Political Sociology of International Interventions: Peacebuilders and the Ground

Abstract

This special issue, instead of questioning what effect peacebuilding interventions have on post-conflict societies, analyses what the ground of intervention does to peacebuilders. It demonstrates that everyday interactions on the ground shape the interveners and even the scope of their missions. We delineate how a political sociology approach might break away from binaries ('internationals/locals') and, instead, illuminate processes (of internationalization and localization). We intend to offer a political sociology of the 'intervention encounter', that is, to scrutinize the everyday interactions among peacebuilders and between peacebuilders and domestic actors, and to investigate effects of the ground on peacebuilding organizations, doctrines and decision-making processes, as well as on peacebuilders' trajectories, positions, professional practices and representations. In fine, we explore how peacebuilders' relations to the ground structure the socio-professional field of peacebuilding.

Peacebuilders and the Pandemic

“…Futamura et al (2010) consider that "liberal institutionalist peacebuilding often neglects the welfare needs of local populations and fails to engage with indigenous traditional institutions" (p.3). Moreover, Daho et al (2019) explain that peacebuilders' "on-site encounters" and their "access to, interest for, or knowledge of" the location of their peacebuilding projects affects peacebuilding missions (p.254). For example, in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, Duclos and Jouhanneau claim that peacebuilders interactions with "hosts, interpreters [and] colleagues", combined with an imprecise mandate, resulted in the peacebuilding mission reproducing "civil/military divides" (as cited in Daho et al, 2019, p.254).…”

Localisation Across the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus

“…Reflecting on the work of women’s NGOs in Syria, where many Syrian-led organisations must register in other countries in order to operate and often also work in neighbouring countries, Al-Abdeh and Patel (2019) ask a pertinent question:What do we mean (and what do international humanitarian actors and the rest of the international community mean) when we say an organisation is ‘local’? Because some ‘local actors’ in practice may actually have quite complex transnational organisational and regulatory frameworks so they can do their work.Recent research challenges reductionist binary categories of “international” and “local” peacebuilding actors, with attention rather paid to complex processes of internationalisation and localisation (Daho et al, 2019). The label of “international” is usually applied to Northern actors, yet, especially in the Arab in which regional powers such as United Arab Emirates and Qatar have recently played a major role in all forms of conflict response, the definitions of regional and international interveners are blurred.…”

“…Recent research challenges reductionist binary categories of "international" and "local" peacebuilding actors, with attention rather paid to complex processes of internationalisation and localisation (Daho et al, 2019). The label of "international" is usually applied to Northern actors, yet, especially in the Arab in which regional powers such as United Arab Emirates and Qatar have recently played a major role in all forms of conflict response, the definitions of regional and international interveners are blurred.…”

Capitalising on UNSCR 1325: The Construction of Best Practices for the Women, Peace and Security Agenda

“…In tracing the construction of Nepal's National Action Plan on WPS as an internationally accepted and emulated best practice case 1 , we have made several contributions to further understanding how policy ideas travel globally and how policy entrepreneurs, active in (trans)national civil society organisations make claims of authority over the 'local' and 'global'. We have shown how policy entrepreneurs deploy both their international capital and their capital of proximity (Daho, Duclos, and Jouhanneau 2019) to shape policy narratives into best practices for international consumption and to establish their own status in the global WPS community. In doing so, we offer a new way of thinking about why and how member states adopt 1325 NAPs.…”