Focusing on the disconnect between mainstream “liberal” peacebuilding and the discourses and practices of “new” and “alternative” peacebuilding actors, this article develops a nonbinary approach that goes beyond norm localization to capture the ways in which major powers influence the nature, content, and direction of normative change. Within the context of their bilateral and multilateral contributions to the “global peacebuilding order,” what forms and types of interventions are conceived by these actors as peacebuilding? How, in turn, has the substantive content of their peacebuilding practices (re)shaped norms and narratives in international peacebuilding efforts? Based on extensive empirical research of the peacebuilding policies and activities of China, Japan, and Russia, this article analyzes the way in which these “top-top” dynamics between norms embedded in the liberal narrative and major powers with competing visions can influence peacebuilding as practiced and pursued in host states. In doing so, it brings together research on global norms and peacebuilding studies and offers a simple yet analytically powerful tool to better understand the evolution of global peacebuilding order(s) and the role of rising powers in (re)shaping global governance.

In the post-Soviet neighborhood, the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union both address the common governance challenges, but there has been no institutional-level cooperation between the two unions. This total lack of cooperation on common regional and transnational challenges stands in stark contrast to the propositions of (neo-)functionalist/ rational institutionalist theories, which predict that technical cooperation on common policy challenges can emerge even among political actors who are hostile to each other. This article advances a social constructivist explanation to this puzzling phenomenon of non-cooperation and argues that actors entrapped in normative conflicts are likely to refuse functional cooperation even when there are potential mutual gains. In this vein, the article explores the oftenneglected intersection between constructivist and rationalist theories and traces the origin of the noncooperation to the diverging normative visions put forth by different regional states.

No abstract

This article traces the developments in Japan’s peacebuilding policy in Abe Shinzo’s second term (2012–2020) and presents illustrative case studies to highlight the change and continuity that occurred during this period. Although Abe is internationally known for launching a new doctrine of “active pacifism”, his reforms in international peace cooperation policy incrementally built upon the existing discourses and practices. Abe’s vision of a more proactive peacebuilding policy has also been heavily circumscribed by Japan’s Constitution.

This article problematises the status quo bias in IR socialisation research, and develops an alternative concept of competitive socialisation, through which subaltern actors internalise dominant norms, enhance their competitive edge, and enact more equalised power relations in global politics. The dominant strand of IR socialisation research mostly conceives of socialisation as a status-quo-oriented practice that reinforces the existing power hierarchy, such as teacher-student relationship. This has resulted in a one-sided theory neglecting the importance of proactive and self-directed socialisation efforts embarked upon by subaltern actors themselves. Based on an alternative sociological approach that defines socialisation as a practice of self-enhancement, this article develops the concept of competitive socialisation and articulates alternative pathways to the internalisation of dominant norms. It applies this framework to the cases of Chinese socialisation into the peacekeeping community, and Russia's socialisation into the multilateral development community. These case studies demonstrate that the holistic internalisation of dominant Western norms has enabled Beijing and Moscow to challenge the existing global power hierarchy. This, in turn, resulted in fundamental changes in their behaviours from initial norm rejection, to passive acceptance, and finally to active learning and norm internalisation.