Keywords:
Local Turn, Critical Peace Studies, Peacebuilding, Liberal Peace, Local Appropriation, Subjectivation Processes, Local Capacity BuildingCopyright (c) 2024 Gonzalo Vitón
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
This paper approaches the debates on the 'local turn' in peace studies from the perspective of critical studies in International Relations. The main objective is to explore the meaning of these debates for peace studies and what are the contributions and challenges that have been made from critical studies, as well as to introduce two alternatives that allow us to think about the local turn from a different perspective: local capacity building processes and processes of subjectivation for the reconstruction of intervened societies. In these debates of the 'local turn', the concept of local ownership has become a central element when dealing with issues related to peacebuilding and post-conflict processes. This concept of local ownership has been present in the literature and practice of peacebuilding mainly in the last three decades, specifically from the crisis of the peace model in the 1990s. Through a qualitative analysis based on a critical review of the existing literature on the debates of the 'local turn', we seek precisely to reflect from critical peace studies on the concept of local appropriation, its main potentialities and challenges, its link with peace studies, as well as some of the alternatives to this concept. Throughout this analytical process, the different elements of the concept of local appropriation are studied, with emphasis on the protagonists of local appropriation processes, as well as on the operationalization of the concept in the field. From the reflection on the protagonists of local ownership and the challenges they generate for the theory and practice of peacebuilding, the need to think of alternatives that respond to these challenges that, from the local ownership, are not being produced is perceived. Two of the alternatives discussed in this article are, on the one hand, the construction of local capacities and, on the other hand —linked to postcolonial perspectives and proposals— the processes of subjectivation and the reconstruction of intervened societies. The approach of these alternatives seeks, therefore, to respond to the challenges generated by the use in theory and practice of the concept of local appropriation, which carries with it a whole series of implications of the distinction between the international and the local, of preconceived images we have about what local space means and how it is constituted, as well as a series of challenges linked to the concept of 'civil society' such as the paradox of selectivity. To address this objective of exploring the meaning of the debates on the local turn and the contributions that have been made from critical studies in International Relations, the text is divided into three main parts. The first part summarizes the emergence of the 'local turn' debates in the 1990s and some of the factors that explain the emergence and development of these debates in both academia and practice. In the second part, once the emergence is explained, these 'local turn' debates are linked to peace studies. This linkage is important, because peace studies has become one of the fields where the debates on the 'local turn' have been most developed at both the theoretical and practical levels, along with other fields such as, for example, development. Finally, in the third part, critical perspectives on the 'local turn' are addressed. This third part is much more extensive and is therefore divided into four sections in order to better address the challenges and contributions from the critical studies. The first section analyzes the meaning of local ownership in peacebuilding, pointing to the variety of meanings that the concept acquires in this field, and the reasons for this variety. In the second section, partly in response to this variety of meanings, the protagonists of local appropriation are addressed. For this approach, firstly, the implications of the distinction between international and local are studied, secondly, the preconceived images of local space and how this influences the concept of local ownership are analyzed and, thirdly, the challenges of the concept of 'civil society' and what some authors call the 'paradox of selectivity' are unraveled. The third section deals with the operationalization of the concept of local ownership on the ground, one of the most problematic elements in the practice of peacebuilding in the last three decades, mainly because it is carried out within the framework of liberal peace. Finally, the fourth section of the third part explores two alternatives to the approach of local appropriation processes in peacebuilding. On the one hand, local capacity building processes are analyzed as a first alternative to the concept of local ownership. On the other hand, and based on postcolonial proposals in peacebuilding, the processes of subjectivation and reconstruction of intervened societies are analyzed as a second alternative to the concept of local appropriation. It is concluded that the approach to these debates of the 'local turn' demands, in the first place, a critical reflection on the concept of local ownership and the need to propose alternatives to this concept that allow us to face the challenges posed by the practice of the 'local turn' in peacebuilding. Secondly, that this whole process of critical reflection invites us and allows us to reflect on the very nature of what we mean by peace, and what peace we are building in the different post-conflict scenarios. Above all, after more than three decades in which peace operations have attempted to implement, with greater or lesser success, actions that seek to involve local populations affected by conflict scenarios. In short, it is a matter of putting the debates on the 'local turn' in perspective, in order to provide a framework from which to continue the task of critical reflection that will allow us to find answers to the challenges posed by the participation of local actors in peacebuilding and post-conflict processes, of which they are the protagonists.
Downloads
References
Andersen, L. (2006). Post-Conflict security sector reform and the challenge of ownership – The case of Liberia. Danish Institute for International Studies Brief.
Anderson, M.B. y Olson, L. (2003). Confronting war: critical lessons for peace practitioners. The Collaborative for Development Action.
Barnett, M. y Zürcher, C. (2009). The peacebuilder’s contract: how external statebuilding reinforces weak statehood. En Paris, R. y Sisk, T.D. (Eds.). The dilemmas of statebuilding. Confronting the contradictions of postwar peace operations (pp. 23-52). Routledge.
Bernhard, A. (2013). Dynamics of relations between different actors when building Peace. The role of hybridity and culture. Berghof Foundation.
Bush, K.D. (1996). Beyond bungee cord humanitarianism. Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne d’études du développement, 17 (4), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.1996.9669681
Chandler, D. (2012). Resilience and human security: The post-interventionist paradigm. Security Dialogue, 43 (3), 213-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010612444151
Chesterman, S. (2007). Ownership in theory and in practice: Transfer of authority in UN statebuilding operations. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1 (1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502970601075873
Crescentino, D. y Vitón, G. (2020). Historia del tiempo presente: la triple frontera entre pasado, presente y futuro. Un análisis desde la historia oral y los marcos normativos. História da Historiografia, 13 (33), 273-308. https://doi.org/10.15848/hh.v13i33.1529
Dillon, G.M. y Reid, J. (2009). The liberal way of war. Killing to make life live. Routledge.
Donais, T. (2008). Understanding local ownership in security sector reform. En Donais, T. (Ed.). Local ownership and security sector reform (pp. 3-18). Lit Verlag.
Donais, T. (2011). ¿Empoderamiento o imposición? Dilemas sobre la apropiación local en los procesos de construcción de paz posconflictos. Relaciones Internacionales, 16, 47-72.
Dubois Migoya, A. (2019). La propuesta alternativa desde el enfoque de las capacidades. Conceptos y marco de análisis. En Alberdi, J., Casimiro, I., Cunha, T., Dubois, A., Fernández, G., Jubeta, Y., Larrañaga, M., Oianguren, M. y de Pinho Valle, L. (Coords.). Territorios en conflicto. Claves para la construcción de alternativas de vida. Gernika Gogoratuz.
Hansen, A.S. (2008). Local ownership in peace operations. En Donais, T. (Ed.). Local ownership and security sector reform (pp. 39-58). Lit Verlag.
Harto de Vera, F. (2016). La construcción del concepto de paz: paz negativa, paz positiva y paz imperfecta. Cuadernos de Estrategia, 183, 119-146.
Huang, R. y Harris, J. (2006). The nuts and bolts of post-conflict capacity building: Practicable lessons from East Timor. Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, 2 (3), 78-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15423166.2006.181516694598
Hughes, C. y Pupavac, V. (2005). Framing post-conflict societies: international pathologisation of Cambodia and the post-Yugoslav states. Third World Quarterly, 26 (6), 873-889. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590500089232
Jabri, V. (2013). Peacebuilding, the local and the international: a colonial or a postcolonial rationality? Peacebuilding, 1 (1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2013.756253
Jacobsen, E.K.U. y Lidén, K. (2012). Theoretical challenges for assessing socio-cultural sensitivity in governance and conflict resolution. En Galvanek, J.B.; Giessmann, H.J. y Mubashir, M. (Eds.). Norms and premises of peace governance. Socio-cultural commonalities and differences in Europe and India. Berghof Occasional Paper, 32, 25-30.
Lederach, J.P. (1997). Building peace: sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of Peace Press.
Lederach, J.P. (2007). La imaginación moral. El arte y el alma de la construcción de la paz. Gernika Gogoratuz y Bakeaz.
Leonardsson, H. y Rudd, G. (2015). The ‘local turn’ in peacebuilding: a literature review of effective and emancipatory local peacebuilding. Third World Quarterly, 36 (5), 825-839. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1029905
Mac Ginty, R. y Richmond, O. (2013). The local turn in peace building: a critical agenda for peace. Third World Quarterly. 34 (5), 763-783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.800750
Martin, A. y Wilson P. (2008). Security sector evolution: which locals? Ownership of what? En Donais, T. (Ed.). Local ownership and security sector reform (pp. 83-104). Lit Verlag.
Mateos Martín, O. (2011). La construcción de paz posbélica. Análisis de los debates críticos a través del caso de Sierra Leona (Tesis doctoral). Universidad de Barcelona.
Mateos Martín, O. (2019). La ‘paz liberal’, el día después. Un análisis de la segunda generación de críticas a la agenda internacional de construcción de paz. En Pérez de Armiño, K. y Zirion Landaluze, I. (Coords.). Pax Crítica. Aportes teóricos a las perspectivas de paz posliberal (pp. 45-85). Tecnos.
Narten, J. (2008). Post-conflict peacebuilding and local ownership: dynamics of external-local interaction in Kosovo under United Nations administration. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2 (3), 369-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502970802436361
Nathan, L. (2007). No ownership, no commitment: a guide to local ownership of security sector reform. University of Birmingham.
Pérez de Armiño, K. (2016). La tensión entre lo global y lo local en los procesos de construcción de paz: aportes para una paz cosmopolita. En García i Segura, C. (Coord.). La tensión cosmopolita: avances y límites en la institucionalización del cosmopolitismo (pp. 291-321). Tecnos.
Pérez de Armiño, K. (2019). La paz tiene lugar. Poder, agencia y transformación del espacio en la construcción de paz. En Pérez de Armiño, K. y Zirion Landaluze, I. (Coords.). Pax Crítica. Aportes teóricos a las perspectivas de paz posliberal (pp. 125-166). Tecnos.
Pouligny, B. (2005). Civil society and post-conflict peacebuilding: ambiguities of international programmes aimed at building ‘new’ societies. Security Dialogue, 36 (4), 495-510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010605060448
Pouligny, B. (2009). Supporting local ownership in humanitarian action. Global Public Policy Institute and Center for Transatlantic Relations. http://www.disastergovernance.net/fileadmin/gppi/GPPiPPR_local_ownership_2009.pdf
Randazzo, E. (2016). The paradoxes of the ‘everyday’: scrutinizing the local turn in peace building. Third World Quarterly, 37 (8), 1351-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1120154
Richmond, O.P. (2008). Peace in International Relations. Routledge.
Richmond, O.P. (2010). A genealogy of peace and conflict theory. En Richmond, O.P. (Ed.). Palgrave advances in peacebuilding. Critical developments and approaches (pp. 14-38). Palgrave Macmillan.
Richmond, O.P. y Mitchell, A. (2012). Introduction. Towards a post-liberal peace: exploring hybridity via everyday forms of resistance, agency and autonomy. En Richmond, O.P. y Mitchell, A. (Eds.). Hybrid forms of peace. From everyday agency to post-liberalism (pp. 1-37). Palgrave MacMillan.
Sabaratnam, M. (2017). Decolonising intervention. International statebuilding in Mozambique. Rowman & Littlefield.
Scheye, E. y Peake, G. (2005). Unknotting local ownership. En Ebnöther, A.H. y Fluri, P.H. (Eds.). After intervention: public security management in post-conflict societies. From intervention to sustainable local ownership (pp. 235-260). Bureau for Security Policy y CDCAF.
Schwarz, R. (2005). Post-conflict peacebuilding: The challenges of security, welfare and representation. Security Dialogue, 36 (4), 429-446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010605060447
Sending, O.J. (Ed.). (2010). Learning to build a sustainable peace: ownership and everyday peacebuilding. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
Tschirgi, N. (octubre, 2004). Post-conflict peacebuilding revisited: achievements, limitations, challenges. Trabajo presentado en el WSP International/IPA Peacebuilding Forum Conference, Nueva York.
Vitón, G. (2023). Conflicto y paz en Mozambique entre Frelimo y Renamo (2012-2019): un análisis desde la apropiación local. 1991. Revista de Estudios Internacionales, 5 (1), 49-60.