The Liberal Peace Theory as a Solution for Post-Conflict Zones: A Theoretical Analysis

Year 2017, Volume: 17 Issue: 34, 248 - 263, 31.10.2017

Emrah Özdemir

https://doi.org/10.30976/susead.334489

Abstract

The
current situation in post-conflict zones illustrate that liberal statebuilding
policies as well as critical perspectives are inadequate to build sustainable
and viable alternatives. Critical concepts - such as hybridity, everyday peace
and local-centred- as well as the liberal peace thesis, have become a kind of
orthodoxy in the literature. Although these critical concepts offer alternative
human-centric solutions, in most conflict zones they seem inapplicable due to
harsh and violent socio-political and economic conditions. This article makes
an in-depth analysis of the Liberal Peace Theory as the facilitator of
contemporary peacebuilding experiences and justification of the liberal
interventions. The paper aims to illustrate the necessity of a contingency
approach which considers the contextual differences of various post-conflict
zones. This contingency approach rejects the orthodoxy of the liberal peace
theory and its justifications as well as its criticisms having hegemonic
perspectives in the literature.    

Keywords

Liberal Peace Theory, Peacebuilding, Statebuilding, Post-conflict

ÇATIŞMA SONRASI BÖLGELERE YÖNELİK BİR ÇÖZÜM OLARAK LİBERAL BARIŞ TEORİSİ: TEORİK BİR İNCELEME

Abstract

Çatışma-sonrası bölgelerde yaşanmakta olan olumsuz durumlar,
liberal devlet inşası politikalarının olduğu kadar bunların eleştirilerinin de
uygulanabilir ve sürdürülebilir çözümler üretilmesi konusundaki
yetersizliklerini ortaya koymaktadır. Hibrit çözümler, gündelik barış ve yerel
merkezli yaklaşımlar gibi eleştirel konseptlerö liberal barış teorisi gibi
literatürde bir .eşit ortodoksi haline gelmiştir. Bu eleştirel konseptler insan
merkezli çözümler öneriyor olsalar da, ağır ve şiddetin yoğun olarak yaşandığı
sosyo-politik ve ekonomik şartlar nedeniyle bir çok çatışma-sonrası alanda
uygulanabilir görünmemektedir. Bu makale, günümüz barışinşası deneyimlerinin temel
dayanağı ve liberal müdehalelerin meşrulaştırıcısı olan Liberal Barış
Teorisinin derinlemesine bir analizini yapmaktadır. Çalışmada, çatışma-sonrası
alanların yapısal farklılıklarını dikkate alan durumsal bir yaklaşımın
gerekliliğini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu durumsal yaklaşım, liberal
barış terosisi ve onu meşrulaştırmaya yönelik yaklaşımlar kadar literatürde
hegemonik hale gelen eleştirel yaklaşımların ortodoksisini de reddetmektedir.

Keywords

Liberal Barış Teorisi, Barışinşası, Devletinşası, Çatışma-sonrası

References

• Beitz, C. R. (2000). Rawls's Law of Peoples, Ethics, 110(4).
• Bellamy, A. J., & Wheeler, N. J. (2011). Humanitarian intervention in World politics, in J. Baylis, S. S. & Owens P. (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics (5th ed.), 510-527, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bell, C. (2011). Civilianising warfare: ways of war and peace in modern counterinsurgency, Journal of International Relations and Development, 14(3), 309-332.
• Boutros-Ghali, B. (1992). An agenda for peace: Preventive diplomacy and other matters, New York: United Nations.
• Burchill, S. and Linklater, A. (2005). Theories of international relations, Macmillan: Basingstoke.
• Chandler, D. (2010). The uncritical critique of ‘liberal peace’, Review of International Studies, 36(S1).
• Collier, P. and Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war, Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4).
• Danilovic, V. and Clare, J. (2007). The Kantian liberal peace (revisited), American Journal of Political Science, 51(2).
• Doyle, M. W. (1983a). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3).
• Doyle, M. W. (1983b). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(4).
• Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of war and peace: realism, liberalism, and socialism, London: Norton.
• Doyle, M. W. (2005). Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace, The American Political Science Review, 99(3).
• Doyle, M. W. (1993). Liberal peace: selected essays, New York: Routledge.
• Doyle, M. W. (2015). The question of intervention: John Stuart Mill and the responsibility to protect. Yale University Press.
• Havel, V., & Tutu, D. M. (2012) Introduction, in J. Genser & I. Cotler (Eds.), The Responsibility to Protect: The Promise of Stopping Mass Atrocities in Our Time, xv-xxvi, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Huntley, W. L. (1996). Kant's third image: Systemic sources of the liberal peace, International Studies Quarterly, 40(1).
• Jahn, B. (2005). Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs, International Organization, 59(01).
• Kant, I. (1997). Toward Perpetual Peace a Philosophical Essay (M. C. Smith, Trans.), London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
• Lee, S. and Özerdem, A. (2015). Introduction, in Lee, S. and Özerdem, A. (eds). Local ownership in international peacebuilding: Key theoretical and practical issues, Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1-16.
• Mac Ginty, R. (2011a). International peacebuilding and local resistance: hybrid forms of peace, Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mac Ginty, R. (2011b). Hybrid Peace: How does hybrid peace come about?, in S. Campbell, D. C. & Sabaratnam, M. (Eds.), A Liberal Peace?, London: Zed Books, 209-225.
• Marshall A. (2010). Imperial nostalgia, the liberal lie, and the perils of postmodern counterinsurgency. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 21(2), 233-258.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. and Walt, S. M. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations, European Journal of International Relations, 19(3).
• Nadarajah, S. and Rampton, D. (2015). The limits of hybridity and the crisis of liberal peace, Review of International Studies, 41(1), 49–72
• Newman, E., Paris, R. and Richmond, O. P. (2009). New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding, New York: United Nations University Press.
• Paris, Roland (2002) International peacebuilding and the ‘mission civilisatrice’. Review of International Studies, 28(04), 637-656.
• Paris, R. (2004). At war's end building peace after civil conflict, Cambridge University Press, accessed February 20, 2016, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/swansea/Doc?id=10131730.
• Paris, R. (2009). Does liberal peacebuikding have a future?, in E. Newman, O. P. Richmond & R. Paris (Eds.), New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding, Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 96-111.
• Paris, R. (2011a). Critiques of Liberal Peace, in Campbell S., Chandler D. and Sabaratman M. (eds) A Liberal Peace?, London: Zed Books.
• Paris, R. (2011b). “Alternatives to liberal peace?” In S. Campbell, D. Chandler & M. Sabaratnam (Eds.), A Liberal Peace?, London: Zed Books, 159-173.
• Porch, D. (2010). The dangerous myths and dubious promise of COIN: Keynote address at the CIHM Congress. Netherlands: Institute for Military History.
• Pugh, M. (2002). Postwar political economy in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The spoils of peace, Global Governance, 8(4).
• Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples; with, "The idea of public reason revisited", Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Richmond, O. P. (2009). A post-liberal peace: Eirenism and the everyday, Review of International Studies, 35(03), 575-578.
• Richmond, O. P. and Franks, J. (2011). Liberal peace transitions: between statebuilding and peacebuilding, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Richmond, O. P., (2011a). A post-liberal peace, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon England; New York: Routledge.
• Richmond, O. P., (2011b). Resistance and post-liberal peace, in S. Campbell, D. Chandler & M. Sabaratnam (Eds.), A Liberal Peace, London: Zed Books, 226-244.
• Rummel, R. J. (1983). Libertarianism and International Violence, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27(1).
• Spiro, D. E. (1994). The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace, International Security, 19(2).
• Welsh, J. M. (2006). Conclusion: the evolution of humanitarian intervention in international society. In J. M. Welsh (Ed.), Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations, 176-188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wilson, W. (1917). Address delivered at Joint Session of the Two Houses of Congress. Paper presented at the Address delivered at Joint Session of the Two Houses of Congress U.S. 65th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document 5, US Congress.