*Originally published in 2022 and preserved as part of our archive project.Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

Peacebuilding studies typically begin with a sentence along the lines of: ‘peacebuilding defies a single definition’ (Tschirgi 2013, 197), or ‘it is difficult to define the concept’ (Ryan 2013, 31). However, there is rarely a reflection on exactly why peacebuilding evades definition. Therefore, my aim in this article is to shed some light on what we mean by this concept, by tracing its ontology and application, in the hope of understanding why scholars struggle to define it. In doing so, I argue that there is, somewhat surprisingly, widespread agreement as to what peacebuilding boils down to – an attempt to address and tackle the underlying structures and root causes of conflict. The complexity or difficulty in understanding peacebuilding instead derives from the multiple approaches articulated for addressing a conflict’s root causes. In addition to explaining this overall argument, the article offers a brief introduction to peacebuilding, which should particularly be of interest to scholars trying to make sense of what has become a diverse field of study.

Origins of peacebuilding

Modern ideas around ‘peace’, in juxtaposition of war and conflict, can be traced back to the Enlightenment period. However, it is Johan Galtung who is credited with first introducing the concept of peacebuilding. In a 1975 essay, he proposed that peace is about the abolition of structural violence and the root causes of war, such as oppression and domination, rather than being solely focused on eliminating direct violence or warfare (Galtung 1975; Cockell 2000; Ryan 2013). He argues that tackling structural violence requires an associative approach towards peace, where the ‘antihuman conditions of exploitation, elitism and isolation’ are replaced by conditions of ‘equity, entropy and symbiosis’ (Galtung 1975, 299). In other words, rather than peace being conceived in dissociative terms, where antagonists are isolated or separated from each other, it requires increased interaction channels between all levels of society, including a ’high level of interdependence’ and exchange between nations (Galtung 1975, 298-9). Galtung’s conception of peacebuilding received some academic attention (Harbottle 1980; Fischer 1993), with a few studies similarly claiming that associative practices, such as ‘bridges of communication at all levels’, are necessary for long-lasting peace (Harbottle 1980, 131). Nevertheless, peacebuilding remained a largely niche idea until the early 1990s, when several connecting factors made it more pertinent.

The publication of the United Nation’s (UN) 1992 ‘Agenda for Peace’ report catalysed peacebuilding into mainstream discourse in both theory and practice. Although rarely commented upon explicitly, the report shares Galtung’s attention to the underlying structures and root causes of conflict, for it defines peacebuilding as the ability ‘to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict’ (Boutros-Ghali 1992, para.21). There is a commitment to addressing the ‘deepest causes of conflict’, such as economic despair and social injustice (Pugh 2000, 6-7). Some commentators claim that the report presents a somewhat narrow definition of peacebuilding, for it positions the term as specifically ‘post-conflict’, rather than encompassing all phases of conflict, including the ‘conflict prevention’ and ‘conflict management’ stages (Ryan 2013; Tschirgi 2013; Paffenholz 2013). The report is certainly explicit in articulating that the avoidance of conflict rests on ‘preventative diplomacy’, whereas ‘post-conflict peace-building’ is designed to ’prevent a recurrence’ of conflict (Boutros-Ghali 1992, para.57). Peacebuilding is therefore equated with the final phase of conflict.

However, the reason why the report sparked widespread interest is its formulation for how the international community - namely international organisations (IOs), including the UN, and Western states - can address root causes of conflict within societies and consequently prevent its recurrence. The document claims the ‘socioeconomic and political context of conflict’ can only be transformed from one of insecurity to one of stability by democratising and developing states in the aftermath of conflict (Pugh 2000, 20). It is argued that ‘democracy at all levels is essential to attain peace for a new era of prosperity and justice’ (Boutros-Ghali 1992, para.82). This causality between democracy and peace is of course philosophically rooted in Immanuel Kant’s belief that the democratic constitution of states correlates with their interest in maintaining peace with other states (Chan 1997; Ray 1998). Kant’s argument is that if governments are democratically accountable to their citizens, then they are a powerful force against conflict, for ‘if the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared…nothing is more natural than they would be cautious in commencing such a poor game’ (Kant 1795, 123).

Liberal internationalism

Following the publication of the Agenda for Peace, this ideology of democratic peace became synonymous with peacebuilding operations. In subsequent reports, the UN became more specific on the measures it felt essential for democratising conflict-affected countries as diverse as Cambodia, Bosnia and El Salvador, given the assumption that this was ’the surest foundation for peace’ (Knight 2003, 253). These measures included ‘improved police and judicial systems, the monitoring of human rights, electoral reform and social and economic development’ (Boutros-Ghali 1995, para.47). They were designed to support a ‘culture of democracy’ within conflict zones around the world (Boutros-Ghali 1996, para.46). Simultaneously, a vast amount of academic research was dedicated to theorising and understanding how exactly IOs and Western states were trying to establish democratic elections, marketisation........

© E-International