2016/05/03

Peacebuilding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peacebuilding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Peacebuilding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peacebuilding is an intervention that is designed to prevent the start or resumption of violent conflict by creating a sustainable peace. Peacebuilding activities address the root causes or potential causes of violence, create a societal expectation for peaceful conflict resolution and stabilize society politically and socioeconomically. The exact definition varies depending on the actor, with some definitions specifying what activities fall within the scope of peacebuilding or restricting peacebuilding to post-conflict interventions.
Peacebuilding includes a wide range of efforts by diverse actors in government and civil society at the community, national and international levels to address the root causes of violence and ensure civilians have freedom from fear (negative peace),freedom from want (positive peace) and freedom from humiliation before, during, and after violent conflict.  
The tasks included in peacebuilding vary depending on the situation and the agent of peacebuilding. Successful peacebuilding activities create an environment supportive of self-sustaining, durable peace; reconcile opponents; prevent conflict from restarting; integrate civil society; create rule of law mechanisms; and address underlying structural and societal issues. Researchers and practitioners also increasingly find that peacebuilding is most effective and durable when it relies upon local conceptions of peace and the underlying dynamics which foster or enable conflict.[1]

Definition

Although peacebuilding has remained a largely amorphous concept without clear guidelines or goals,[2] common to all definitions is the agreement that improvinghuman security is the central task of peacebuilding. 
Although many of peacebuilding's aims overlap with those of peacemaking, peacekeeping and conflict resolution, it is a distinct idea. Peacemaking involves stopping an ongoing conflict, whereas peacebuilding happens before a conflict starts or once it ends. Peacekeeping prevents the resumption of fighting following a conflict; it does not address the underlying causes of violence or work to create societal change, as peacebuiding does. It also differs from peacebuilding in that it only occurs after conflict ends, not before it begins. Conflict resolution does not include some components of peacebuilding, such as state building and socioeconomic development.
In 2007, the UN Secretary-General's Policy Committee defined peacebuilding as follows: "Peacebuilding involves a range of measures targeted to reduce the risk of lapsing or relapsing into conflict by strengthening national capacities at all levels for conflict management, and to lay the foundations for sustainable peace and sustainable development. Peacebuilding strategies must be coherent and tailored to specific needs of the country concerned, based on national ownership, and should comprise a carefully prioritized, sequenced, and therefore relatively narrow set of activities aimed at achieving the above objectives."[3]
There are two broad approaches to peacebuilding.
First, peacebuilding can refer to direct work that intentionally focuses on addressing the factors driving or mitigating conflict. When applying the term "peacebuilding" to this work, there is an explicit attempt by those designing and planning a peacebuilding effort to reduce structural or direct violence.
Second, the term peacebuilding can also refer to efforts to coordinate a multi-level, multisectoral strategy, including ensuring that there is funding and proper communication and coordination mechanisms between humanitarian assistance, development, governance, security, justice and other sectors that may not use the term "peacebuilding" to describe themselves. The concept is not one to impose on specific sectors. Rather some scholars use the term peacebuilding is an overarching concept useful for describing a range of interrelated efforts.
While some use the term to refer to only post-conflict or post-war contexts, most use the term more broadly to refer to any stage of conflict. Before conflict becomes violent, preventive peacebuilding efforts, such as diplomatic, economic development, social, educational, health, legal and security sector reform programs, address potential sources of instability and violence. This is also termed conflict prevention. Peacebuilding efforts aim to manage, mitigate, resolve and transform central aspects of the conflict through official diplomacy as well as through civil society peace processes and informal dialogue, negotiation, and mediation. Peacebuilding addresses economic, social and political root causes of violence and fosters reconciliation to prevent the return of structural and direct violence. Peacebuilding efforts aim to change beliefs, attitudes and behaviors to transform the short and long term dynamics between individuals and groups toward a more stable, peaceful coexistence.  Peacebuilding is an approach to an entire set of interrelated efforts that support peace.

History

In the 1970s, Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung first created the term peacebuilding through his promotion of systems that would create sustainable peace. Such systems needed to address the root causes of conflict and support local capacity for peace management and conflict resolution.[3] Galtung's work emphasized a bottom-up approach that decentralized social and economic structures, amounting to a call for a societal shift from structures of coercion and violence to a culture of peace. American sociologist John Paul Lederach proposed a different concept of peacebuilding as engaging grassroots, local, NGO, international and other actors to create a sustainable peace process. He does not advocate the same degree of structural change as Galtung.[4]
Peacebuilding has since expanded to include many different dimensions, such asdisarmament, demobilization and reintegration and rebuilding governmental, economic and civil society institutions.[3] The concept was popularized in the international community through UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's 1992 report An Agenda for Peace. The report defined post-conflict peacebuilding as an “action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict"[5] At the 2005 World Summit, the United Nationsbegan creating a peacebuilding architecture based on Kofi Annan's proposals.[6] The proposal called for three organizations: the UN Peacebuilding Commission, which was founded in 2005; the UN Peacebuilding Fund, founded in 2006; and the UN Peacebuilding Support Office, which was created in 2005. These three organizations enable the Secretary-General to coordinate the UN's peacebuilding efforts.[7] National governments' interest in the topic has also increased due to fears that failed statesserve as breeding grounds for conflict and extremism and thus threaten international security. Some states have begun to view peacebuilding as a way to demonstrate their relevance.[8] However, peacebuilding activities continue to account for small percentages of states' budgets.[9]
The Marshall Plan was a long-term postconflict peacebuilding intervention in Europe with which the United States aimed to rebuild the continent following the destruction of World War II. The Plan successfully promoted economic development in the areas it funded.[10] More recently, peacebuilding has been implemented in postconflict situations in countries including Bosnia and HerzegovinaKosovoNorthern Ireland,Cyprus and South Africa.[11]

Components of peacebuilding

The hits included in peacebuilding vary depending on the situation and the agent of peacebuilding. Successful peacebuilding activities create an environment supportive of self-sustaining, durable peace; reconcile opponents; prevent conflict from restarting; integrate civil society; create rule of law mechanisms; and address underlying structural and societal issues. To accomplish these goals, peacebuilding must address functional structures, emotional conditions and social psychology, social stability, rule of law and ethics and cultural sensitivities.[12]
Preconflict peacebuilding interventions aim to prevent the start of violent conflict.[13]These strategies involve a variety of actors and sectors in order to transform the conflict.[14] Even though the definition of peacebuilding includes preconflict interventions, in practice most peacebuilding interventions are postconflict.[15]However, many peacebuilding scholars advocate an increased focus on preconflict peacebuilding in the future.[13][14]
There are many different approaches to categorization of forms of peacebuilding among the peacebuilding field's many scholars.
Barnett et al. divides postconflict peacebuilding into three dimensions: stabilizing the post-conflict zone, restoring state institutions and dealing with social and economic issues. Activities within the first dimension reinforce state stability post-conflict and discourage former combatants from returning to war (disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, or DDR). Second dimension activities build state capacity to provide basic public goods and increase state legitimacy. Programs in the third dimension build a post-conflict society's ability to manage conflicts peacefully and promote socioeconomic development.[16]
1st Dimension2nd Dimension3rd Dimension
  • Taking away weapons
  • Re-integrating former combatants into civilian society
  • Rebuilding basic facilities, transportation and communication networks, utilities
  • Developing rule of lawsystems and public administration
  • Building educational and health infrastructure
  • Providing technical and capacity-building assistance for institutions
  • Creating legitimate (democratic,accountable) state institutions
A mixture of locally and internationally focused components is key to building a long-term sustainable peace.[12][17] Mac Ginty says that while different "indigenous" communities utilize different conflict resolution techniques, most of them share the common characteristics described in the table. Since indigenous peacebuilding practices arise from local communities, they are tailored to local context and culture in a way that generalized international peacebuilding approaches are not.[18]
Local, customary and traditionalInternational
  • Respected local figures
  • Public dimension
  • Storytelling and airing of grievances
  • Emphasis on relationships
  • Reliance on local resources
  • Top-down: engages with national elites, not locals
  • Exclusive: deals are made behind closed doors
  • Technocratic/ahistorical basis: emphasis on 'striking a deal', 'moving on'
  • Modeled on corporate culture: reaching a deal, meeting deadlines prioritzed over relations
  • Relies on external personnel, ideas and material resources

Major organizations

Intergovernmental organizations

The United Nations participates in many aspects of peacebuilding, both through the peacebuilding architecture established in 2005-6 and through other agencies.
  • Peacebuilding architecture
    • UN Peacebuilding Commission (PBC): intergovernmental advisory body[7]that brings together key actors, gathers resources, advises on strategies for post-conflict peacebuilding and highlights issues that might undermine peace.[19]
    • UN Peacebuilding Fund (PBF): supports peacebuilding activities that directly promote post-conflict stabilization and strengthen state and institutional capacity. PBF funding is either given for a maximum of two years immediately following conflict to jumpstart peacebuilding and recovery needs or given for up to three years to create a more structured peacebuilding process.[20]
    • UN Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO): supports the Peacebuilding Commission with strategic advice and policy guidance, administers the Peacebuilding Fund and helps the Secretary-General coordinate UN agencies' peacebuilding efforts.[7]
  • Other agencies
The World Bank and International Monetary Fund focus on the economic and financial aspects of peacebuilding. The World Bank assists in post-conflict reconstruction and recovery by helping rebuild society's socioeconomic framework. The International Monetary Fund deals with post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding by acting to restore assets and production levels.[21]
The EU's European Commission describes its peacebuilding activities as conflict prevention and management, and rehabilitation and reconstruction. Conflict prevention and management entails stopping the imminent outbreak of violence and encouraging a broad peace process. Rehabilitation and reconstruction deals with rebuilding the local economy and institutional capacity.[22] The European Commission Conflict Prevention and Peace building 2001-2010 was subjected to a major external evaluation conducted by Aide a la Decisions Economique (ADE) with the European Centre for Development Policy Management which was presented in 2011.[23] TheEuropean External Action Service created in 2010 also has a specific Division of Conflict Prevention, Peacebuilding and Mediation.

Governmental organizations

USAID logo
France
  • French Ministry of Defence: operations include peacekeeping, political and constitutional processes, democratization, administrative state capacity, technical assistance for public finance and tax policy, and support for independent media
  • French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs: supports peace consolidation, including monitoring compliance with arms embargoes, deployment of peacekeeping troops, DDR, and deployment of police and gendarmerie in support of the rule of law
  • French Development Agency: focuses on crisis prevention through humanitarian action and development
Germany
  • German Federal Foreign Office: assists with conflict resolution and postconflict peacebuilding, including the establishment of stable state structures (rule of law, democracy, human rights, and security) and the creation of the potential for peace within civil society, the media, cultural affairs and education
  • German Federal Ministry of Defence: deals with the destruction of a country’s infrastructure resulting from intrastate conflict, security forces reform, demobilization of combatants, rebuilding the justice system and government structures and preparations for elections
  • German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development: addresses economic, social, ecological, and political conditions to help eliminate the structural causes of conflict and promote peaceful conflict management; issues addressed include poverty reduction, pro-poor sustainable economic growth, good governance and democracy
Switzerland
United Kingdom
  • UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office: performs a range of reconstruction activities required in the immediate aftermath of conflict
  • UK Ministry of Defence: deals with long-term activities addressing the underlying causes of conflict and the needs of the people
  • UK Department for International Development: works on conflict prevention (short-term activities to prevent the outbreak or recurrence of violent conflict) and peacebuilding (medium- and long-term actions to address the factors underlying violent conflict), including DDR programs; building the public institutions that provide security, transitional justice and reconciliation; and providing basic social services
United States
  • United States Department of State: aids postconflict states in establishing the basis for a lasting peace, good governance and sustainable development
  • United States Department of Defense: assists with reconstruction, including humanitarian assistance, public health, infrastructure, economic development, rule of law, civil administration and media; and stabilization, including security forces, communication skills, humanitarian capabilities and area expertise
  • United States Agency for International Development: performs immediate interventions to build momentum in support of the peace process including supporting peace negotiations; building citizen security; promoting reconciliation; and expanding democratic political processes[25]
  • United States Institute of Peace:

Nongovernmental organizations

  • Alliance for Peacebuilding: Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that works to prevent and resolve violent conflict through collaboration between government, intergovernmental organizations and nongovernmental organizations; and to increase awareness of peacebuilding policies and best practices
  • Berghof Foundation: Berlin-based independent, non-governmental and non-profit organisation that supports efforts to prevent political and social violence, and to achieve sustainable peace through conflict transformation.
  • Catholic Relief Services: Baltimore-based Catholic humanitarian agency that provides emergency relief post-disaster or post-conflict and encourages long-term development through peacebuilding and other activities
  • Conscience: Taxes for Peace not War: Organisation in London that promotes peacebuilding as an alternative to military security via a Peace Tax Bill and reform of the £1 billion UK Conflict, Stability and Security Fund.
  • Conciliation Resources: London-based independent organisation working with people in conflict to prevent violence and build peace.
  • Crisis Management Initiative: Helsinki-based organization that works to resolve conflict and build sustainable peace by bringing international peacebuilding experts and local leaders together
  • IIDA Women's Development Organisation is a Somali non-profit, politically independent, non-governmental organisation, created by women in order to work for peacebuilding and women’s rights defence in Somalia.
  • Initiatives of Change: global organization dedicated to "building trust across the world's divides" (of culture, nationality, belief, and background), involved in peacebuilding and peace consolidation since 1946[26] and currently in the Great Lakes area of Africa,[27] Sierra Leone and other areas of conflict.
  • International Alert: London-based charity that works with people affected by violent conflict to improve their prospects for peace and helps shape and strength peacebuilding policies and practices
  • International Crisis Group: Brussels-based nonprofit that gives advice to governments and intergovernmental organizations on the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict
  • Interpeace: Geneva-based nonprofit and strategic partner of the United Nations that works to build lasting peace by following five core principles that put people at the center of the peacebuilding process
  • Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group: Since 1992 models and supports relationships among adversaries, while creating how-to documentary films. From 2003-2007, with Camp Tawonga brought hundreds of adults and youth from 50 towns in Palestine and Israel to successfully live and communicate together at the Palestinian-Jewish Family Peacemakers Camp—Oseh Shalom - Sanea al-Salam [28]
  • Peace Direct: London-based charity that provides financial and administrative assistance to grassroots peacebuilding efforts and increases international awareness of both specific projects and grassroots peacebuilding in general;
  • Saferworld: UK-based independent international organisation working to prevent violent conflict and build safer lives;
  • Search for Common Ground: international organization founded in 1982 and working in 35 countries that uses evidence-based approaches to transform the way communities deal with conflict towards cooperative solutions;
  • Seeds of Peace: New York City-based nonprofit that works to empower youth from areas of conflict by inviting them to an international camp in Maine for leadership training and relationship building;
  • United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY Peacebuilders): The Hague-based network of young leaders and youth organizations that facilitates affiliated organizations' peacebuilding efforts through networking, sharing information, research and fundraising
  • Tuesday's Children: New York-based organization that brings together teens, ages 15–20, from the New York City area and around the world who share a “common bond”—the loss of a family member due to an act of terrorism. Launched in 2008, Project COMMON BOND has so far helped 308 teenagers from 15 different countries and territories turn their experiences losing a loved one to terrorism into positive actions that can help others exposed to similar tragedy. Participants share the vision of the program to “Let Our Past Change the Future.” [29]
  • Karuna Center for Peacebuilding: U.S.-based international nonprofit organization that leads training and programs in post-conflict peacebuilding for government, development institutions, civil society organizations, and local communities
  • Nonviolent Peaceforce: Brussels-based nonprofit that promotes and implements unarmed civilian peacekeeping as a tool for reducing violence and protecting civilians in situations of violent conflict

Research and academic institutes

Role of women

Women have traditionally played a limited role in peacebuilding processes even though they often bear the responsibility for providing for their families' basic needs in the aftermath of violent conflict. They are especially likely to be unrepresented or underrepresented in negotiations, political decision-making, upper-level policymaking and senior judicial positions. Many societies' patriarchal cultures prevent them from recognizing the role women can play in peacebuilding.[30] However, many peacebuilding academics and the United Nations have recognized that women play a vital role in securing the three pillars of sustainable peace: economic recovery and reconciliation, social cohesion and development and political legitimacy, security and governance.[31][32]
At the request of the Security Council, the Secretary-General issued a report on women's participation in peacebuilding in 2010. The report outlines the challenges women continue to face in participating in recovery and peacebuilding process and the negative impact this exclustion has on them and societies more broadly. To respond to these challenges, it advocates a comprehensive 7-point action plan covering the seven commitment areas: mediation; post-conflict planning; financing; civilian capacity; post-conflict governance; rule of law; and economic recovery. The action plan aims to facilitate progress on the women, peace and security agenda. The monitoring and implementation of this action plan is now being led jointly by the Peacebuilding Support Office and UN Women.[33] In April 2011, the two organizations convened a workshop to ensure that women are included in future post-disaster and post-conflict planning documents. In the same year, the PBF selected seven gender-sensitive peacebuilding projects to receive $5 million in funding.[31]
Porter discusses the growing role of female leadership in countries prone to war and its impact on peacebuilding. When the book was written, seven countries prone to violent conflict had female heads of state. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia and Michelle Bachelet of Chile were the first female heads of state from their respective countries and President Johnson-Sirleaf was the first female head of state in Africa. Both women utilized their gender to harness "the power of maternal symbolism - the hope that a woman could best close wounds left on their societies by war and dictatorship."[34]

Ongoing efforts

  Ongoing UN PBC and PBF projects[35]
  Ongoing UN PBF projects[36]
The UN Peacebuilding Commission works inBurundiCentral African RepublicGuinea,Guinea-BissauLiberia and Sierra Leone[35] and the UN Peacebuilding Fund funds projects in Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad,ComorosCôte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Guinea Bissau,GuatemalaHaitiKenyaKyrgyzstanLebanon, Liberia, NepalNiger, Sierra Leone, SomaliaSri LankaSudanSouth SudanTimor-Leste andUganda.[36] Other UN organizations are working in Haiti (MINUSTAH),[37] Lebanon,[38]AfghanistanKosovo and Iraq.
The World Bank's International Development Association maintains the Trust Fund for East Timor in Timor-Leste. The TFET has assisted reconstruction, community empowerment and local governance in the country.[39]
As part of the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq, the United States has invested $104 billion in reconstruction and relief efforts for the two countries. The Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund alone received $21 billion during FY2003 and FY2004.[40] The money came from the United States Department of StateUnited States Agency for International Development and the United States Department of Defense and included funding for security, health, education, social welfare, governance, economic growth and humanitarian issues.[41]
Civil society organisations sometimes even are working on Peacebuilding themselves. This for example is the case in Kenya, reports the magazine D+C Development and Cooperation. After the election riots in Kenya in 2008, civil society organisations started programmes to avoid similar disasters in the future, for instance the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) and peace meetings organised by the church and they supported the National Cohesion and Integration Commission.

Results

In 2010, the UNPBC conducted a review of its work with the first four countries on its agenda.[42] An independent review by the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting also highlighted some of the PBC's early successes and challenges.[43]
One comprehensive study finds that UN peacebuilding missions significantly increase the likelihood of democratization.[44]

Criticisms

Jennifer Hazen [2] contends there are two major debates relating to peacebuilding; the first centres on the role of the liberal democratic model in designing peacebuilding activities and measuring outcomes and the other one questions the role of third-party actors in peacebuliding.
Regarding the debate about the role of the liberal democratic model in peacebuilding, one side contends that liberal democracy is a viable end goal for peacebuilding activities in itself but that the activities implemented to achieve it need to be revised; a rushed transition to democratic elections and market economy can undermine stability and elections held or economic legislation enacted are an inappropriate yardstick for success. Institutional change is necessary and transitions need to be incremental. Another side contends that liberal democracy might be an insufficient or even inappropriate goal for peacebuilding efforts and that the focus must be on a social transformation to develop non-violent mechanisms of conflict resolution regardless of their form.[2]
With regards to the role of third-party actors, David Chandler [45] contends that external support creates dependency and undermines local and domestic politics, thus undermining autonomy and the capacity for self-governance and leaving governments weak and dependent on foreign assistance once the third-party actors depart. Since the logic of peacebuilding relies on building and strengthening institutions to alter societal beliefs and behaviour, success relies on the populations' endorsement of these institutions. Any third party attempt at institution building without genuine domestic support will result in hollow institutions - this can lead to a situation in which democratic institutions are established before domestic politics have developed in a liberal, democratic fashion, and an unstable polity.

Implementation

Barnett et al. criticizes peacebuilding organizations for undertaking supply-driven rather than demand-driven peacebuilding; they provide the peacebuilding services in which their organization specializes, not necessarily those that the recipient most needs.[46] In addition, he argues that many of their actions are based on organizations precedent rather than empirical analysis of which interventions are and are not effective.[9] More recently, Ben Hillman has criticized international donor efforts to strengthen local governments in the wake of conflict. He argues that international donors typically do not have the knowledge, skills or resources to bring meaningful change to the way post-conflict societies are governed.[47][48]

Perpetuation of cultural hegemony

Many academics argue that peacebuilding is a manifestation of liberal internationalismand therefore imposes Western values and practices onto other cultures. Mac Ginty states that although peacebuilding does not project all aspects of Western culture on to the recipient states, it does transmit some of them, including concepts likeneoliberalism that the West requires recipients of aid to follow more closely than most Western countries do.[49] Barnett also comments that the promotion of liberalization and democratization may undermine the peacebuilding process if security and stable institutions are not pursued concurrently.[50] Richmond has shown how 'liberal peacebuilding' represents a political encounter that may produce a post-liberal form of peace. Local and international actors, norms, institutions and interests engage with each other in various different contexts, according to their respective power relations and their different conceptions of legitimate authority structures.[51]

See also

Notes

  1. Coning, C (2013). "Understanding Peacebuilding as Essentially Local". Stability: International Journal of Security and Development 2 (1): 6. doi:10.5334/sta.as.
  2. 454654, Jennifer M. (2007). "Can Peacekeepers Be Peacebuilders?". International Peacekeeping 14 (3): 323–338. doi:10.1080/13533310701422901.
  3. Peacebuilding & The United Nations, United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office, United Nations. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
  4. Keating XXXIV
  5. "An Agenda for Peace". UN Secretary-General. 31 Jan 1992. Retrieved 15 April 2012.
  6. Barnett 36
  7. "About PSBO"United Nations. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
  8. Barnett 43
  9. Barnett 53
  10. Sandole 92, 101
  11. Sandole 35
  12. Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)"Approaches- Peacebuilding"Conflict Management Toolkit. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
  13. Keating XXXVII
  14. Sandole 13-14
  15. Sandole 12
  16. Barnett et al 49-50
  17. Mac Ginty 212
  18. Mac Ginty, R (2012). "Against Stabilization". Stability: International Journal of Security and Development 1 (1): 20–30. doi:10.5334/sta.ab.
  19. "Mandate of the Peacebuilding Commission"United Nations. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
  20. "How we fund"United Nations. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
  21. Barnett et al. 38
  22. Barnett et al. 43
  23. ADE, Thematic Evaluation of European Commission Support to Conflict Prevention and Peace-building, Evaluation for the Evaluation Unit of DEVCO, October 2011,http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2011/1291_docs_en.htm<>
  24. See the 2012 report of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) [1]
  25. Barnett et al. 38-40
  26. Edward Luttwak "Franco-German Reconciliation: The overlooked role of the Moral Re-Armament movement", in Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson (eds.), Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft, Oxford University Press, 1994, pp37-63.
  27. See the 2012 report of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), page 20[2]
  28. Peacemaker Camp 2007, website
  29. [3].
  30. Porter 190
  31. "Policy Issues"United Nations. Retrieved 15 April 2012.
  32. Porter 184
  33. "Women's Participation in Peacebuilding" (PDF)United Nations Security Council. Retrieved2 April 2012.
  34. Porter 185
  35. "United Nations Peacebuilding Commission"United Nations. Retrieved 10 April 2012.
  36. "Where we fund-United Nations Peacebuilding Fund"United Nations. Retrieved 10 April2012.
  37. Keating 120
  38. Mac Ginty 180
  39. Keating XLII-XLIII
  40. Tarnoff 14
  41. Tarnoff 2
  42. "2010 Review"United Nations. Retrieved 10 April 2012.
  43. Moore, Jina. "United Nations Peacebuilding Commission in Africa"9 Dec 2011. Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
  44. Steinert, Janina Isabel; Grimm, Sonja (2015-11-01). "Too good to be true? United Nations peacebuilding and the democratization of war-torn states"Conflict Management and Peace Science 32 (5): 513–535. doi:10.1177/0738894214559671ISSN 0738-8942.
  45. David Chandler, Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-building, London: Pluto Press, 2006.
  46. Barnett 48
  47. Hillman, Ben (2011). "The Policymaking Dimension of Post-Conflict Governance: the Experience of Aceh, Indonesia". Conflict Security and Development 11 (5): 133–153.
  48. Hillman, Ben (2012). "Public Administration Reform in Post-Conflict Societies: Lessons from Aceh, Indonesia". Public Administration and Development 33: 1–14doi:10.1002/pad.1643.
  49. Mac Ginty 38
  50. Barnett 51
  51. Oliver P Richmond, A Post-Liberal Peace, Routledge, 2011

References

  • Barnett, Michael; Kim, Hunjoon; O'Donnell, Madalene; Sitea, Laura (2007). "Peacebuilding: What Is in a Name?". Global Governance 13: 35–58.
  • Keating, Tom; Knight, W., eds. (2004). Building Sustainable Peace. Canada: United Nations University Press and The University of Alberta Press. ISBN 92-808-1101-0.
  • Mac Ginty, Roger (2011). International Peacebuilding and Local Resistance. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-27376-4.
  • Porter, Elisabeth (2007). Peacebuilding: Women in International Perspective. Oxon, UK: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-39791-9.
  • Richmond, Oliver (2011). A Post-Liberal Peace. UK: Routledge.
  • Sandole, Dennis (2010). Peacebuilding. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. ISBN 978-0-7456-4165-2.
  • Schirch, Lisa (2006) Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding. PA: Good Books.
  • Schirch, Lisa (2013) Conflict Assessment & Peacebuilding Planning. CO: Lynn Reinner Press.
  • Tarnoff, Curt; Marian L. Lawson (2011). Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy (Technical report). Congressional Research Service. R40213.

External links

BTSR » M.Div – Justice and Peacebuilding

BTSR » M.Div – Justice and Peacebuilding

M.Div – Justice and Peacebuilding

icon_mdiv_justice_peaceThe M.Div with a concentration in Justice and Peacebuildinhelps prepare students for work and ministry around the issues of restorative justice, peacebuilding, and conflict transformation. This degree concentration is in partnership with the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA (http://www.emu.edu/cjp/).
Students in this concentration will complete the required course of study for the concentration at BTSR. The concentration components for this course of study will take place primarily at the Summer Peacebuilding Institute (SPI) at the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding , an accredited program with a world-class reputation and an established record of leadership in the field of justice and peacebuilding. The program includes students from over 50 countries representing many cultures.
Students enrolled in the M.Div./JP concentration will take required courses that satisfy the M.Div. degree program goal and standards.
The Center for Justice and Peacebuilding describes its program as, “Intended for people active in peacebuilding and related fields, SPI offers four 7-day sessions, each with a number of courses running concurrently.” Students will need to also apply directly to the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding , be accepted into the program and comply with the program requirements in order to satisfy the concentration requirements.
The Master of Divinity with a concentration in Justice and Peacebuilding requires 72 core hours, in addition to 12 concentrated electives and a final thesis or project, for a total of 87 hours.

[알라딘]평화와 화해의 새로운 패러다임 - 경쟁적 정치.경제.사회 구조 속에서의

[알라딘]평화와 화해의 새로운 패러다임 - 경쟁적 정치.경제.사회 구조 속에서의

평화와 화해의 새로운 패러다임 - 경쟁적 정치.경제.사회 구조 속에서의

히즈키아스 아세파 (지은이) | 이재영 (옮긴이) | KAP(Korea Anabaptist Press) | 2008-05-20

-----

히즈키아스 아세파 박사의 책. 평화와 화해에 대한 이해의 폭을 넓히고, 이를 정치, 경제, 사회적 갈등 상황에 적용하기 위해 이 책에서는 신학, 정치학, 사회심리학, 경제학적 관점을 도입했다. 대립과 경쟁의 사회 구조와 문화 속에서 쉽게 나타나는 한정적이고 왜곡된 평화와 화해의 이해를 새로운 관점에서 바라보는 혜안을 제시한다.



한국의 독자들에게

역자 서문



서론

1.평화에 대한 다양한 이해

2.평와의 가치와 원칙

3.화해와 갈등 해결

- 화해의 다양한 차원

4.평화와 화해의 패러다임

- 평화와 평화 형성에 관한 이해

- 교회의 사명

- 정치제도

- 국가

- 현대화와 경제 성장

결론

----

저자 : 히즈키아스 아세파 (Hizkias Assefa)

 최근작 : <평화와 화해의 새로운 패러다임>

 소개 :

국제적 조정자와 평화 운동가로 세계 여러 지역에서 활발히 활동하고 있다. 남미, 유럽, 아프리카의 많은 지역에서 갈등해결훈련 워크숍을 진행해온 그는 다양한 국제 NGO들을 돕고 있으며, 유엔과 EU의 자문위원으로 활동 중이다. 그는 현재 미국 버지니아 이스턴 메노나이트 대학교(Eastern Mennonite University)의 갈등분석, 해결학 교수로 재직 중이다. 저서로는 <내전의 조정 Mediation of Civil Wars>, <극단주의 집단과 갈등해결 Extremist Groups and Conflict Resolution> 등이 있다.

---

역자 : 이재영

 소개 : 캐나다 위니펙의 캐나다 메노나이트 신학대학교(Canadian Mennonite Bible College)와 미국 버지니아 주의 이스턴 메노나이트 대학교(Eastern Mennonite University)에서 갈등 전환학 석사를 졸업했다. 2012년 현재 한국아나뱁티스트센터(KAC) 평화교육 담당 간사와 사단 법인 평화를 만드는 여성회 갈등해결센터에서 일하고 있다.

----

<평화와 화해의 새로운 패러다임>은 평화와 화해에 대한 이해의 폭을 넓히고, 이를 정치, 경제, 사회적 갈등 상황에 적용하기 위해 이 책에서는 신학, 정치학, 사회심리학, 경제학적 관점을 도입했다. 아프리카를 배경으로 쓰였지만 오늘날의 국내외적 갈등과 분쟁상황에서도 매우 유익한 평화와 화해의 기본 안내서가 될 것이다. 히즈키아스 아세파 박사의 책 '평화와 화해의 새로운 패러다임'은 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. 그는 대립과 경쟁의 사회 구조와 문화 속에서 쉽게 나타나는 한정적이고 왜곡된 평화와 화해의 이해를 새로운 관점에서 바라보는 혜안을 제시한다. 이 새로운 관점에서 경제, 사회, 국가, 교회를 바라볼 때 비로서 통합적이고 포용적인 평화와 화해의 의미, 그리고 대안적 실천이 뒤따를 수 있다.

---

Hizkias Assefa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hizkias Assefa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hizkias Assefa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hizkias Assefa
Hizkias Assefa Teaching.jpg
Hizkias Assefa teaches a class at Eastern Mennonite University's Summer Peacebuilding Institute
BornAddis Ababa
NationalityEthiopian
EducationLLB, Haile Selassie I University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; LLM, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; M.A. Economics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; M.P.A., Ph.D., Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Occupationpeacebuildingconflict analyst
Known forReconciliation and Peacebuilding Work
ReligionChristian
Contents
 [hide
1
Hizkias Assefa (1948) is a conflict mediator known widely in Africa for his non-aligned work as a consultant who has mediated in most major conflict situations in sub-Saharan Africa in the past 20 years, as well as in a dozen countries elsewhere. He is also a professor of conflict studies. Of Ethiopian origin, he is based in Nairobi, Kenya. He was one of the founding faculty members in 1994 of the Conflict Transformation Program (now the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding) atEastern Mennonite University.[1]
Early life
Work
Publications
  • Preconditions for the Success of Mediation of Internal Wars, in Towards a World of Peace, edited by J. Maas and R. Stewart, Suva, Fiji: University of South Pacific Press, 1986
  • WCC Mediation in the Sudan Civil Wars, in New Approaches to International Mediation, edited by Chris Mitchell and K. Webb, New York: Greenwood Press, 1988
  • Crisis Management: Case Study of the MOVE Bombing in Philadelphia, in Coping with Crisis, edited by U. Rosenthal and M. Charles, Chicago: Charles C. Thomas Publishers, 1989
  • Sudan 1972: An Approach to Peacemaking, Life and Peace Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1988
  • Conflict Resolution Perspectives on Civil Wars in the Horn of Africa, Negotiation Journal, April, 1990
  • Religion in the Sudan: Exacerbating Conflict or Facilitating Reconciliation? Bulletin of Peace Proposals, no. 3, 1990
  • Looking Beyond the Termination of Civil Wars in Ethiopia: Demobilization and Employment of Combatants, in Beyond the Wars: Prospects for Peace, Recovery and Development in the Horn of Africa, edited by Martin Dornboos, The Hague: Institute of Social Studies, 1991
  • Ethnic Conflict in Africa: A New Perspective—Thoughts for Eastern Europe, Conflict Resolution Notes, Vol. 9, No. 2, Sept. 1991
  • An Interest Approach to the Resolution of the Ethiopian - Eritrean Conflict, in Internal Conflicts and Governance, edited by Kumar Rupesinghe, Oslo: Peace Research Institute, 1992
  • The Role of Mediation in National Conflicts - The Sudan Experience, in Conflicts and Negotiations, Bonn: Herbert Quandt Foundation, 1992
  • The Challenges of Mediating Internal Wars: Reflections on the INN initiative in the Eritrean Conflict, Security Dialogue, Vol. 23, No. 3, September 1992
  • Being in the Middle: Reflections from Experiences in Africa, in Proceedings of the Conference on "75 Years of Quaker International Affairs Work", Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee, 1992
  • Confessions of a Peacemaker, in Citizens as Peacemakers, edited by Ed Garcia, Manila: University of the Philippines Press, 1994
  • Frieden und Aussohnung in Athiopien - Perspektiven und Ansatze, in Entwicklungspolitik: Materialien 1/93, February 1993
  • Crucible of Civilization and Conflicts: Ethiopia, in Arms and Daggers in the Heart of Africa: Studies in Internal Conflicts, edited by Peter Anyang Nyongo, Nairobi: Academy of Sciences Publishers, 1993
  • The Politics of Reconciliation, in Constructive Approaches to Community and Political Conflict, Track Two, published by the Center for Conflict Resolution, Vol. 3, No. 4, Rondebosh, South Africa, December 1994
  • Mediating a Conflict Within a Conflict, in Citizens as Peacemakers, edited by Ed Garcia, Manila: University of the Philippines Press, 1994
  • Ethnic Conflicts in the Horn of Africa, Myths and Reality, in Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World, edited by Kumar Rupsenghe and Andrei Tishkov, Tokyo: United Nations University, 1995
  • Healing and Reconciliatiation in Internal Conflicts, in Transformation Towards a Culture of Peace, 2nd International Forum on the Culture of Peace, Paris: UNESCO, 1995
  • Humanitarian Work and Peacebuilding in UNHCR, PTSS Discussion Paper No. 14, Geneva, April, 1997
  • The Meaning of Reconciliation, in People Building Peace, European Center for Conflict Prevention: Utrecht, 1999 (Published in French and English)
  • Regional Analysis of the State of Conflict and Peace in the Horn of Africa, in Searching for Peace in Africa, edited by European Platform for Conflict Prevention and Transformation, Utrecht, 1999 (Published in English and French)
  • La Reconciliation, in Construire La Paix Sur Le Terrain, Mode D'Emploi, ed. Luc Reichler and Thania Paffenholz, Lynne Reinner: Boulder, Colorado, 2001 (Published in French, English, and Dutch).
  • Coexistence and Reconciliation in the Northern Region of Ghana, in Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence: Theory and Practice, ed. Mohammed Abunimer, Lanham: Lexington Press, 2001
  • “Embodying Peace”, in Into the Eyes of the Storm: Handbook of International Peacebuilding, ed. John Paul Lederach, Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado, 2002.
  • “Interfaith Cooperation: Religious Actors in New Roles”, in New Routes, A Journal of Peace Research and Action, Vol. 7, No.4, 2002
  • "Tread Carefully: Challenges Influencing Policy in Conflict Situations", in NGOs at the Table: Strategies for Influencing Policy in Areas of Conflict ed., Marie Fitzduff, University of Ulster Press: Derry, Northern Ireland, 2004
  • “Challenges to Faith Institutions in a Troubled Global Order” in To Seek Peace, Justice and Sustainable Lifestyle, An Interfaith Cooperation in Asia, ed. Tony Waworuntu and Max Ediger, Christian Council of Asia: Hong Kong, 2004
  • “Tools for Peace: Critical Perspective on Peace Theory and Practice”, in New Routes, A Journal of Peace Research and Action, Vol. 8, No. 3-4, 2004
  • “Reconciliation: Challenges, Responses and Roles for Civil Society”, in People Building Peace II, European Center for Conflict Prevention: Utrecht, 2005
  • “A Mediator Talks, An Interview with Prof. Hizkias Assefa”, Wajibu, A Journal of Social and Ethical Concern, Vol. 22, No. 1 (April – May 2007)
  • Mediation of Civil Wars, Approaches and Strategies ‑ The Sudan Conflict, Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1987.
  • Extremist Groups and Conflict Resolution: The MOVE Crisis in Philadelphia, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1988; republished by the University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990.
  • Peace and Reconciliation as a Paradigm: A Philosophy of Peace and its Implications on Conflicts, Governance, and Economic Development in Africa, Nairobi: ACIS Press, 1993. (Translated in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Kirundi and Korean)
  • Peacemaking and Democratization in Africa: Theoretical Perspectives and Church Initiatives, Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers, 1996 (editor)
References
  1. Lofton, Bonnie (20 October 2008), "CJP People Took Action"Peacebuilder (Harrisonburg, VA: Eastern Mennonite University) (Fall/Winter 2008), archived from the original on 14 August 2014, retrieved 14 August 2014
  1. Lofton, Bonnie (12 December 2013), "Compassion Should Be Our Starting Point",Peacebuilder (Harrisonburg, VA: Eastern Mennonite University) (Fall/Winter 2013), archived from the original on 14 August 2014, retrieved 14 August 2014
  1. Lofton, Bonnie. "Mediations Guided by Hizkias Assefa Yield Comprehensive Peace Accord for a Broad Swath of South Sudan". Eastern Mennonite University. Archived from the original on 14 August 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
  1. "Biographies and Related Readings for Symposium: Re-Imagining Self and Other: Creativity and Ethical Action in the Aftermath of Violence" (PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 14 August 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
  1. Diamond, Louise. "The Peace Report Issue #7". Archived from the original on 14 August 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
  1. "Global Advisory Board". Archived from the original on 14 August 2014. Retrieved14 August 2014.
  1. "Events: PROSPECTS & CHALLENGES OF RECONCILIATION & PEACEBUILDING: REFLECTIONS ON CASES FROM AFRICA & LATIN AMERICA". Archived from the original on 14 August 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
  1. Anonymous (April–May 2007), "A mediator talks: interview with Prof. Hizkias Assefa.",Wajibu 22 (1): 2–6, archived from the original on 14 August 2014
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hizkias_Assefa&oldid=716082184"
Categories:


Hizkias Assefa was born in Ethiopia in 1948. He remained there into his early adulthood and studied law at Haile Selassie I Universityin Addis Ababa. After graduating he worked as a lawyer in Addis Ababa until 1973. At this point he obtained a student visa for the United States and left Ethiopia to continue his education and to avoid the violence brought about by the military dictatorship known as the Derg. He received his LLM from Northwestern University in Chicago, his M.A. in economics and his Master’s in public management and Ph.D. in public and international affairs from the University of Pittsburgh. He is married and has two daughters.[2]
Most of Assefa’s work has centered around mediating between warring parties and resolving conflict. In 2013-14, he was the mediator in the conflict between the Government of the Republic of South Sudan and an insurgency movement called the South Sudan Democratic Movement/Army that led to a two-part peace agreement: a cease fire and cessation of hostilities agreement on January 2014, followed by a comprehensive peace accord in May 2014 which aimed to address the political, economic, social, military and security issues and interests of the warring parties underlying the conflict.[3]
Assefa has worked in over 50 countries.[4] He is a Senior Special Fellow at the United Nations Institute of Training and Research in Geneva.[5] He has also been involved as a facilitator in grassroots peacebuilding and reconciliation initiatives in GhanaNigeria,Sierra LeoneLiberiaKenyaSouth AfricaSri LankaAfghanistanColombia, andGuatemala. He has served as a consultant to the United Nations, European Union, and many international and national NGOs and conducted conflict resolution and peacebuilding training seminars and workshops in many parts of the world. He also serves on the global advisory board for Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies[6] In 2008 Assefa was invited to join the mediation team working to stop the post-election violence in Kenya and create a power-sharing government by former secretary general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. Other team members included former president of Tanzania, Benjamin Mkapa, and the former first lady of Mozambique and of South Africa, Graça Machel.[2]
Assefa was formerly a Senior Distinguished Fellow at the Institute of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA,[7] and he has served as a resident scholar in a number of universities including Brandeis University in Waltham, MA.[4] He is currently a professor at Eastern Mennonite University’s Summer Peacebuilding Institute at the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding. He is also the Consulting Director at Peacemakers Trust.
… if one is allowed to work with the parties step by step and layer by layer, it is possible to get them to meet at a deep level when they recognize the humanity of each other and recognize that their commonalities are much greater than their differences. And based on that they can have the vision, fortitude and mutual tolerance to work towards peace and reconciliation.[5][8]
A list of Hizkias Assefa's publications:

Use of force by states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use of force by states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The use of force by states is controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law. The UN Charter reads in article 2(4):
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-BeckSecretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[1]
Although some commentators interpret Article 2(4) as banning only the use of force directed at the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, the more widely held opinion is that these are merely intensifiers, and that the article constitutes a general prohibition, subject only to the exceptions stated in the Charter (self-defence and Chapter VII action by the Security Council). The latter interpretation is also supported by the historic context in which the Charter was drafted, the preamble specifically states that "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind" is a principal aim of the UN as such. This principle is now considered to be a part of customary international law, and has the effect of banning the use of armed force except for two situations authorized by the UN Charter.[2] Firstly, the Security Council, under powers granted in articles 24 and 25, and Chapter VII of the Charter, may authorize collective action to maintain or enforce international peace and security. Secondly, Article 51 also states that: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a state." There are also more controversial claims by some states of a right ofhumanitarian intervention, reprisals and the protection of nationals abroad.

The Meaning of "Force"[edit]

Article 2(4) does not use the term "war" but rather refers to "the threat or use of force." Although clearly encompassed by the article, it is ambiguous whether the article only refers to military force or economic, political, ideological or psychological force. The Preamble to the Charter declares that the "armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest..." Article 51 preserves the "right of individual or collective self defence if an armed attack occurs...". In 1970 the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. This resolution was adopted without vote by consensus but is considered an authoritative statement on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Charter. The Declaration reiterates article 2(4) and elaborates upon the occasions when the threat or use of force is prohibited but it does not address the question of whether force includes non-military force within the scope of the Charter. The Declaration also states that: "Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be the construed as enlarging or diminishing in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter concerning cases in which the use of force is lawful." Certain types of armed and non-armed intervention are prohibited by the Declaration: "No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law." The Declaration addresses the use of non-military force in the context of other international obligations such as the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of another state.
A number of developing nations have maintained that "force" includes non-military force but the developed states have resisted this view while conceding that non-military force of various kinds may be outlawed by other principles of international law.

Collective action[edit]

The Security Council is authorized to determine the existence of, and take action to address, any threat to international peace and security. In practice this power has been relatively little-used because of the presence of five veto-wielding permanent members with interests in a given issue. Typically measures short of armed force are taken before armed force, such as the imposition of sanctions. The first time the Security Council authorized the use of force was in 1950 to secure a North Korean withdrawal from South Korea. Although it was originally envisaged by the framers of the UN Charter that the UN would have its own designated forces to use for enforcement, the intervention was effectively controlled by forces underUnited States command. The weaknesses of the system are also notable in that the fact that the resolution was only passed because of a Soviet boycott and the occupation of China's seat by theNationalist Chinese of Taiwan.
The Security Council did not authorize the use of significant armed force again until the invasion of Kuwaitby Iraq in 1990. After passing resolutions demanding a withdrawal, the Council passed Resolution 678, which authorized the use of force and requested all member states to provide the necessary support to a force operating in cooperation with Kuwait to ensure the withdrawal of Iraqi forces. This resolution was never revoked, and in 2003, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441, which both recognized that Iraq's non-compliance with other resolutions on weapons constituted a threat to international peace and security, and recalled that resolution 678 authorized the use of force to restore peace and security. Thus it is arguable that 1441 impliedly authorized the use of force.
The UN has also authorized the use of force in peacekeeping or humanitarian interventions, notably in the former YugoslaviaSomalia, and Sierra Leone.

Self-defense[edit]

Article 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Thus there is still a right of self-defence under customary international law, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed in the Nicaragua Case on the use of force. Some commentators believe that the effect of Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed attack occurs, and that other acts of self-defence are banned by article 2(4). The more widely held opinion is that article 51 acknowledges this general right, and proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted. It is also to be noted that not every act of violence will constitute an armed attack. The ICJ has tried to clarify, in the Nicaragua case, what level of force is necessary to qualify as an armed attack.
The traditional customary rules on self-defence derive from an early diplomatic incident between the United States and the United Kingdom over the killing on some US citizens engaged in an attack on Canada, then a British colony. The so-called Caroline case established that there had to exist "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation,' and furthermore that any action taken must be proportionate, "since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it." These statements by the US Secretary of State to the British authorities are accepted as an accurate description of the customary right of self-defence.

Pre-emptive force[edit]

See also: Caroline test
There is a limited right of pre-emptive self-defence under customary law. Its continuing permissibility under the Charter hinges on the interpretation of article 51. If it permits self-defence only when an armed attack has occurred, then there can be no right to pre-emptive self-defence. However, few observers really think that a state must wait for an armed attack to actually begin before taking action. A distinction can be drawn between "preventive" self-defence, which takes place when an attack is merely possible or foreseeable, and a permitted "interventionary" or "anticipatory" self-defence, which takes place when an armed attack is imminent and inevitable. The right to use interventionary, pre-emptive armed force in the face of an imminent attack has not been ruled out by the ICJ. But state practice and opinio juris overwhelmingly suggests that there is no right of preventive self-defence under international law.

Protection of nationals[edit]

The controversial claim to a right to use force in order to protect nationals abroad has been asserted by some States. Examples include intervention by the UK in Suez (1956), Israel in Entebbe (1976) and the USA in the Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989). The majority of States are doubtful about the existence of such a right. It is often claimed alongside other rights and reasons for using force. For example, the USA intervention in Grenada was widely considered to be in response to the rise to power of a socialist government. The danger that this posed to US nationals was doubtful and resulted in condemnation by the General Assembly. As with the above examples (except the Entebbe incident), the protection of nationals is often used as an excuse for other political objectives.[citation needed]

Humanitarian intervention[edit]

In recent years several countries have begun to argue for the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention without Security Council authorization. In the aftermath of the Kosovo crisis in 1999, the UK Foreign Secretary asserted that, "In international law, in exceptional circumstances and to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe, military action can be taken and it is on that legal basis that military action was taken." It is very difficult to reconcile this statement with the UN Charter. When NATO used military force against the Yugoslav state, it did not have authorization from the Security Council, but it was not condemned either. This is because veto-wielding countries held strong positions on both sides of the dispute.
Many countries oppose such unauthorized humanitarian interventions on the formal ground that they are simply illegal, or on the practical ground that such a right would only be ever used against weaker states by stronger states. This was specifically shown in the Ministerial Declaration of G-77 countries, in which 134 states condemned such intervention. Proponents have typically resorted to a claim that the right has developed as a new part of customary law.

The use of non-military force[edit]

There has been widespread debate[citation needed] about the significance of the phrasing of article 2(4), specifically about the use of the solitary word "force." There is a strain of opinion[according to whom?]holding that whereas "armed attack" is referred to in article 51, the use of the word "force" in 2(4) holds a wider meaning, encompassing economic force or other methods of non-military coercion. Although such measures may be banned by certain other provisions of the Charter, it does not seem possible to justify such a wide non-military interpretation of 2(4) in the light of subsequent state practice. It must also be noted[tone] that this article covers the threat of force, which is not permissible in a situation where the use of actual armed force would not be.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ International Commission of Jurists, 18 March 2003, "Iraq - ICJ Deplores Moves Toward a War of Aggression on Iraq" [1]
  2. ^ Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application) [1984] ICJ Rep 392[2]

Further reading[edit]

  • Barzilai, Gad and Efraim Inbar. “The Use of Force: Israeli Public Opinion on Military Options.” Armed Forces & Society, October 1996; vol. 23: pp. 49–80. [3]
  • Hendrickson, Ryan C. “Clinton’s Military Strikes in 1998: Diversionary Uses of Force?” Armed Forces & Society, January 2002; vol. 28: pp. 309–332. [4]
  • Stevenson, Charles A. “The Evolving Clinton Doctrine on the Use of Force.” Armed Forces & Society, July 1996; vol. 22: pp. 511–535. [5]
  • Hendrickson, Ryan C. “NATO’s Secretary General and the Use of Force: Willy Claes and the Air Strikes in Bosnia.” Armed Forces & Society, October 2004; vol. 31: pp. 95–117. [6]
  • "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons"