Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Challenging Liberal Peacebuilding, as Part of Liberal Internationalism

  • Chapter
Building States, Building Peace

Part of the book series: Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies ((RCS))

  • 156 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides the conceptual framework employed in the critique of liberal peacebuilding and, more broadly, liberal internationalism presented in this book. The core of the critique focuses on the primary case study, the 2002 peace process in Sri Lanka, which was an unsuccessful attempt at conflict resolution for various reasons, despite the unprecedented degree of internationalization involved. The critique addresses the weaknesses of the technocratic model of what I call a global peacebuilding doctrine, which in fact lacked the necessary domestic and regional recognition from its inception. A key question posed here is how ‘global’ liberal peacebuilding can be when in reality it is so unrepresentative of the local context where it is applied? The false preconception of domestic and regional acceptance in the Sri Lankan case was reinforced with by the conviction in the righteousness and global applicability of the doctrine of liberal peace. The military termination of Sri Lanka’s ethno-political conflict supports the view that the promoters of liberal peace sought peace at any cost, as I discussed throughout this book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. S. Hoffman (1995) ‘The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism’, Foreign Policy, 98: 160–161.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The concept of ‘democratic peace’ was originally conceived in the framework of maintaining a ‘zone of peace’ among Western liberal states during the 1980s/1990s: democracy would account for democratic peace following cultural/normative and structural/institutional models. For more, see M. Brown et al. (eds) (1996) Debating Democratic Peace (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ayoob, Mohammed (2002) ‘Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty’, International Journal of Human Rights, 6 (1): 82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. S. D. Krasner (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton (NJ: Princeton University Press), p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Weber’s seminal definition of legitimacy is: ‘phenomenon that a social order enjoys “the prestige of being considered binding” and “that the ruled-over voluntarily accept the domination relationship”’. Weber (1978: 31), cited in J. Steffek (2000) ‘The Power of Rational Discourse and the Legitimacy of International Governance’, EUI Working Paper, November 2000, San Domenico, Florence: European University Institute, p. 6. Mark Suchman defines legitimacy as ‘a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions’. Mark Suchman (1995), cited in I. Hurd (1999) ’Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics’, International Organization, 53 (2): 379–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. S. D. Krasner (2007) ‘Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States’ in C. Crocker, F. O. Hampson and P. R. Aall (eds) Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World (United States Institute of Peace, Washington: USIP Press), p. 654.

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. Lewis (2010) ‘The Failure of a Liberal Peace: Sri Lanka’s Counter-insurgency in Global Perspective’, Conflict, Security and Development, 10 (5): 647–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. See N. Chandoke (2008) ‘Exploring the Right to Secession: The South Asian Context’, South Asia Research, 28 (1): 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. R. Venugopal (2003) ‘The Global Dimensions of Conflict in Sri Lanka’, QEH Working Paper Number 99, February 2003, Oxford: Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford. The UN Resolution 2160 (XXI) on ‘Strict Observance of the Prohibition of Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, and of the Right to Peoples to Self-Determination’ from 1966, as well as the UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) on the ‘Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’ from 1970 refer to this.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See D. Rauschning, K. Wiesbrock and M. Lailach (eds) (1997) Key Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly 1946–1996 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  11. See K. J. Holsti (1996) The State, War, and the State of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 75

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. P. Kolsto (2006) ‘The Sustainability and Future of Unrecognized Quasi-States’, Journal of Peace Research, 43 (6): 723–740; Krasner (2007: 654).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. O. Ramsbotham, T. Woodhouse and H. Miall (2008) Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts (Cambridge: Polity Press).

    Google Scholar 

  14. R. Paris (2010) ‘Saving Liberal Peacebuilding’, Review of International Studies, 36: 337–365. Williams (2006: 2), quoted in Mac Ginty (2010) terms post–Cold War international interventions in the wake of 11 September 2001 as a ‘new liberal militancy’.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. The conceptualization of ‘international society’ by the English school is useful here. Bull, quoted in Roonfeldt (1999: 143), notes that international society ’exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions’. C. F. Roonfeldt (1999) ‘Beyond a Pluralist Conception of International Society? A Case Study on the International Response to the Conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina’, Cooperation and Conflict, 34 (2): 141–168. Hurrell later added that international society has to be understood in terms of both power and the operation of legal and moral norms.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. A. Hurrell (2007) ‘One World? Many Worlds? The Place of Regions in the Study of International Society’, International Affairs, 83 (1): 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. A. Hurrell (2006) ‘Hegemony, Liberalism and Global Order: What Space for Would-be Great Powers?’ International Affairs 82 (1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. D. Chandler (2012) ‘Resilience and Human Security: The Post-Interventionist Paradigm’, Security Dialogue, 43: 213–230. ‘Human security’ refers to a notion of security that has broadened beyond states. It implies the security of the people: their physical safety, economic and social well-being, respect for their dignity and worth as human beings, and the protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms. See ICISS report (2001: 15), cited in Ramsbotham et al. (2008), p. 148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. S. Hopgood (2008) ‘Saying No to Wal-Mart? Money and Morality in Professional Humanitarianism’, in M. Barnett and T. G. Weiss (eds) Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), p. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Ayoob (2004) ‘Third World Perspectives on Humanitarian Intervention and International Administration’, Global Governance, 10: 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Suganami (2002: 14), cited in B. Buzan (2004) From International Society to World Society?: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 223.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. K. Bajpai (2008) ‘India and the United States: Grand Strategic Partnership for a Better World’, South Asian Survey, 15 (1): 41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Transnational advocacy networks have shared principled ideas or values, and rely on the strategic use of information to garner political support. M. Keck and K. Sikkink (1998) Activists beyond Borders (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gunaratna notes how the Tamil diaspora contributed at least 60 per cent of the LTTE procurement budget. R. Gunaratna (2006) ‘Impact of the Mobilised Tamil Diaspora on the Protracted Conflict in Sri Lanka’, in K. Rupesinghe (ed.) (2006a) Negotiating Peace in Sri Lanka: Efforts, Failures & Lessons, Vol. 1 (Colombo: Foundation for Co-Existence), p. 263.

    Google Scholar 

  25. It is estimated conservatively that the Tamil diaspora in the UK, Canada and Australia combined provided USD 1.5 million a month to the LTTE. See D. Byman, P. Chalk, B. Hoffman, W. Rosenau and D. Brannan (2001) Trends in Outside Support in Insurgent Movements (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation).

    Google Scholar 

  26. For more on the Tamil diaspora-LTTE nexus see J. Becker (2006) ‘Funding the “Final War”: LTTE Extortion and Intimidation in the Tamil Diaspora’, Report, 14 March 2006, Canada/United Kingdom: Human Rights Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  27. D. C. Williams (2012) ‘Changing Burma from Without: Political Activism among the Burmese Diaspora’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 19 (1): 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. The literature on ‘new wars’ is further enlightening to this effect, particularly when linked to the greed-based argument for the survival of armed rebel groups and the prolongation of conflict. See P. Collier (2007) The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done about It (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Kaldor (2001) New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era (Cambridge: Polity Press)

    Google Scholar 

  30. D. Keen (1997) ‘A Rational Kind of Madness’, Oxford Development Studies, 25 (1): 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. C. Nordstrom (2000) ‘Shadows and Sovereigns’, Theory, Culture & Society, 17 (4): 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. K. C. Beardsley and B. McQuinn (2009) ‘Rebel Groups as Predatory Organizations: The Political Effects of the 2004 Tsunami in Indonesia and Sri Lanka’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53 (4): 624–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Saravananthan (2006), quoted in D. Somasundaram (2010) ‘Parallel Governments: Living Between Terror and Counter Terror in Northern Lanka (1982–2009)’, Journal of Asian andAfrican Studies, 45 (5): 568–583.

    Google Scholar 

  34. ‘Feeding the Tiger: How Sri Lankan Insurgents Fund Their War’, 1 September 2007, Jane’s Intelligence Review, Terrorism & Insurgency database, date accessed 9 June 2009; A. Davis (1996) ‘Tamil Tiger International’, Jane’s Intelligence Review, 8: 469–473. See also General (Rtd.) G. H. de Silva, ‘Contending Tamil Militancy: A Military Perspective’, Declassified Report, nda., Colombo, Sri Lanka.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Finnemore (1996: 2) further notes how the normative context also changes over time: as international norms and values change they bring about shifts in state interests and behaviour across the system. For more on how norms influence choices in international life see F. Kratochwil (1984) ‘The Force of Prescriptions’, International Organization, 38 (4): 685–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. For more, see O. Barak (2005) ‘The Failure of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, 1993–2000’, Journal of Peace Research, 42 (6): 719–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. R. Mac Ginty (2008) ‘Indigenous Peace-Making versus the Liberal Peace’, Cooperation and Conflict, 43 (2): 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. For more on the development of the liberal peace and the ‘peacebuilding consensus’ of liberal states, see O. Richmond (2004a)’UN Peace Operations and the Dilemmas of the Peacebuilding Consensus’, International Peacekeeping, 11 (1): 83–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. and O. Richmond (2006) ‘The Problem of Peace: Understanding the “Liberal Peace”’, Conflict, Security and Development, 6 (3): 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. M. Duffield (2001) Global Governance and the New Wars: the Merging of Development and Security (London: Zed Books), p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See A. J. Bellamy and P. Williams (2004) ‘Conclusion: What Future for Peace Operations? Brahimi and Beyond’, International Peacekeeping, 11 (1): 183–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. D. Chandler (2002) From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention (London: Pluto Press); Richmond (2004a).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ayoob (2002); Chandler (2002); R. Thakur (2004) ‘Developing Countries and the Intervention-Sovereignty Debate’, in R. M. Price and M. W. Zacher (eds) The United Nations and Global Security (New York: Palgrave Macmillan)

    Google Scholar 

  44. N. Wheeler (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Krasner (1999: 6, 40–42). See also March and Olsen who conceptualize those who see actions as driven by expectations of consequences as ‘human actors who choose among alternatives by evaluating their likely consequences for personal or collective objectives, conscious that other actors are doing likewise’. In contrast, the logic of appropriateness are ‘actions seen as rule-based … The pursuit of purpose is associated with identities more than with interests, and with the selection of rules more than with individual rational expectations’. J. G. March and J. P. Olsen (1998) ‘The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders’, International Organization, 52 (4): 949–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. T. Barkawi (2001) ‘War Inside the Free World: The Democratic Peace and the Cold War in the Third World’, in T. Barkawi and M. Laffey (eds) Democracy, Liberalism and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debate (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers)

    Google Scholar 

  47. D. Chandler (2004) ‘The Responsibility to Protect? Imposing the “Liberal Peace”’, International Peacekeeping, 11 (1): 59–81; Duffield (2001); Mac Ginty (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. R. Paris (1997) ‘Peacebuilding and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism’, International Security, 22 (2): 54–89; Richmond (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. B. E. Goldsmith (2007) ‘A Liberal Peace in Asia?’ Journal of Peace Research, 44 (1): 5–27; Paris (1997); Richmond (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Richmond understands ‘peacebuilding consensus’ in theory as a peace constituted by a neo-liberal democratizing form of external governance in post-conflict zones. Its key proponents are international organizations, institutions, agencies, NGOs and liberal states. In practice, this resembles more of a ‘dissensus’. O. Richmond (2004b) ‘The Globalization of Responses to Conflict and the Peacebuilding Consensus’, Cooperation and Conflict, 39 (2): 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. See the cases of Aceh (MoU of 2005) and Nepal (Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2006). Both are Asian countries and in the case of Aceh, the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), like the LTTE, also had secessionist intentions. M. Ahtisaari (2008) ‘Lessons of Aceh Peace Talks’, Asia Europe Journal, 6: 9–14; Whitfield (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Uyangoda notes how the defining characteristic of a ‘strategic peace’ is the strategic balance of military power between the two sides. The parties tended to evaluate any political outcomes emanating from the peace process from a partisan, strategic zero-sum perspective, which rendered them futile. J. Uyangoda (2005) ‘Transition from Civil War to Peace: Challenges of Peacebuilding in Sri Lanka’, Working Paper, November 2005, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Social Scientists’ Association.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Quinn et al. define the role of the mediator as ‘facilitator’ as ‘a channel of communication among disputing parties’. In their view ‘a mediator as facilitator makes no substantive contribution to the negotiation process but, rather, is restrained to ensuring continued, and hopefully constructive discussion and dialogue between or among disputants’. D. Quinn, J. Wilkenfeld, K. Smarick and V. Asal (2006) ‘Power Play: Mediation in Symmetric and Asymmetric International Crises’, International Interactions, 32 (4): 444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. O. Ramsbotham, T. Woodhouse and H. Miall (2008: 29); P. Wallensteen (2007) Understanding Conflict Resolution: War, Peace and the Global System (London: Sage Publications).

    Google Scholar 

  55. L. Kriesberg, Louis (2001) ‘The Growth of the Conflict Resolution Field’ in C. Crocker, F. O. Hampson and P. R. Aall (eds) Turbulent Peace: The Challenges of Managing International Conflict (Washington, DC: USIP Press), p. 416.

    Google Scholar 

  56. This is in line with the views of Katzenstein et al., which explain at length how conservative constructivists engage in a scholarly debate with rationalism. P. J. Katzenstein, J. Peter, R. Keohane and S. Krasner (1998) ‘International Organization and the Study of World Politics’, International Organization, 52 (4): 645–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mearsheimer (2001) and Waltz (1979) are key proponents of this view. J. J. Mearsheimer (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton); K. Waltz (1979) Theory of International Politics (London: McGraw-Hill).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Doyle (1983) ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12 (3/4): 205–235; Keohane and Nye (1977) support this approach. M. Doyle (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  59. R. Keohane and J. Nye (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston, MA: Little, Brown).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Keyproponents are Adler (1977); Finnemore (1996); Katzenstein (1996); Kratochwil (1984); Ruggie (1998); Wendt (1995). E. Adler (1997) ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 3 (3): 319–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. P. J. Katzenstein (1996) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (Chichester: Columbia University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  62. J. G. Ruggie (1998) ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’, International Organization, 52 (4): 855–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. A. Wendt (1995) ‘Constructing International Politics’, International Security, 20 (1): 71–81. For more on the turn to an ideational and sociological approach to international politics after the late 1980s see the special Golden Anniversary issue of the International Organization of 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. For an insightful critique of pluralism in Third World countries, including selective pluralism, see R. Rao (2010) Third World Protest: Between Home and the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 89–104.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  65. See Muni (2003) for an analysis of India’s preference for bilateral arrangements despite regional integration frameworks in place in South Asia. S. D. Muni (2003) ‘Problem Areas in India’s Neighbourhood Policy’, South Asian Survey, 10 (2): 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. B. Buzan and O. Waever (2003) Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 47.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. For more on how culture and identity matter in regions see E. Mansfield and E. Solingen (2010) ‘Regionalism’, Annual Review of Political Science, 13: 145–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. S. G. Sabhlok (2002) ‘Nationalism and Ethnicity and the Nation-state in South Asia’, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 8 (3): 24–42. Not coincidentally, Asia is ranked as the second world region with most politicized groups (mostly ethnonationalists and indigenous peoples), according to the Minorities at Risk Project.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. See T. Gurr (1993) Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press).

    Google Scholar 

  70. S. D. Muni (1993) Pangs of Proximity: India and Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Crisis, International Peace Research Institute (New Delhi: Sage Publications); Muni (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  71. See K. C. Dash (2001) ‘The Challenge of Regionalism in South Asia’, International Politics, 38: 201–228

    Google Scholar 

  72. R. Jetly (2003) ‘Conflict Management Strategies in ASEAN: Perspectives for SAARC’, The Pacific Review, 16 (1): 53–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Mansfield and Solingen (2010); L. E. Rose (1988) ‘A Regional System in South Asia: Problems and Prospects’ in R. Scalapino, S. Sato, J. Wanandi and S. Han (eds) Asian Security Issues: Regional and Global, Institute of East Asian Studies (Berkeley: University of California).

    Google Scholar 

  74. D. Balch-Lindsay, A. J. Enterline and K. A. Joyce (2008); D. Mason, J. Weingarten and P. Fett (1999); Regan (2002); Rothchild (1997); Walter (1997) are supportive of a more utilitarian and rational-choice approach to process-related aspects of conflict resolution. D. Balch-Lindsay, A. J. Enterline and K. A. Joyce (2008) ’Third Party Intervention and the Civil War Process’, Journal of Peace Research 45 (3): 345–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. D. Mason, J. Weingarten and P. Fett (1999) ‘Win, Lose, or Draw: Predicting the Outcome of Civil Wars’, Political Research Quarterly, 52 (2): 239–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. P. M. Regan (2002) ‘Third-Party Interventions and the Duration of Intrastate Conflicts’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46 (1): 55–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. D. Rothchild (1997), ‘Ethnic Bargaining and the Management of Intense Conflict’, International Negotiation, 2: 1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. B. F. Walter (1997) ‘The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement’, International Organization, 51 (3): 335–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Burton (1986: 92); Fetherston (2000); Galtung (1996: 72); Lederach (2003); Tidwell (1998: 77); Wallensteen (2007: 31) support this view. J. Burton (1986) ‘The Procedures of Conflict Resolution’, in E. Azar and J. Burton (eds) International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (Sussex: Wheatsheaf)

    Google Scholar 

  80. A. B. Fetherston (2000) ‘Peacekeeping, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding: A Reconsideration of Theoretical Frameworks’, International Peacekeeping, 7 (1): 190–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. J. Galtung (1996) Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization, International Peace Research Institute (Oslo; London: Sage Publications)

    Google Scholar 

  82. J. P. Lederach (2003) The Little Book of Conflict Transformation (Intercourse, PA: Good Books)

    Google Scholar 

  83. A. C. Tidwell (1998) Conflict Resolved? A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution (London: Continuum).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Skanland provides a discourse analysis on Norwegians’ views of Norway as a ‘peace nation’ with the 1993 Middle East peace process as a landmark event. O. H. Skanland (2010) ‘“Norway is a Peace Nation”: A Discourse Analytic Reading of the Norwegian Peace Engagement’, Cooperation and Conflict, 45 (1): 34–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Ramsbotham et al. (2008: 29–30) define mediation as ‘a voluntary process in which the parties retain control over the outcome (pure mediation), although it is sometimes combined with positive and negative inducements (mediation with muscle)’. Bercovitch further provides a comprehensive list of the characteristics of mediation irrespective of the context. J. Bercovitch (ed.) (2002) Studies in International Mediation: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Z. Rubin (New York: Palgrave Macmillan), p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  86. A. Kelleher and J. L. Taulbee (2006) ‘Bridging the Gap: Building Peace Norwegian Style’, Peace & Change, 31 (4): 479–505; Skanland (2010). This has been the case in all the conflicts in which Norway has been engaged, including high-profile ones such as in Kosovo, Palestine, Sudan and low-profile ones such as Colombia, Cyprus, Guatemala and Haiti.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. M. Morfit (2007) ‘The Road to Helsinki: The Aceh Agreement and Indonesia’s Democratic Development’, International Negotiation, 12: 111–143; Wallensteen (2007: 270).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. K. Beardsley, D. Quinn, B. Biswas and J. Wilkenfeld (2006) ‘Mediation Style and Crisis Outcomes’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50 (1): 58–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. R. Fisher and L. Keashly (1991) ‘The Potential Complementarity of Mediation and Consultation within a Contingency Model of Third Party Intervention’, Journal of Peace Research, 28 (1): 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. K. Aggestam (2002) ‘Quasi-Informal Mediation in the Oslo Channel: Larsen and Holst as Individual Mediators’ in J. Bercovitch (ed.) Studies in International Mediation: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Z. Rubin (New York: Palgrave Macmillan)

    Google Scholar 

  91. K. Beardsley, D. Quinn, B. Biswas and J. Wilkenfeld (2006); Walter (1997); I. W. Zartman (2006) ‘Negotiating Internal, Ethnic and Identity Conflicts in a Globalized World’, International Negotiation, 11 (2): 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. F. O. Hampson (1996) Nurturing Peace: Why Peace Settlements Succeed or Fail (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press); Zartman (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Barak (2005); S. Bose (2007) Contested Lands: Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Cyprus and Sri Lanka (London: Harvard University Press), pp. 4–5

    Book  Google Scholar 

  94. J. Carter (2005) ‘The Case for Engagement: An Interview with President Jimmy Carter’, Accord, Issue 16, London: Conciliation Resources

    Google Scholar 

  95. S. Williams and R. Ricigliano (2005) ‘Understanding Armed Groups’, Accord, Issue 16, London: Conciliation Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  96. L. Philipson (2005) ‘Engaging Armed Groups: the Challenge of Asymmetries’, Accord, Issue 16, London: Conciliation Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  97. J. Baylis, S. Smith and P. Owens (2008) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 166.

    Google Scholar 

  98. S. M. Saideman (2002) ‘Discrimination in International Relations: Analyzing External Support for Ethnic Groups’, Journal of Peace Research, 39 (1): 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. O. Richmond (1998) ‘Devious Objectives and the Disputants’ Views of International Mediation: A Theoretical Framework’, Journal of Peace Research, 35 (6): 709, 712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. S. Werner and A. Yuen (2005) ‘Making and Keeping Peace’, International Organization, 59 (2): 261–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. B. F. Walter (1999) ‘Designing Transitions from Civil War: Demobilization, Democratization and Commitments to Peace’, International Security, 24 (1): 127–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. J. M. Greig and P. F. Diehl (2006) ‘Softening Up: Making Conflicts More Amenable to Diplomacy’, International Interactions, 32 (4): 355–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Ahtisaari (2008); J. Uyangoda (2007) ‘Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka: Changing Dynamics’, Policy Studies 32, Washington, DC: East-West Center; Venugopal (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Carnevale alludes to the following types of social power: legitimate, informational, expert, referent, coercive, and reward power. P. J. Carnevale (2002) ‘Mediating from Strength’ in J. Bercovitch (ed.) Studies in International Mediation: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Z. Rubin (New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.), pp. 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Hampson (1992:191). The conceptualization of a ‘middle power’ has been the subject of much scholarly debate. Hurrell characterizes the ‘middle powermanship’ of Canada, Australia and the Scandinavian countries as foreign policy that emphasizes responsibility, morality and multilateralism. This differs from the foreign policy of ‘intermediate’ states — namely, emerging developing countries. A. Hurrell (2000) ‘Some Reflections on the Role of Intermediate Powers in International Institutions’ in A. Hurrell, A. F. Cooper, G. Gonzalez Gonzalez, R. Ubiraci Sennes and S. Sitaram ‘Paths to Power: Foreign Policy Strategies of Intermediate States’, Latin American Program, Working Paper 244, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Crawford’s theory of pivotal deterrence is based on uncertain behaviour, maintenance of freedom of action and keeping leverage over both sides. T. Crawford (2003) Pivotal Deterrence: Third Party Statecraft and the Pursuit of Peace (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  107. K. Beardsley, D. Quinn, B. Biswas and J. Wilkenfeld (2006); D. Balch-Lindsay, A. J. Enterline and K. A. Joyce (2008); P. M. Regan and A. Aydin (2006) ‘Diplomacy and Other Forms of Intervention in Civil Wars’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50 (5): 736–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. I. Svensson (2007) ‘Mediation with Muscles or Minds? Exploring Power Mediators and Pure Mediators in Civil Wars’, International Negotiation, 12: 229–248; Wallensteen (2007: 269); Walter (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Nye distinguishes between international power that is influential by coercion (‘hard power’ — tangible resources) and that which is influential by attraction (‘soft power’). J. Nye (2007) ‘The Place of Soft Power in State-Based Conflict Management’ in C. Crocker, F. O. Hampson and P. R. Aall (eds) Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World, United States Institute of Peace (Washington: USIP Press), pp. 389–391.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Nye further defines ‘co-optive’ or ’soft power’ when ‘one country gets another country to want what it wants … in contrast with the hard or command power of ordering others to do what it wants’. J. S. Nye (2004) Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization (Oxford: Routledge), pp. 76–77.

    Google Scholar 

  111. M. Kleiboer (2002) ‘Great Power Mediation: Using Leverage to Make Peace?’ in J. Bercovitch (ed.) Studies in International Mediation: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Z. Rubin (New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd), p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  112. B. Biswas (2006) ‘The Challenges of Conflict Management: A Case Study of Sri Lanka’, Civil Wars, 8 (1): 46–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Regan 2002; M. D. Toft (2010) ‘Ending Civil Wars: A Case for Rebel Victory’, International Security, 34 (4): 7–36; Walter (1997). Zartman and Touval highlight five sources of leverage on the part of the mediator: persuasion, extraction (the ability to produce an attractive position from each party), termination, deprivation (the ability to withhold resources from one side or to shift them to the other) and gratification (the ability to add resources to the outcome).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. W. Zartman and S. Touval (2007) ‘International Mediation’ in C. Crocker, F. O. Hampson and P. R. Aall (eds) Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World, United States Institute of Peace (Washington: USIP Press).

    Google Scholar 

  115. The credibility of the third party can be defined as ‘the extent to which disputants believe the mediator’s statements, threats, or promises and her ability to deliver the promised agreement’. See Z. Maoz and L. G. Terris (2006) ‘Credibility and Strategy in International Mediation’, International Interactions, 32 (4): 409–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. I. W. Zartman (1995) ‘Dynamics and Constraints in Negotiations in Internal Conflicts’ in I. W. Zartman (ed.) Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil Wars (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution), p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Amaia Sánchez-Cacicedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2014 Amaia Sánchez-Cacicedo

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sánchez-Cacicedo, A. (2014). Challenging Liberal Peacebuilding, as Part of Liberal Internationalism. In: Building States, Building Peace. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137274168_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation