July 08, 2022
The need for peacebuiliding in post-conflict societies grew out of the realization that true and enduring peace requires more than just signing agreements to stop the fighting. But while many of peacebuilding’s objectives seem self-evident, it is often laborious and expensive—and easily undone. Learn more when you subscribe to World Politics Review (WPR).
French President Emmanuel Macron delivers a speech at the opening session of the Paris Peace Forum at the Villette Conference Hall in Paris, France, Nov. 11, 2018 (SIPA photo by Eliot Blondet via AP Images).
The need for peacebuilding in post-conflict societies grew out of the realization that signing agreements to bring fighting to an end is a necessary but insufficient step toward true and enduring peace. Peacebuilding is now conceived of as a multistage process to strengthen the peace accord and begin unifying communities through approaches ranging from governmental capacity-building and economic development to reforms of the legal and security sectors. Each initiative is intended to be a step toward improving human security, and the process often includes a transitional justice mechanism to foster societal healing and reconciliation.
Peacebuilding is often a laborious and expensive process—and one that can easily be undone. Witness Brexit’s triggering of the long-dormant fault lines between unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland. Moreover, as peacebuilding has evolved, there is still no consensus on who should lead these efforts. In the wake of Sept. 11, the United Nations introduced a Peacebuilding Commission, intended to push for the adoption of post-conflict interventions and then aid and track their implementation. But it lacks enforcement capacity, and key member states can block its activities. Regional bodies, including the European Union and especially the African Union, have shown an interest in prioritizing post-conflict peacebuilding, but their track records are mixed.
Transitional justice initiatives have a similarly rocky history. Designed to help a society document and reckon with a legacy of human rights abuses, they can take several forms, including criminal trials, a truth commission or a reparations program. Where early initiatives, like the post-World War II trials of German and Japanese war criminals, emphasized criminal justice, more recent efforts have expanded to focus on reconciliation, healing and societal transformation. But including discussions of transitional justice mechanisms in peace negotiations can also present stumbling blocks, particularly when people who might be held accountable by such processes must take part in establishing them. There is also the broader problem of sustaining these efforts in the face of the temptation to leave painful experiences in the past.
For both peacebuilding and transitional justice initiatives, funding remains a key challenge—and a frequent excuse to stall efforts. The question of who should fund reconstruction is another regular obstacle to peacebuilding. In some cases, consensus over the need for stability drives international funding mechanisms for pledging aid—though the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to a shortfall in future pledges. In other cases, such as Syria, reconstruction funding becomes a new arena for contests over influence and power.
WPR has covered peacebuilding and transitional justice around the world in detail and continues to examine key questions about future developments. Can Colombia get peace talks with its last major rebel group back on track? What lessons can countries draw from success stories, like Liberia, that appear to have successfully pivoted from conflict to peacebuilding? Will a global consensus emerge on who should lead post-conflict peacebuilding efforts and how to manage them? Below are some of the highlights of WPR’s coverage.
Since the end of Northern Ireland’s conflict in 1998, many victims’ families have been battling to bring those responsible for atrocities to justice, or simply to find out what happened all those years ago. Now, many fear a new bill being rushed through the U.K. parliament is about to close off all hope of future redress.
Ending the Fighting
The first step toward building peace is ending war. But while self-evident, it is easier said than done. The mistrust and grievances that led to conflict are often exacerbated during the course of the fighting, making one or both sides unwilling to put down their weapons. Often, too, outside powers seeking to advance their own interests block or undermine efforts to bring the warring parties to the table. And even when peacekeeping forces are deployed to a conflict zone, they are often ineffective. But despite these obstacles, efforts to end conflict are preferable to doing nothing.
- What a series of recent attacks mean for southern Thailand’s peace process, in Despite Recent Attacks, Southern Thailand’s Peace Talks Are Making Progress
- Why the time might be ripe for bringing Ethiopia’s civil war to an end, in Ethiopia Just Might Have a Chance for Peace
- Why Libya’s political transition is beginning to unravel, in Libya’s Transition Out of Civil War Has Stalled
- What the war in Ukraine means for the prospects of multilateral crisis management and intervention in other global hot spots, in The War in Ukraine Will Make It Harder to Manage the World’s Other Crises
Making Peacebuilding Sustainable
Peacebuilding involves a suite of initiatives that a range of actors, from the government to civil society organizations, pursue. The idea, ultimately, is to transform the beliefs or systems that sparked violence in the first place. It is generally seen as a three-step process that begins first with basic efforts, like removing weapons, before transitioning to a period of rebuilding.
- Why a new U.S. approach to peacebuilding might be a case of too little, too late, for Libya, in Libya Will Put Washington’s New Peacebuilding Strategy to the Test
- What the return of violence means for Colombia’s demobilized FARC guerrillas, in War Returns to Colombia’s Countryside
- Why eight years after a U.N. peacekeeping mission and six years after initial peace agreements, peace still hasn’t come to the Central African Republic, in The Central African Republic’s Prospects for Peace and Democracy Are Fading
- What’s driving violence between rival insurgent groups on Colombia’s border with Venezuela, in Colombia’s ‘Peace Dividend’ Isn’t Paying Off
Promoting Truth, Reconciliation and Transitional Justice
Transitional justice mechanisms can be an essential element of the third dimension of peacebuilding. Just because two warring parties have agreed to silence their guns does not mean they will meaningfully pursue efforts to reckon with atrocities they have committed and consider how—or whether—to hold perpetrators accountable. Efforts to do so in Africa, with regard to recent conflicts, and Latin America, for atrocities committed by authoritarian regimes from the 1960s until the 1980s, have had mixed results when it comes to delivering justice to victims.
- Why victims of Gambia’s former dictator might soon be seeing justice done, in Gambia’s Plans to Prosecute Jammeh Are Sparking New Hopes for Justice
- Why it took the U.S. so long to designate state violence in Myanmar against the Rohingya a genocide, in Washington’s Rohingya Genocide Declaration Is Five Years Too Late
- How the failure to reintegrate former ISIS fighters and sympathizers into Iraqi society continues to haunt the country’s reconciliation efforts, in Iraq—and the West—Haven’t Finished the Job of Defeating ISIS
- How the refusal to normalize ties with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad comes with costs for its population, in Punishing Assad Shouldn’t Stand in the Way of Helping Syrians
The ICC and Its Discontents
Understanding that not every country is going to be in a position to reckon with human rights abuses—particularly when the people committing those abuses cling to power—the global community created the International Criminal Court. The ICC is designed to provide an alternative outlet for victims seeking justice, but also for securing reparations for the crimes committed against them. But the ICC is currently under fire from skeptics in Africa, who object to the court’s so-far exclusive focus on African defendants. It also drew the ire of officials in the Trump administration who saw it as a threat to U.S. sovereignty.
- Why the ICC may be the best hope for Afghan women under Taliban rule, in The Taliban’s Gender Apartheid Is a Case for the International Criminal Court
- What’s driving the recent resurgence in cases brought under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, in Universal Jurisdiction Is Making a Comeback
- What a new head prosecutor means for the ICC, in Can a New Chief Prosecutor Revitalize the ICC?
- How the ICC could play a central role in Afghanistan’s peace process, in An ICC Investigation Into War Crimes Is Key to Securing Peace in Afghanistan