No abstract

This opening literature review connects hybrid calls and criticisms to the development of peacebuilding debates at large. First, it briefly presents some of peacebuilding’s ontological aspects, as they may be found both in academia and practice. With such a contrasting framework at hand, the following section explains some core arguments in the existing literature in favour of adopting hybrid peacebuilding. Lastly, voices are raised to show how hybridity has been criticised both within its own circles and by others. Showcasing the various aspects of peacebuilding, and hybridity specifically, this chapter sets the stage for a new set of discussions in the subsequent chapters.

The concept of hybridity sheds light on the complexity of conflict settings. It helps to analyse the participation of all parties and actors involved and entangled in a social network of normative and political power, while avoiding theoretical binaries that over-simplify the process of post-conflict peacebuilding. What lacks, however, is a practical application of hybridity in peacebuilding that actively engages with bottom/local or grassroots, top/national and international actors through mediation in the mid-space to create sustainable peace. Given this practical shortcoming of hybridity, this chapter examines mid-space actors as gatekeepers and their capacities to enable dialogue among opposing parties. The aim is to offer insights for the international community, as outside intervenors, in promoting the bridge-building potentialities of gatekeepers. Specifically, externally led efforts to engage with the specific skill sets of mid-space local actors are explored. It is argued in this chapter that such engagement provides a favourable environment for sustaining peace by overcoming power struggles in and around the mid-space.

This chapter focuses on Japan’s approach to peacebuilding, and examines its ability to emerge as a hybrid peacebuilding facilitator. To test this potential, three cases of Japan’s engagement with mid-space actors are studied. By reviewing Japan’s flagship projects in Timor-Leste, Myanmar and Mindanao, the chapter shows that Japan holds the ability to establish trust-relationships with top/national leaders of the aid-recipient countries through its apolitical, request-based, non-intrusive and long-term commitment approaches that Japanese actors display. At the same time, Japanese actors operating at the local/bottom are able to develop relationships with mid-space actors through providing them with important know-how and resources. This practice has allowed Japan to engage with conflict-affected societies where and when access of other donors was denied, which gave Japan an advantage in supporting local bridge-building initiatives. In short, this chapter demonstrated how Japan could bridge between Western donors and aid-recipient countries in Southeast Asia. While several shortcomings of the Japanese approach such as the limited inclusion of stakeholders and unequal distribution of peace dividend are identified in this chapter, it concluded that Japan could emerge as a hybrid peacebuilding facilitator if these shortcomings were addressed.

The concluding chapter summarises the findings of the previous chapters and presents their common assertions. The goal is to evaluate whether the existent gap between hybrid peacebuilding theory and its practice has been successfully closed. Building upon a complexity-informed framework of hybrid emergence, the mid-space actor typology is developed to link between an analytical framework and practical application. This volume has demonstrated that mid-space actors can provide viable focal points for establishing resilient and self-sufficient social institutions from within without dictating the content of such emergences. The case studies of Cambodia and Mindanao were examined to assess the on-the-ground operation of mid-space actors, and the cases of China and Japan illuminated how the conceptual framework of hybridity could improve contemporary peacebuilding models.