‘Bending the Rules’: The Space between HQ Policy and Local Action in UN Civilian Peacekeeping
In: Journal of International PeacekeepingSearch for other papers by Diana Felix da Costa in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by John Karlsrud in
Current site
Google Scholar
Recent literature has argued that a ‘dominant peacebuilding culture’ has precluded the contextualisation of peacebuilding to local dynamics. The article explores the ‘peacekeeping-peacebuilding nexus’ in practice, where civilian peacekeepers are increasingly considered to be early peacebuilders. Drawing on examples from United Nations (UN) civilian peacekeeping involvement in local peacebuilding in South Sudan, this article argues for a less reductionist and more nuanced view of local peacebuilding and the social interactions and dynamics which take place. It recognises the discrepancies between official UN Headquarters (HQ) policy and action in the “field”, and thus explores the relationship between policy and practice and the location of agency and authority in civilian peacekeeping. The article argues that the critique levelled against peacekeeping and peacebuilding for being focused on actors in host country capitals does not sufficiently take into consideration the relationship between capitals and the “field”. Rather, local peacebuilding outcomes depend as much or more on negotiations, bargains and compromises between different actors at the “field” level, than on institutional policy decision-making deriving from headquarters.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
11)
See e.g. Ian Johnstone, ‘Legislation and Adjudication in the UN Security Council: Bringing Down the Deliberative Deficit’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 102, no. 2, 2008, pp. 275-308; David Malone, The UN Security Council: From the Cold War to the 21st Century (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2004).
-
14)
Catherine Weaver, Hypocrisy Trap: The World Bank and the Poverty of Reform (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008); Michael Lipson, ‘Peacekeeping: Organized Hypocrisy?’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 13, no. 1, 2007, pp. 5–34.
-
17)
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, A/RES/51/242, Supplement to An agenda for peace (New York: United Nations, 1995).
-
18)
John G. Ruggie, ‘Wandering in the Void – Charting the UN’s New Strategic Role’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 5, 1993, p. 26.
-
20)
UN, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines (New York: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations / Department of Field Support, 2008).
-
23)
John Karlsrud, ‘SRSGs as Norm Arbitrators? Understanding Bottom–Up Authority in UN Peacekeeping’, Global Governance, vol. 19, no. 4, 2013, pp. 525-544.
-
26)
John Karlsrud, ‘UN as a Competitive Arena for Linked Ecologies: The Case of UN Peacekeeping’, Political Perspectives, vol. 7, no. 1, 2013, pp. 6-25; John Karlsrud, ‘Multiple Actors and Centres of Agency? Examining the UN as competitive arena for normative change’, Journal of International Organization Studies, forthcoming 2014.
-
28)
Michael Lipson, ‘Peacekeeping: Organized Hypocrisy?’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 13, no. 1, 2007, pp. 5-34.
-
29)
See United Nations, Peace: Keep It. Build It. The Contribution of United Nations Peacekeeping to Early Peacebuilding: Strategy. (New York: UN DPKO and DFS, 2012). See also e.g. ACCORD, Conflict Trends 3/2011 issue dedicated exclusively to the peacebuilding-peacekeeping nexus.
-
32)
DPKO/DFS, 2010, Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding: Clarifying the Nexus.
-
36)
DPKO/Department of Field Support, Policy Directive on Civil Affairs (New York: DPKO/DFS, 2008).
-
45)
Niels N. Schia and John Karlsrud, ‘Where the Rubber Meets the Road’: Friction Sites and Local level Peacebuilding in South Sudan, Liberia and Haiti’, International Peacekeeping, vol. 20, no. 2, 2013, pp. 233-248.
-
55)
Allen and Schomerus, 2010, p. 94, in Jansen, MIMEO, 2011.
-
56)
Jort Hemmer, ‘“We Are Laying the Groundwork for Our Own Failure”, The UN Mission in South Sudan and its Civilian Protection Strategy: an Early Assessment’, CRU Policy Brief No. 25 (Clingendael Institute & NOREF, 2013).
-
58)
Mark Duffield, ‘Risk-Management and the Fortified Aid Compound: Everyday Life in Post-Interventionary Society’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, vol. 4, no. 4, 2010, pp. 453-474. See also Diana Felix da Costa, Working in Challenging Environments: Risk Management and Aid Culture in South Sudan – Field Report, Humanitarian Policy Group (ODI) and University of Bristol research project, ESRC-DFID grant, 2013.
-
61)
Bakewell, 2001, pp. 108–9, cited in Hilhorst and Jansen, ‘Humanitarian Space as Arena’, p. 1120.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 765 | 153 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 208 | 7 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 158 | 17 | 5 |
‘Bending the Rules’: The Space between HQ Policy and Local Action in UN Civilian Peacekeeping
In: Journal of International PeacekeepingSearch for other papers by Diana Felix da Costa in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by John Karlsrud in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Recent literature has argued that a ‘dominant peacebuilding culture’ has precluded the contextualisation of peacebuilding to local dynamics. The article explores the ‘peacekeeping-peacebuilding nexus’ in practice, where civilian peacekeepers are increasingly considered to be early peacebuilders. Drawing on examples from United Nations (UN) civilian peacekeeping involvement in local peacebuilding in South Sudan, this article argues for a less reductionist and more nuanced view of local peacebuilding and the social interactions and dynamics which take place. It recognises the discrepancies between official UN Headquarters (HQ) policy and action in the “field”, and thus explores the relationship between policy and practice and the location of agency and authority in civilian peacekeeping. The article argues that the critique levelled against peacekeeping and peacebuilding for being focused on actors in host country capitals does not sufficiently take into consideration the relationship between capitals and the “field”. Rather, local peacebuilding outcomes depend as much or more on negotiations, bargains and compromises between different actors at the “field” level, than on institutional policy decision-making deriving from headquarters.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 765 | 153 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 208 | 7 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 158 | 17 | 5 |