Nor does it demand that the initiative’ s contributions to the establishment of peace take one specific form over another. Some efforts can directly reduce or prevent violence. Others can do so indirectly by creating the broader conditions that facilitate peace, for instance by strengthening institutions that address conflict. The us definition simply reflects a general consensus among the people involved in and affected by a given initiative that it has advanced, in one way or another, the establishment of peace.
Successful International Support to Local Peacebuilding: An Under-Researched Topic
The scholarly and policy literature on peacebuilding was virtually nonexistent in the early 1990s, but it has grown considerably since then( Pugh 2013, 11). Thanks to this recent research, we now have strong evidence as to the causes of violence and peacebuilding failure. However, we know much less about what allows peacebuilding to succeed. Indeed, just like studies of peace actually often focus on violence( Diehl 2016), studies of peacebuilding— including my previous work( e. g., Autesserre 2010 and 2014b)— overwhelmingly focus on problematic cases, ignoring successful experiences( Autesserre 2014a; Fortna 2008, 2 – 4; Fortna and Howard 2008; Howard 2008, 2 – 3). This is unfortunate because, as Fortna( 2008) and Howard( 2008) note, the obstacles to peacekeeping and peacebuilding are such that the most puzzling question is why international efforts sometimes succeed, rather than why they fail. In addition, this focus leads most analysts to believe that the reasons for peace and peacebuilding success are the inverse of the reasons for war and peacebuilding failures. However, just as this assumption is questionable for peace( Diehl 2016), it is questionable for peacebuilding. For instance, many authors have demonstrated that lack of financial resources is a main cause of peacekeeping failure( e. g., Downs and Stedman 2002; Doyle and Sambanis 2006), but an abundance of resources can be equally problematic( Gallo and Vanholder 2015; Manning and Zu¨rcher 2013, 34; Moore 2013, 5 – 6).
Of the inquiries that do look at peacebuilding success( usually just a part of larger studies), the majority focus on macro-level dynamics, such as national and international peace processes( e. g., Call and Wyeth 2008; Walter 2002), economic conditions( e. g., Paris 2004), and the specific characteristics of the international interveners, like their mandate( e. g., Doyle and Sambanis 2006; Van der Lijn 2009), vested interests( e. g., Adebajo 2011; Stedman 1997; Zartman 1989), and resources( e. g., Fortna 2008; Hampson 1996). These authors, along with most policymakers, assume that peace achieved on the national and international stages will automatically trickle down to the local spheres. Consequently, international peacebuilding interventions usually proceed in a top-down fashion, focusing on assuaging national and international sources of conflict( Autesserre 2010, 41 – 83; Richmond 2005, 149 – 80).
Yet, local and subnational conflicts often motivate large parts of civil war violence, whether in Afghanistan( Dennys and Zaman 2009), Congo( Autesserre 2010), Timor-Leste( Scambary 2014), or many other past and present conflicts( Justino, Bru¨ck, and Verwimp 2013; Kalyvas 2006). Consequently, peacebuilding success at the macro level does not necessarily constitute peace at the subnational level( Lund 2003; Mac Ginty 2006). 7 As a result, in the past fifteen years, scholars have started studying the local and micro-level dimensions of peacebuilding( see Autesserre 2014a for a review of this literature), and policymakers and practitioners have started paying attention to local conflict resolution. Among the authors who work on subnational peacebuilding, the consensus is that only a combination of top-down and bottom-up efforts can build a sustainable peace( e. g., Autesserre 2010; Lederach 1997; McGuinness 2012; Zelizer and Rubinstein 2009). Recent research has shown that international interventions, notably the presence of peacekeeping troops, are critical to enabling the success of top-down processes( Beardsley 2012; Doyle and Sambanis 2006; Fortna 2008; Gilligan and Sergenti 2008; Goldstein 2011; Hampson 1996; Howard 2008; Hultman, Kathman, and Shannon 2014; Walter 2002). However, this finding may not apply to peacebuilding at the micro level. In fact, the only bottom-up effort truly successful on