Diffusion, contestation and localisation in post-war states: 20 years of Western Balkans reconstruction

Abstract

This special issue explores norm diffusion, contestation and localisation in the contexts of political transition in general and post-war peacebuilding specifically. It engages with critical moments in which international diffusion endeavours meet local politics of norm contestation in societies undergoing post-war and/or post-authoritarian transitions. The 'third wave' of norm research offers an agency-based approach to the negotiation and contestation of the meaning of norms that is consistent with work in peacebuilding studies on the meeting between international norms and local realities in post-war contexts. By honing in on the 'normative powers' of local agents, their perspectives and capacities, and how these contribute to norm construction, the special issue provides theoretical and conceptual advances to capture these transition processes in the context of the Western Balkans.

Comparing how peace operations enable or restrict the influence of national staff: Contestation from within?

“…Peacebuilding takes place at critical moments, when ideas about future forms of government and policies are in flux. In this context, authors emphasize the ‘normative power’ of local actors who negotiate and contest the meaning of international norms and adjust them to local conflict realities (Groß, 2015; Tholens and Groß, 2015). Authors also problematize that ‘frictions’ can emerge during this process (Millar et al, 2013; Schia and Karlsrud, 2013).…”

“…A growing literature addresses the role of local agents in the context of local ownership (e.g., Donais, 2012; Von Billerbeck, 2015, 2017; Wilén and Chapaux, 2011), local knowledge generation (e.g., Bliesemann de Guevara and Kostić, 2017; Bueger, 2015; Da Costa and Karlsrud, 2012, 2013; Verkoren, 2006), and contestations between international and local norms (e.g., Björkdahl and Gusic, 2015; Björkdahl and Höglund, 2013; Hellmüller, 2013; Millar et al, 2013; Tholens and Groß, 2015). This literature hints to, but has not fully explored, the possibility that the interaction and possible friction between international and local ideas and norms might not be taking place at the boundary between a peace operation and its environment, but right within the organization.…”

“…The assumption is that if peacebuilders were better able to integrate the ‘“banality” of the everyday challenges’ (Mac Ginty, 2014: 548), this would lead to better peacebuilding (Hirblinger and Simons, 2015). Others, however, warn that frictions may emerge when international and local norms meet (Björkdahl and Gusic, 2015; Björkdahl and Höglund, 2013; Hellmüller, 2013; Millar et al, 2013; Schia and Karlsrud, 2013; Tholens and Groß, 2015).…”

Narratives of Support and Resistance: A Political Psychological Analysis of the Implementation of UNSCR 1325 in Bosnia and Herzegovina

“…Much of this literature has a technical focus on implementation modes and suggests that the slow progress of implementation is the result of the top‐down, state centric efforts and analyses (Shepherd, ). The failure of implementation is not seen on this horizontal level, but rather on the vertical level of how norms translate (Zimmermann, ; Zwingel, ), localize (Acharaya, ; Tholens & Groß, ), and are appropriated (Großklaus, ) in local contexts, that is, how local contexts influence the meanings of norms (Wiener, ). Some scholars have looked more specifically at the negotiation of norms in the postconflict space (Björkdahl, ; Björkdahl & Gusic, ; Groß, ; Tholens & Groß, ; Zimmermann, ), and these studies show that these spaces open up for substantial negotiation over the prescriptions and parameters of international global norms; it is a time where norms of the past are negotiated against envisioned norms for the future.…”

The EU and Contested Statehood in its Near Abroad: Europeanisation, Actorness and State-building

“…By their own nature, cases of state formation (and associated statebuilding) involve a high degree of normative contestation (Tholens and Gross 2015). External interference in this process can never be 'neutral' and/or neatly separated from wider discussions over the limits of state sovereignty in international politics (Weber 1995) and the boundaries of legitimate intervention by the international community.…”