I2 which control A-encies and :=Os. ,ature of Peace Gonstit(tional and instit(tional PeaceK elements of victor%s eace thro(-h he-emony rather than (se of force. As with conservative model2 b(t lon- term meas(res for s(stainability also incl(dedE instit(tional2 constit(tional2 and civil -overnance meas(res for olitical2 economic2 develo ments2 and social iss(es im orted thro(-h conditional relationshi between a-ents of eaceb(ildin- and reci ientsK settlement more im ortant than 5(stice. "ntology of Peace Peace rests on mainly on constit(tional and instit(tional meas(resK it is (niversal and can be achieved thro(-h e istemic transference of technical )nowled-e and framewor)s.

'ethod To .down and Peaceb(ildinActors Gombinations of state officials and re-(lar< irre-(lar military forcesK IO2 RO2 I;I2 A-ency2 and :=O ersonnel b(t led by local actors. ,ature of Peace Givil PeaceK foc(s on social movements2 social actors2 and iss(es2 social 5(stice as a athway to eace. +ary of e$ternal forms of domination bein- im orted thro(-h e$ternal intervention. "ntology of Peace Peace rests on social 5(stice and o en and free comm(nication between social actors2 as well as state< official actorsK reco-nition of difference and otherness. bottom.(


Figure - Current $#amples of the Liberal Peace

(yper)Conser ati e Conser ati e "rthodo# $mancipatory

Ira/< Af-hanistan ?>osnia 766*2 9osovo 76662 Somalia 766"@

Somalia< >osnia< 9osovo< Rwanda<Sierra Heone< Gon-o< Haiti

Fast Timor< Gambodia Fl Salvador< An-ola< Ao3ambi/(e< :amibia< :icara-(a< =(atemala

Ob5ective of U:2 ROs2 I;Is2 A-encies2 :=Os

Ob5ective of Intervention G(rrent Stat(s

It is vital to identify the graduations of the liberal peace that are beinconstr(cted thro(-h different ty es of intellect(al and olicy analysis2 and by different actors2 in order to eval(ate the effectiveness and s(stainability of eaceb(ildina roaches. This is re resented by a confi-(ration of the main fo(r disco(rses of eaces2 and the fo(r -rad(ations of the liberal eace o(tlined above. This sho(ld lead to a better (nderstandin- of ?i@ the ty e of eace bein- created2 ?ii@ im ediments to eace2 and ?iii@ the s(stainability of this eace. This analysis and com arison carry im ortant olicy and intellect(al im lications and o en the way for a -reater intellect(al and olicy (nderstandin- of the a-endas inherent in the different as ects of the liberal eace ro5ect. The fi-(res above ill(strate the a$is alon- which the nat(re of the liberal eace can be located2 and from which the im lications for s(stainability of the eace2 its costs2 and li)ely areas of resistance2 can be drawn in a n(mber of cases. It indicates the -eneral tendency of eaceb(ildin- interventions2 tho(-h it sho(ld be ac)nowled-ed that interventions often show some cross.over between these -rad(ations. +hat the above seems to ill(strate is that entry into a conflict 3one is often redicted on a conservative version of the liberal eace2 with the as iration of movintowards the orthodo$ osition. A si-nificant n(mber of e$am les can be rovided for this movement2 as ;i-(re 2 ill(strates2 b(t a si-nificant n(mber also remain mired within the conservative -rad(ation of the liberal eace. :o cases can be located within the emanci atory -rad(ation2 and indeed2 the lac) of social 5(stice2 and socio. economic well.bein- and develo ment seems to mar all international involvements in the ost.Gold +ar era."6 Glearly2 the above dia-rams ill(strate the tendency for internationals to enter a conflict environment somewhere within the conservative -rad(ation2 and then as ire ?both the internationals and local reci ients incl(ded@ to move alon- the a$is to the orthodo$ eace2 which is both s(stainable and allows the internationals to withdraw. However2 e$ erience seems to show that where force is (sed in a hy er.conservative initial a roach2 movin- alon- the a$is towards the orthodo$ cate-ory tends not to occ(r. The best ill(stration of this a ears to be >osnia and 9osovo2 where the olitical entity ?state or not@ is wea)2 and socially and economically (ns(stainable des ite the len-th of time the internationals have been involved.&8 +here entry is based ( on a eace a-reement with broad consens(s2 it often occ(rs within the conservative -rad(ation b(t moves ra idly towards the orthodo$2 as many of the cases in ;i-(re 2 indicate.


This raises the /(estion of what the re/(irements are for the constr(ction of a s ecific -rad(ation of the liberal eace2 which may then shift from the conservative to the orthodo$. Glearly2 the liberal eace disco(rse foc(ses on constit(tional democracy2 h(man ri-hts2 develo ment2 and international relations with instit(tions2 as well as a civil eace2 these rovidin- the -eneral framewor) thro(-h which the liberal eace can be achieved. In ractice2 however2 the rocesses have created very wea) states2 and instit(tions2 and civil society is marred by 5oblessness2 lac) of develo ment2 forms of nationalism2 and the often tort(o(s slowness of the shift from the re. intervention sit(ation to even the most limited and conservative form of the liberal eace. In these conditions2 a lac) of confidence in the new olity2 and in the economy are often )ey roblems2 as well as s(s icion of the intentions of internationals2 and of local actors. ;or instance2 thro(-ho(t the >al)ans2 there is s(s icion of the intentions of internationals2 of local oliticians2 as well as a lac) of confidence in constit(tions2 the viability of the states bein- formed2 and ac(te roblems relatin- both to (nem loyment and ethnic cha(vinism. This is des ite the len-thy resence of the many internationals. All of these versions of the liberal eace identify -eo-ra hical 3ones that are to be safe from war2 terrorism and olitical violence2 (nderdevelo ment2 h(man ri-hts ab(ses2 and other forms of str(ct(ral violence. The liberal eace ran-es from the virt(al and hi-hly interventionary to the more consens(al versions which are also concerned with social 5(stice. All of these strands of the liberal eace have -rad(ated a roaches to consent and conditionality2 b(t they all share an ass(m tion of (niversality2 which le-itimates intervention2 and of the s( eriority of the e istemic eaceb(ildin- comm(nity over its reci ients. The conservative a roaches tend to be more conditional2 tho(-h this can also be seen in the more critical liberal eace a roaches in relations between -rass roots actors and donors. In the conservative disco(rse2 however2 conditionality is im osed from the to down by the e$ternal actors involved. In the more critical a roaches2 conditionality is s(b5ect to ne-otiation2 th(s ac/(irin- a bottom.( as ect and bein- colo(red more by social 5(stice concerns. This conditionality is also two.way. Internationals are now learninthat where they set conditionalities so local actors also e$ ect conditionalities to be observed. ;(rthermore2 local actors are bein- ade t at mani (latin- conditionalities in their favo(r.&7 If a s(stainable eace is to be constr(cted there can be no e$it (ntil both locals and internationals have a-reed that s(ch a version of eace has act(ally been achieved. +hat is more2 the em hasis of different as ects of the liberal eace. the victor%s eace2 constit(tional2 instit(tional2 and civil. de ends on which actors ta)e the lead in intervention or coordination. The U: family tends to foc(s sim(ltaneo(sly on all as ects2 des ite the fact that they may not be com limentary2 b(t the instit(tional eace rovides its raison detre ?tho(-h this is constrained by the im erative to foster and reserve state soverei-nty as art of its charter@. The US tends to foc(s on the victor%s eace as well as the constit(tional eace2 tho(-h it m(st be noted that on all terms a art from er ca ita2 the US is the bi--est contrib(tor to all of the different as ects of the constr(ction of the liberal eace. :=Os and a-encies tend to foc(s on the civil eace2 as do ma5or donors s(ch as >ritain2 La an2 Ganada2 and :orway2 which also em hasise the instit(tional eace and associated forms of m(ltilateralism. The OSGF and FU have robably the most e$ licit view of their end -oals2 which are constit(ted in terms of the orthodo$ cate-ory above2 b(t movin- alon- the a$is towards the emanci atory version.&2 Those en-a-ed in conflict resol(tion and eaceb(ildin-2 thro(-h the U:2 a-encies2 or thro(-h :=Os2 often ar-(e that their (nderstandin- of eace is often


act(ally somethin- m(ch more than the liberal eace. They a ear more comfortable claimin- to locate their activity as a co(nter.disco(rse of an emanci atory eace which is in tension with conservative versions of the liberal eace. There is often an (ns o)en narrative that these actors and individ(als have reserved the as iration of an emanci atory eace in the face of the he-emonic /(alities of the liberal eace2 resistin- the self.interested olitics of ideolo-y2 states2 and those who o erate or de loy them2 who (se eace2 and even the liberal eace2 for their own ends. All of these different a roaches within the liberal eace framewor) often claim to be emanci atory. They all find their raison detre in the identification and res onse to s ecific threats identified a-ainst the liberal eace ro5ect. ;(rthermore2 they e$ist side by side2 and in tension which each other. The conservative notions of liberal eace and the critical notions act2 both in theoretical2 conce t(al2 and olicy terms2 as bra)es ( on each other and ( on the worst e$cesses of he-emony2 domination2 and relativism. This raises the /(estion of what is emanci ation2 who carries it o(t as its a-ents2 who (nderstands and transfers it2 and who receives2 and why2 and what im act this has ( on the reci ients identity, A-ain these o en /(estions (nderline the s(b5ective ontolo-y of eace. Aost contem orary eaceb(ildin- cases can be laced somewhere between the conservative and orthodo$ liberal eace com onents in terms of their re onderant a roaches. Gambodia2 An-ola2 and Fast Timor -enerally fit into the orthodo$ framewor)s. Somalia2 >osnia2 and 9osovo2 and more recently2 Af-hanistan and Ira/2 wo(ld fit somewhere between the hy er.conservative and conservative framewor)s ?of co(rse2 this de ends ( on which hase of the eace)ee in-< eaceb(ildin- intervention was (nder review@2 erha s slowly movin- toward the orthodo$ model. These -eneral ositions can be bro)en down f(rther by e$amininthe different actors involved. The orthodo$ and emanci atory models wo(ld be more si-nificant if one foc(sed on a-encies and :=Os and their eace ro5ects. It m(st be ac)nowled-ed2 however2 that the re onderant framewor) relates to the reconstr(ction of the state2 meanin- that the conservative and orthodo$ disco(rse are the most commonly e$ ressed thro(-h these eace o erations. This then raises serio(s /(estions abo(t the s(stainability of the eace that is bein- created2 and the limits of the liberal eace. There is a -eneral tendency to res ond to the serio(sness of conflict or war by movin- the intervention alon- the liberal eace a$is toward the hy er. conservative framewor)2 and then as eaceb(ildin- consolidates2 to (sh the foc(s bac) alon- the a$is toward the orthodo$ framewor). =iven the si-nificance of the e$ erience of both internationals2 donors2 and local actors in the s ecific conte$t of Fast Timor2 it sho(ld not be s(r risin- that the Fast Timorese President2 Manana =(smao was evidently e$tremely aware of the /(estions relatin- to the nat(re of the eace that were a arent. In one of the most e$ licit doc(ments in e$istence from the olicy world on the nat(re of eace he ar-(ed that the e$ erience of Fast Timor indicated that eace was a basic h(man ri-ht and this involved not 5(st res onses to international and civil violence2 b(t socio. economic de rivation2 a lac) of develo ment2 and an en-a-ement with the e$ erience of reci ient comm(nities on the art of internationals.&" In the U: tri tych of Agendas2 democratisation and develo ment are also seen to be a ri-ht and in the recent re ort on the Responsibility to Protect the broader international comm(nity is called ( on to rotect comm(nities and individ(als where their host states are (nable.&& This is a far more interventionist a-enda for eace than ever beforeE the liberal eace wor)s only by creatin- a basis for liberal states and or-anisations to intervene to correct abnormalities in others% olitical2 social2 and economic ractices.


Th(s2 creatin- the liberal eace is abo(t disci linin- those deemed to be res onsible for s(ch abnormal ractices thro(-h conditionality and effective transnational -overnance re-imes controlled by liberal states2 or-anisations2 :=Os2 and donors and I;Is. :otwithstandin- these notions of eace as a ri-ht2 the shift in the liberal eace model has -enerally been toward the conservative rather than emanci atory model2 as can be seen in the conte$t of Af-hanistan and Ira/. This remains (ne$ lained2 des ite the fact that it has h(-e im lications for the f(t(re of eaceb(ildin- in colla sed or failin- states aro(nd the world2 and the role of the international comm(nity and its a-encies therein. If liberal eace is a ri-ht2 then clearly this raises the /(estion of which form of liberal eace, It is clear that while the conservative versions may have some le-itimacy in an illiberal transitional hase2 the orthodo$ -rad(ation wo(ld robably rovide a minim(m lon-.term as iration. 'ethodological! "ntological! and $pistemological Implications The ontolo-ical and e istemolo-ical (nderc(rrents of these disco(rses abo(t have not yet received m(ch attention. Iet2 they are im licit in the vario(s academic and olicy literat(res. In -eneral eace is commonly re resented as a thic) or thin form of social contract&* ?coincidin- with the conservative< orthodo$ liberal eace -rad(ations on the a$is in ;i-(re 7@ and a social constr(ction. The thic) version occ(rs where there is a broad consens(s re resented at the civil2 constit(tional and international levels2 as c(rrently e$ists in a reco-nisable form in the +est and amon-st liberal states ?referrin- to the orthodo$ version of the liberal eace@. The thin form e$ists where these levels of consens(s are deferred into the f(t(re2 and where hysical violence2 str(ct(ral violence2 social welfare and 5(stice are less well attended to2 and international reco-nition and a-reement over stat(s2 bo(ndaries2 and constit(tions may well be deferred ?referrin- to the conservative versions of the liberal eace@. In both cases the liberal eace is often in the hands of an international e istemic comm(nity of eaceb(ilders2 led by a military. civilian alliance in which the military may be re onderant. Bes ite the -rad(ations in disco(rses of eace o(tlined above2 the dominant view of eace has been one in which it e$ists as an ideal form2 which reco-nises that its achievement is so diffic(lt that this effectively 5(stifies minimalist strate-ies for eace beca(se of the resence of threats and the conc(rrent need for a militarised eace. This view echoes 9issin-er%s ar-(ment that2 +henever eace. conceived as the avoidance of war. has been the rimary ob5ective of a ower or a -ro( s of owers2 the international system has been at the mercy of the most r(thless member of the international comm(nity.! &0 This view of eace seems ositively anti/(arian2 yet it still forms the basis of m(ch mainstream theorisin- in IR. >(t 9issin-er is correct to oint o(t that #a -enerally acce ted le-itimacy% is a )ey to the stability that he describes.&1 Im licitly it m(st also form the basis of the eace he a ears to believe is (nobtainable. 9issin-er a ears to be ar-(in- that eace is merely the avoidance of conflict at best. Iet2 this is clearly not how it has come to be conce t(alised tho(-h those involved in the constr(ction of the liberal eace are not averse to war as a tool of its constr(ction. However2 they le-itimate its (se by claimin- that the elements of the liberal eace are (niversally le-itimate. So eace is now conce t(alised as far more so histicated than the avoidance of war2 and has act(ally come to en-ender war itself. It is ama3in- that this evol(tion of thin)in- abo(t eace has occ(rred both in disco(rses and ractices since 9issin-er resented this view as an


absol(te tr(th2 b(t with little reco-nition of this shift from olicy ma)ers and theorists. +e have moved from a narrow and sim listic view of eace in which it was absol(te2 ideal2 and (nobtainable2 to a far more so histicated e istemolo-y and ontolo-y of the conce t. This has o ened ( the debates that 9issin-er wanted to avoid2 of co(rse. The liberal eace is a he-emonic disco(rse and ractice2 it is created thro(-h a eaceb(ildinconsens(s2 which creates m(lti le rocesses2 levels2 and instit(tions of -overnance by e$ternal actors. All of this is contested and rac)ed by dissens(sE yet the liberal eace constr(ction ro5ect contin(es (nabated. A state ers ective of eace incor orate internal domestic stability amon-st citi3ens2 a-encies2 instit(tions2 olice2 and army2 -overnment and b(rea(cracy. Amon-st states2 eace is a balance bro(-ht abo(t by coo eration2 isolation2 and he-emony. International or-anisations and instit(tions see eace as a rod(ct of their mediatin- and norm.b(ildin- role in which they act to b(ild an international consens(s. Re-ional or-anisations also see eace in this vein. :=Os see eace as stemmin- from a -lobal civil society2 and from the reddressal of micro and even international social2 olitical2 economic2 disarmament2 develo mental2 and h(man ri-hts iss(es. International financial instit(tions s(ch as the IA; and +orld >an) see eace as a s ecific form of economic -overnance2 o enness2 control2 and s ecific models of develo ment. International a-encies s(ch as U:BP or U:HGR see eace as relatin- to their more s ecific activities within the U: system. All of these different versions of eace emanatin- from actors within the international system seem to coincide in the conte$t of the comm(nitarian< cosmo olitan debate abo(t thic) and thin versions of international order2 roblematic as it mi-ht be.&4 Indeed2 these actors often o erate as if eace was not at all roblematic2 that a (niversal eace co(ld be created o(t of a consens(s constr(cted in their area of coo eration and bro(-ht abo(t by romotin- the s read of a broader2 and normally elite level consens(s in their area of en-a-ement to actors who had not yet been #enli-htened% as to these a roaches. This eace is one that colonises. This is essentially the eace. b(ildin- consens(s. It is constr(cted thro(-h a rocess of intervention in which carrots are rovided for s ecific ty es of reform in a system of conditionality which constr(cts a version of The evol(tion of thin)in- abo(t eace seems to show that it is an ontolo-ically (nstable conce t ?indicative of ontolo-ical insec(rity@.&6 >(t the history of en-a-ement with the constr(ction of eace indicates that it has been -enerally tho(-ht of as an ontolo-ically stable conce t. A(ch of the disco(rse of the liberal eace is derived from the develo ment of a -overnance a roach2 which since 76&* has foc(sed on the reform and re-(lation of both domestic -overnment2 and -lobal -overnance2 in a re-(lative and restrictive fashion.*8 Th(s2 the liberal eace ro5ect has endeavo(red to rod(ce a eace that is stable and consens(al2 b(t within this cosmo olitan framewor) of -overnance which is both a re resentation of the individ(al2 the state2 and the -lobal. This com le$ osition on eace2 needs to be clearly el(cidated before we can be-in to decide whether it has the otential to become ontolo-ically stable and a ositive e istemolo-y. As Rasm(ssen has ar-(ed2 eace is still olicy2 rather than fact.*7 Accordin- to +al)er the constr(ction of binaries has been one of the )ey a roaches for mainstream theories of IR.*2 This has meant that for a variety of conce t(al a roaches to IR2 incl(din- balance of ower a roaches and disco(rses on sec(rity and soverei-nty2 a common attern has emer-ed which de ends ( on the identification of threats and of an #other%. This is what Rasm(ssen has called a #ne-ative e istemolo-y% of eace.*" Similarly2 +ilmer has ar-(ed in the conte$t of former I(-oslavia that reconstr(ction and reconciliation and the constr(ction of


#otherness% lays a )ey role. This is most often layed o(t in a disco(rse of moral s( eriority vers(s inferiorityE #Sim(ltaneo(sly2 the international comm(nity! has been artic(lated by +estern states< eo le as a normative s ace2 in art by definin- the international.comm(< s(b5ect! as distinct from bac)ward2 indi-eno(s eo!.*& There is an im ortant oint here in that the eaceb(ildin- consens(s and -overnance have been constr(cted as ways aro(nd the incessant roblem of seeineace as a ne-ative e istemolo-y revolvin- aro(nd short term #threat assessments%. +hether they have achieved this2 or merely re laced it with a new im erial soverei-nty ?in the words of Hardt and :e-ri@** is a matter of some debate. Peace2 however2 has lon- been a olicy -oal as Goo er oints o(t.*0 S(ch a roaches are indicative of a critical and ost.modern constr(ction of a co(nter debate to the -eneral mainstream essentialisation of ne-ative e istemolo-ical ass(m tions abo(t eace that it is to be fo(nd in rotective sec(ritisation disco(rses within the traditional liberal2 realist2 and str(ct(ralist traditions. Brawin- on the wor) of critical theorists and ost.str(ct(ralists2*1 who themselves draw ( on ;o(ca(lt2 =ramsci2 Habermas and others2 an emanci atory ro5ect in IR vis.J.vis eace has emer-ed which can be fo(nd in the wor) of an eclectic ran-e of theorists from Go$ to +al)er2 Hin)later2 and Ber Berian2 to name b(t a few. This challen-e to the mainstream can be constr(cted in terms of the creation of a ositive e istemolo-y of eace2 and one which attem ts to avoid Orientalism and totalism2 while still as irinto the la(sibility2 if not ossibility of (niversalism. Part of the roblem with this a roach is its com le$ity. >(t this is also where its so histication lies. The reco-nition of the sheer com le$ity both of conflict2 and of the eace ro5ects of internationals is necessary. This is es ecially so in the li-ht of stron- evidence that the red(ctionist strate-ies of the internationals in the conte$t of the eaceb(ildinconsens(s2 are tro(bled across the world. and that the liberal eace is in ractice often little more than a #virt(al eace%. Indeed2 this loo)s very similar to the notion of im erial soverei-ntyK more s ecifically2 the increasin- #non. lace% of em ire2 incor oratin- ro-ressively bl(rrin- distinctions between inside and o(tside2 and s( orted by a notion of #omni.crisis%.*4 Goo er2 for e$am le2 sees the world as divided into the re.modern2 modern2 and ost.modern2 in which a new im erialism is /(ite la(sible and may effectively be e/(ated with the constr(ction of the liberal eace.*6 Iet this is a common misconce t(alisation. and techni/(e. re resentin- the liberal eace as a distinct brea) with ast versions of eace. It also resents the liberal eace as a critical or ost.modern emanci atory ro5ect2 which is very d(bio(s. The liberal eace has clear and (nambi-(o(s contin(ities with earlier versions and disco(rses. The liberal eace is -enerally (nderstood to be -eo-ra hically limited2 often to be achieved in or for the f(t(re2 le-itimates the (se of force for its ends2 and is (nderstood in o osition to threats. >oth the acts of definin- and constr(ctin- eace are therefore he-emonic acts de endent ( on international instit(tionalisation2 -overnance2 and re-imes2 and the dominant threat disco(rses resent in the international system. This seems to be the main thr(st of the act of definin- or ro5ectin- eace. This reaffirms the claim that eace is ontolo-ically (nstable as a conce t and sho(ld be reco-nised as s(ch both by those inside the machinery of its constr(ction and those see)in- to (nderstand and e$ lain it. The different and


dominant ontolo-ies of eace ill(strate that fact that eace is often based ( on totalisin-2 (niversal claims which are both self.referential and (nder.develo ed. Aany assertions abo(t eace are act(ally a forms of Orientalism in that they de end ( on actors which )now eace creatin- it for those that do not2 either thro(-h their acts or more basically thro(-h the eace disco(rses that are em loyed to describe conflict and war as located in o osition to a-ents of eace. As Howard has ar-(ed2 eace and war are derived from erce tions. Aost eo le conce t(alise eace as a satisfaction with their lot in the conte$t of what he ar-(es are rather basic e$ ectations.08 However2 there are also those who ar-(e that eace m(st be attained rather than reserved2 th(s indicatin- rather more so histicated demands for the nat(re of eace.07 Th(s eace2 in Howard%s words2 becomes a vis(alisation of a social order in which war is controlled and (ltimately abolished2 s ecifically in the conte$t of western enli-htenment and ost. enli-htenment thin)in-.02 It is of little s(r rise that the olitical and social instit(tions of both war and eace always coe$ist. +ar and eace are both social and olitical inventionsE0" b(t war is -enerally seen as abnormal. Perha s it mi-ht also be that the tendency to ass(me the virt(o(sness of the liberal eace is abnormal. +hat also becomes clear is that eace needs to be 5($ta osed with a non. eace sit(ation in order to have any meanin-. Fither this is a sit(ation of violence or war2 or a threat. Th(s eace can be 5($ta osed a-ainst systemic war2 or sim ly a-ainst the m(lti le sec(rity iss(es that war creates for states and individ(als2 or it can be 5($ta osed a-ainst threats s(ch as those seen in ethnic se aratism or in the (se of terrorism a-ainst the state. As Ber Berian has ointed o(t m(ch of US official rhetoric in recent times has lin)ed the creation of eace with a revol(tion in military affairs2 with technolo-y and mobility.0& Power is still ine$tricably lin)ed with eace as well as war2 the im lication bein- that war may be necessary for eace. After the attac)s on the US on 6<77<2887 the restrictions introd(ced in liberal states to combat the threat of symbolic forms of terrorism and to reserve the he-emony of the liberal state2 be-an to (ndermine the very freedoms of the liberal eace. The tas) became one of how to reserve this eace while retainin- sec(rity.0* It is no s(r rise then that2 as =ore 'idal ar-(ed in an essay entitled >lac) T(esday!2 since the end of ++II the US has been involved in what he called a # er et(al war for er et(al eace% on h(ndreds of fronts2 all of them initiated by the US.00 +hat this leaves o en is what ty e of eace the #RAA% hel s constr(ct. In this sense2 eace merely becomes a disco(rse de loyed to le-itimate a res onse to erceived threats2 war2 conflict2 and even h(manitarian catastro he. As the sociolo-ist +illiam =raham S(mner has ar-(ed2 a (niversal (nderstandin- of eace may be a fallacyE It is a fallacy to s( ose that2 by widenin- the eace -ro( more and more2 it can at last embrace all man)ind. +hat ha ens is that2 as it -rows bi--er2 differences2 discords2 anta-onisms2 and war be-in inside of it on acco(nt of the diver-ence of interests.!01 In other words2 as eace s reads it colla ses. Peace is contested. Peace becomes war. +ar becomes eace. .irtual Peace! .irtuous Peace Rather than startin- with the roblems ca(sed by conflict2 war2 (nderdevelo ment2 and so forth2 a research a-enda is needed which starts with the ty e of eace


envisa-ed in a artic(lar sit(ation and at a artic(lar level analysis2 by artic(lar actors whether they are intervenin- or are local actors. This re/(ire e$tensive and on-oin- cons(ltation and research in order to develo these ideas so that they are ready to be ne-otiated2 acce ted2 re5ected2 and constr(cted when and where becomes necessary. +hen internationals en-a-e in conflict 3ones2 one of the first /(estions they mi-ht as) of dis (tants at the many different levels of the olity2 mi-ht be what ty e of eace co(ld be envisa-ed, +or)in- towards s(ch an e$ licit end -oal wo(ld be of -reat benefit both to internationals and reci ients of intervention. This wo(ld have to occ(r in the e$ licit conte$t of res onses to the root ca(ses of the conflict2 meanin- that eaceb(ildin- occ(rs at two startin- oints. Rather than merely be-innin- from the identification of the root ca(ses of the conflict2 it wo(ld conc(rrently b(ild eace from the ers ective of the s ecific notion of eace deemed to be a ro riate for the s ecific environment. This a ro riateness wo(ld be ne-otiated from the ers ective of the internationals2 c(stodians2 and other interventionary actors2 and of co(rse2 local actors. +here one set of actors co(ld not a-ree2 the other wo(ld com ensate2 ( on the e$ licit (nderstandin- that this wo(ld be merely an interim ?and ossibly illiberal@ meas(re. Glearly2 the (se of strate-ies and theories for (nderstandin- conflict2 war and terrorism that do not move beyond the strate-ic analyses of state interest r(ns the ris) of remainin- #virt(al%. As re resented in ;i-(re 22 the tendency a ears to be for interventions to enter a conflict environment somewhere within the conservative cate-ory2 and to as ire to move towards the orthodo$ framewor) where the liberal eace becomes self.s(stainin-2 more concrete2 and the internationals can withdraw. Iet2 the reality. a arent from the >al)ans to Fast Timor. is that intervention foc(ses ( on the creation of the hard shell of the state and rather less so on establishin- a wor)in- society2 com lete with a viable economy.04 This res(lts in a virt(al eace. one which loo)s li)e the virt(o(s orthodo$ liberal eace from the o(tside2 b(t loo)s and feels li)e its more conservative version from the inside. es ecially from the oint of view of those who are e$ eriencin- it.06 Indeed2 the ossibility is that the #virt(o(s% distinction between eace and war2 which creates a sit(ation of virt(al eace2 is e$ licitly advanta-eo(s for western liberal states and their interventionary olicies in that this allows the s( erficial distinction based ( on domestic and international (blic law to obsc(re the fact that in reality2 on the -ro(nd in many arts of the world2 eace and war are synonymo(s in act(ality. as Orwell and ;o(ca(lt have already ointed o(t. Indeed2 war to create the liberal eace. the victory of #democratic theory%. (nderlines e$actly this. >(t2 is the democratic eace in ost.conflict societies m(ch more than a virt(al constr(ction by o(tsiders for the cons(m tion of their own a(diences, Of co(rse2 m(ch has been achieved in conflict 3ones by the a-ents of the eaceb(ildin- consens(s2 b(t these achievements are mainly meas(red by their own framewor)s and standards. It is also clear that the internationals% re resentation of their achievements is often s)ewed in favo(r of what donors and the main actors in the international comm(nity want. The eace bein- constr(cted in the vario(s contem orary conflict 3ones aro(nd the world loo)s very different from the ers ectives of local comm(nities2 olities2 economies2 and officials. This is clear in the disco(rses abo(t eace that are in evidence2 and is em hasised by the fact that these disco(rses are so rarely ac)nowled-ed. In a rather Orientalist manner2 western olitical tho(-ht and olicy has re rod(ced a science and methodolo-y of eace based ( on olitical2 social2 economic2 c(lt(ral2 and le-al framewor)s2 by which conflict in the world is 5(d-ed and dealt with. Indeed2 this is an e$ ression of he-emony. a tem ered victor%s eace in which its a-ents and its


reci ients clamo(r to be heard and to infl(ence the o(tcome. The ost.=ramscian notion of l(ral #he-emonies%18 enca s(lates the liberal eace as a form of both m(lti le he-emonies and a sin-le dominant disco(rse romoted by owerf(l states. Peace can be roblem.solvin- or emanci atory2 b(t in either case it is always laden with a-endas related to actors% interests and ob5ectives. In this sense2 a virt(al eace may be of a roblem.solvin- character des ite its #virt(o(s% claims to be emanci atory. S(ch claims have to be made on behalf of someone or somethin- and the voices of the mar-inali3ed are often swam ed by s(ch he-emonic voices. >eca(se the liberal eace is virt(al and hi-hly interventionary2 it en-enders a whole ran-e of debates abo(t he-emony2 the moral e/(ivalence of interveners and the reci ients of intervention2 the motivations of interveners and reci ients in their relationshi 2 ne(trality2 im artiality2 and conditionality. Iet2 most wor) dealin- with eace both directly or indirectly fails to resent a wor)in- definition of the eace that is bein- ima-ined2 nor en-a-e with any of the e istemolo-ical2 methodolo-ical2 or ontolo-ical iss(es it raises. To down a roaches to the creation of eace have been based ( on a mi$ of idealism associated with h(manitarianism and thro(-h olitical2 social and economic interventions2 and the militarist strate-ies associated with the realist ro5ect. This has increasin-ly ta)en the form of military occ( ation. A-ain2 this re resents a hybrid of the civil2 constit(tional2 instit(tional2 and victor%s strands of thin)in- abo(t eace. It is in this conte$t that it becomes clear that the liberal eace may well be a virt(al eace2 certainly in its more conservative forms2 des ite ?or beca(se of@ the fact that it is based ( on dee .rooted intervention in -overnance. This is2 essentially2 a form of rehabilitation of im erial d(ty and a liberal im erative. The to down constr(ction of the liberal eace dominates the e istemic comm(nity en-a-ed in the constr(ction of the instit(tions the liberal eace2 which treads a narrow ath between de endency2 conditionality2 and s(stainability. is often resented as a transitional hase b(t a final o(tcome may remote. The liberal eace le-itimates the (se of force and e$ternal lon-.term -overnance2 b(t eace witho(t e$ternal -overnance may not be achieved. Peace has th(s been transformed from a ossibly (nobtainable (to ia colo(red by the ideolo-y and norms of the erceiver to an ob5ectified -rad(ation of the liberal eace. an act(ally e$istin- and obtainable eace ro a-ated thro(-h an e istemic eaceb(ildincomm(nity2 involvin- olitical2 social2 economic2 and even c(lt(ral intervention thro(-h e$ternal -overnance. F$aminin- a research a-enda on the nat(re of eace rather than merely the nat(re of conflict and intermediate res onses2 rovides a m(ch clearer vision of the s ecific ro5ect of eace im lied and en-a-ed with by s ecific intellect(al and olicy a roaches to international order2 war2 and conflict. It (nderlines the ossibilities of this ro5ect. in this case of the liberal eace. and its )ey roblems. The -rad(ations of the liberal eace are im licit in the constr(ction of eace in the contem orary era b(t dan-ers in this ro5ect have become a arent2 not least the relationshi and indeterminacy of forms of eace and war. ;or eace to be acce tably transformed2 it first needs to be (nderstood2 ne-otiated2 and mediated2 in fora desi-ned for m(lti le voices and free comm(nication. This rocess is still little more than embryonic endorsin- recent and critical claims abo(t a re-(lative and distrib(tive2 b(t hi-hly conditional (nderstandin- of2 contem orary liberal eace as he-emonic.17 This eace ro5ect needs to res ond to the s(s icion that #NHOiberalism destroys democracyD%12 and that different forms and com onents of the liberal eace may effectively be incoherentD%. Ironically2 the liberal eace treads a fine line between a coercive eace based ( on #Dwars to determine once and for all what is -ood for all2 wars with no o(tcome e$ce t an end to


olitics and the liberation of differenceD.% 1" and a eace based ( on consens(al2 (niversal -overnance. The IR ro5ect seems to have become wra ed ( mainly in the disc(ssion of war and the roblems of international order constr(ction2 and threats to this ro5ect2 rather than foc(ssin- more directly on eace. The conflict st(dies ro5ect has remained tr(e to the disc(ssion of the roots of violence and how to identify and lacate them2 and the eace st(dies ro5ect2 a art from the notable democratic eace ro5ect2 has li)ewise mainly foc(sed ( on the roots of violence and their revention. +hat this essay has (nderlined is that there is a need for a research a-enda on the different com onents of the liberal eace ?as well as any ossible alternatives@2 and how they interact with each other2 as there is m(ch evidence to show that this interaction may often be ne-ative. There has been little research on the nat(re of the liberal eace ro5ect and few attem ts to disa--re-ate its com onents. +e need to )now how one -ains consent for it2 how it is le-itimated2 how actors learn in this conte$t2 how h(man ri-hts2 h(manitarian assistance and aid2 democratisation2 develo ment2 free mar)et reform and -lobalisation act(ally fit to-ether2 how they overla 2 and where they may im ede each other. If we claim we now #)now% what eace is2 then this is ine$c(sable.

I ta)e res onsibility for all errors in this essay as is the c(stom. Than)s -o Roland >lei)or2 Gostas Gonstantino(2 Lason ;ran)s2 ALR =room2 Ian Hall2 'ivienne Labri2 ;arid Airaba-heri2 :ic) Ren--er2 Ghandra Sriram2 RL> +al)er2 Alison +atson2 and Peter +allensteen. I wo(ld li)e to than) the many eo le2 local and international2 rivate or official2 who were willin- to tal) to me d(rin- the co(rse of my fieldwor). I am also -ratef(l to the Heverh(lme Tr(st2 the Garne-ie Tr(st2 and the R(ssell Tr(st for rovidin- f(ndin- for vario(s arts of the fieldwor). 2 Oliver Richmond is a Reader in the School of IR2 University of St. Andrews2 U9. This essay is based in art ( on his new st(dy2 The Transformation of Peace ?Pal-rave2 forthcomin- 288*@. He can be contacted on o " Po e Lohn Pa(l II2 2*th ;ebr(ary 7647. Part of an inscri tion at the Hiroshima Peace Par)2 Hiroshima2 La an. The irony of this is of co(rse that a western and mainly Ghristian state was res onsible for the (se of the n(clear wea ons a-ainst La an. & #Peace to the (ndefeated% or the victor%s eace. Inscribed on the Tomb of the Un)nown Solider in St. Aary%s Gathedral2 Sydney2 A(stralia. * Gredited to =. 9. Ghesterton. 0 ;or more on the (se of this methodolo-y and on the val(e of disc(rsive analysis2 see Roland >lei)er2 Popular Dissent, Human Agency, and lobal Politics2 Gambrid-eE GUP2 28882 es . introd(ction. 1 This is essentially what Aandelba(m calls the combination of eace2 democracy and free mar)ets. Aichael Aandelba(m2 The !deas that "on#uered the $orld2 :ew Ior)E P(blic Affairs2 28822 .0. See also Aar) B(ffield2 lobal overnance and the %e& $ars2 HondonE Qed >oo)s2 28872 .77E Roland Paris2 At $ars 'nd2 Gambrid-eE GUP2 288&. These ass(m tions as also revalent in most olicy doc(mentation associated with eace and sec(rity iss(es2 s(ch as2 Report of the (ecretaryenerals High )evel Panel on Threats, "hallenges, and "hange2 United :ations2 288&E !nternational "ommission on !ntervention and (tate (overeignty2 The Res onsibility to Protect!2 OttawaE International Bevelo ment Research Gentre2 2887. 4 Roland Paris2 *p+"it+, .74.28. 6 See for e$am le2 Lac) Snyder2 ,rom -oting to -iolence2 HondonE +.+. :orton2 28882 .&"K 9ofi Annan2 Democracy as an !nternational !ssue2 *p+"it+, .7"0K Larat Gho ra and Tan5a Hohe2 Partici atory Intervention!2 lobal overnance2 'ol. 782 288&2 .262K Bavid Rieff, A .ed for the %ight2 HondonE 'inta-e2 28822 .78K Roland Paris2 International Peaceb(ildin- and the #Aission Givilisatrice%!2 Revie& of !nternational (tudies2 vol.2 242 :o. &.2 28822 .0"4. 78 ;or more on these contrib(tory strands2 see Oliver P. Richmond2 *p+"it+, Gha ter 7 R2. 77 !bid+, Gha ters 72 22 &2 and *. 72 This is clearly the case when one considers the sco e of the official re orts and doc(mentation release by IOs2 A-encies2 I;Is2 and :=Os on their aims and ob5ectives2 tho(-h they m(st also be read in the conte$t of their need to wor) within their own constit(tion framewor)s which have normally been constr(cted with a revio(s set of riorities and constraints in mind. >o(tros =hali%s Agenda for Peace ?U:E 7662@ was erha s the best e$am le of this. 7" See for an infl(ential st(dy on this2 Aary >. Anderson2 Do %o Harm/ ho& aid can support peace - or &ar, >o(lderE Hynne Rienner P(blishers2 7666. 7& >enedict Anderson2 !magined "ommunities/ Reflections on the *rigin and (pread of %ationalism, :ew Ior)2 :IE 'erso2 764". 7* Saint A(-(stine2 "ity of od, MIM2 7"2 72 HondonE Pen-(in Glassics2 7667. 70 ;or an interestin- disc(ssion of s(ch tensions see =abriella Slom 2 Hobbes2 ;eminism2 and Hiberalism!2 Political St(dies Association2 University of =las-ow2 7660. 71 See C(incy +ri-ht2 The (tudy of $ar2 University of Ghica-o Press2 760&2 es . .71&. 74 !bid+2 .2*1. 76 See in artic(lar2 Aar) B(ffield2 lobal overnance and the %e& $ars2 HondonE Qed >oo)s2 28872 .77. 28 See The Alle-ory of the Gave!2 The Republic of Plato2 Translated by ;rancis AacBonald Gornford. O$fordE O$ford University Press2 76&7.

27 22

Aartin Geadal2 Thin0ing about Peace and $ar, O$fordE OUP2 76412 .&.*. ;or more on these as ects of the ost Gold +ar order2 see Ian Glar)2 The Post- "old $ar *rder2 O$fordE OUP2 28872 .270.2&7. 2" ;or an e$ lanation of this consens(s see Oliver P. Richmond2 U: Peace O erations and the Bilemmas of the Peaceb(ildin- Gonsens(s!2 in !nternational Peace0eeping, 'ol.78. :o.&2 288&. 2& ;rancis ;()(yama2 (tate .uilding/ overnance and *rder in the T&enty ,irst "entury, HondonE Profile2 288&2 .*". 2* Aar-eret F. 9ec) R 9athryn Si))ind2 Activists .eyond .orders2 Gornell University Press2 76642 .$i. 20 Some notable e$e tions are Larat Gho ra2 and Tan5a Hohe2 Partici atory Intervention!2 lobal overnance2 'ol. 782 288&K Roland Paris2 At $ars 'nd2 Gambrid-eE GUP2 288&K H(nd2 Aichael S2 +hat 9ind of Peace is >ein- >(iltE Ta)in- Stoc) of Post. Gonflict Peaceb(ildin- and Ghartin;(t(re Birections!2 Paper presented on the 12th Anniversary of Agenda for Peace, International Bevelo ment Research Gentre2 Ottawa2 Ganada2 Lan(ary 288". 21 Aichel ;o(ca(lt2 =overnmentality!2 inE =raham >(rchell2 Golin =ordon2 R Peter Ailler ?eds.@2 The ,oucault 'ffect/ (tudies in overnmentality2 Hemel Hem steadE Harvester +heatsheaf2 76672 .78". 24 Oliver P. Richmond2 3aintaining *rder, 3a0ing Peace2 HondonE Pal-rave2 28822 es . concl. 26 Lohn Aearsheimer2 The ;alse Promise of International Instit(tions!2 in A.F. >rown2 Owen R. Goates2 Sean A Hynn.Lones R Steven F. Aillar2 Theories of $ar and Peace2 Gambrid-e2 AAE AIT Press2 7664. "8 =. Lohn I)enberry2 After -ictory2 PrincetonE Princeton University Press2 28872 .270.2&7. "7 Bavid Held2 Democracy and the lobal *rder2 Gambrid-eE Polity2 766*2 .ii$. "2 This fo(nd its seminal e$ ression in +oodrow +ilson2 Address to the Senate2 Lan(ary 72th 76712 in Arth(r S. Hin) et al ?ed.@2 The Papers of $oodro& $ilson2 'ol. &82 PrincetonE Princeton University Press2 764"2 .*"0.1. "" Thomas Po--e2 $orld Poverty and Human Rights2 Gambrid-eE Polity2 28822 .66. Po--e ar-(es that severe overty co(ld be revented by the rich witho(t m(ch of an effect ( on their own wealth. "& !bid+2 .27&. "* This clichS has often been /(oted to me d(rin- interviews with officials d(rin- fieldwor). "0 ;or more on this see Bavid Ghandler2 ,rom 4osovo to 4abul/ Human Rights and !nternational !ntervention2 HondonE Pl(to2 2882. "1 See for e$am le2 Aichael =. Smith2 Peace0eeping in 'ast Timor2 GoloradoE Hynne Rienner2 288"2 .0" "4 See Statement by Lac/(es R( ni) ?"entre d5'tudes et de Recherches !nternationales@2 F(ro ean Parliament2 Gommittee on ;orei-n Affairs2 2* Lan(ary 288*2 htt E<<e(ro a.e(. (n.or-<articles<sl<articleT&20*Tsl.htm "6 ;or an indication of these roblems2 see amon- others Roland Paris2 At $ars 'nd2 *p+"it+E Ale$ >ellamy and Pa(l +illiams2 Peace O erations and =lobal Order!2 !nternational Peace0eeping2 'ol 782 :o.&.2 288&K Bavid Ghandler2 ,rom 4osovo to 4abul/ Human Rights and !nternational !ntervention, HondonE Pl(to2 2882K Larat Gho ra2 and Tan5a Hohe2 Partici atory Intervention!2 lobal overnance2 'ol. 782 288&K F. Go(sens and G. 9(mar2 Peacebuilding as Politics2 >o(lder2 GOE Hynne Rienner2 2887K Richard Ga lan2 A %e& Trusteeship6 The !nternational Administration of $ar-torn Territories, The Adel hi Pa ers 2 OUP2 2882. &8 This was the concl(sion reached by many of my interviewees2 official and non.official d(rinfieldwor) in the >al)ans in Lan(ary2 288*. &7 ref &2 This oint was made by Baniel ;earn, Personal !ntervie&2 ;orei-n and Gommonwealth Office2 Hondon2 7" Lan(ary2 288&. &" President Manana =(smao2 Peace)ee in- and Peaceb(ildin- in Timor Heste!2 (eminar on the role of the 7% in Timor )este2 Bili2 20th :ovember2 288&.


See Bavid Ghandler2 The Responsibility to ProtectE !mposing the 8)iberal Peace!2 in Ale$ >ellamy and Pa(l +illiams2 Peace O erations and =lobal Order!2 !nternational Peace0eeping2 'ol.77.2 no.7.2 288&2 .08. &* R.L. R(mmel2 The 9ust Peace2 GaliforniaE Sa-e2 76472 .77. ;or anthro olo-ical evidence on this matter2 see Raymond G. 9elly2 $arless (ocieties and the *rigins of $ar2 Ann ArborE University of Aichi-an Press2 28882 .784. &0 Henry 9issin-er2 A $orld Restored2 HondonE +eidenfeld and :icolson2 76*12 .7. &1 !bid+2 .7. &4 See2 for e$am le2 Aichael +al3er2 Thic0 and Thin/ 3oral Argument at Home and Abroad, So(th >end2 Ind.E :otre Bame University Press2 7660. &6 Anthony =iddens2 3odernity and (elf !dentity in the )ate 3odern Age, Gambrid-eE Polity Press2 76672 ."*.06. *8 Ian Glar)2 *p+"it+, .270.2&7 *7 Ai))el 'edby Rasm(ssen2 The $est, "ivil (ociety, and the "onstruction of Peace2 HondonE Pal-rave2 288"2 .71&. *2 See R.>.L +al)er2 !nside: *utside/ !nternational Relations as Political Theory2 Gambrid-eE GUP2 7662. *" Ai))el 'edby Rasm(ssen2 *p+"it+, .77". *& ;ran)e +ilmer2 The Social Reconstr(ction of Gonflict and Reconciliation in the ;ormer I(-oslavia!2 in (ocial 9ustice, 'ol.2&.2 :o.&.2 .6*. ** See Aichael Hardt and Antonio :e-ri2 'mpire2 Gambrid-e2 AAE Harvard University Press2 28882 . 74".28&. *0 Robert Goo er2 The .rea0ing of %ations2 HondonE Altantic >oo)s2 288"2 .777. *1 See for e$am le2 Andrew Hin)later2 The Transformation of Political "ommunity2 University of So(th Garolina Press2 7664K 'ivienne Labri2 Discourses on -iolence2 AUP2 7660K Roland >lei)er2 Popular Dissent, Human Agency, and lobal Politics2 Gambrid-eE GUP2 2888K Ai)e P(-h2 Peace)ee in- and Gritical Theory!2 "onference Presentation at .!(A2 HSF2 Hondon2 70.74 Becember2 2882K Bavid Gambell2 $riting (ecurity2 Ainnea olisE University of Ainnesota Press2 7662K Rob +al)er2 !nside:*utside/ !nternational Relations as Political Theory2 Gambrid-e University Press2 766"K Lames Ber Berien2 -irtuous $ar, >o(lder2 GOE +estview Press2 2887K Robert +. Go$2 USocial ;orces2 States and +orld OrdersE >eyond International Relations TheoryU2 3illennium/ 9ournal of !nternational (tudies2 'ol. 782 :o. 22 7647. *4 See Aichael Hardt and Antonio :e-ri2 *p+"it+, . 74".28&. *6 Robert Goo er2 *p+"it+, .2*. 08 Aichael Howard2 The !nvention of Peace and the Reinvention of $ar2 HondonE Profile2 28872 .*. 07 !bid+2 .0. 02 !bid+2 .0.1. 0" Aar-aret Aead2 $arfare is *nly an !nvention.%ot a .iological %ecessity2 ?76&8@ in Bo(-las H(nt ?ed+;, The Dolphin Reader! ?2nd edition@2 >ostonE Ho(-hton Aifflin Gom any2 76682 . &7*.&27. 0& Lames Ber Berian2 Introd(ction to Pa(l 'irilio2 Desert (creen2 HondonE Gontin((m2 28822 .$iv 0* ;or more on symbolic terrorism see Oliver P. Richmond Realisin- He-emony, :ew +ars2 :ew Terrorism2 and the Roots of Gonflict!2 Terrorism and "onflict (tudies. 'ol.202 :o.&2 288". 00 =ore 'idal2 >lac) T(esday!2 in The )ast 'mpire, HondonE Abac(s2 28822 ."70."2&. 01 See +illiam =raham S(mner2 $ar and *ther 'ssays2 :ew Haven2 Gonn.E Iale University Press2 7677. 04 Indeed2 m(ch of my fieldwor) ill(strates that the foc(s of internationals is on the state2 and that the economic and social conditions in which individ(als live comes a very oor second. 06 This clearly seemed to be the case in the fieldwor) I (ndertoo) loo)in- at these /(estions in the >al)ans and Fast Timor in 288& and 288*. 18 C(intin Hoare R =eoffrey :owell.Smith ?Fds.@2 (elections from the Prison %oteboo0s of Antonio ramsci2 Hawrence R +ishart2 .*0.*6. 17 Ian Glar)2 *p+"it+, .2&4.


Tracy Stron-2 ;oreword to Garl Schmitt2 The "oncept of the Political2 Ghica-oE University of Ghica-o Press2 76602 .$$iii. 1" Garl Schmitt2 !bid+, .06.