Introduction: Post-Conflict Spaces and Approaches to Statebuilding

Abstract

Post-conflict spaces are no transitory phenomena during the transition from war to peace but have to be understood as fields of power where sovereignty is constantly contested and negotiated among global, elite and local actors. Understanding these spaces necessitates breaking out of the ‘single sovereign’ framework and problematizing the assumptions behind the ‘post-conflict’ label. We propose that in this way it becomes possible to discern some of the logics that govern how power and space shape each other in post-conflict settings.

Keywords:

• peacebuilding
• statebuilding
• post-conflict intervention

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank David Chandler, Madeleine Reeves and Alex Veit for their comments and questions. John Heathershaw acknowledges the support of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies of the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, where he was based whilst he conducted most of the work for this project. Daniel Lambach wishes to thank the German Institute for Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, to which he was affiliated during this project.

Notes

1. The special section also included papers by Katia Papagianni, Philip Cunliffe, Berit Bliesemann de Guevera, Yukari Ito and Dennis Dijkzeul, as well as a roundtable with presentations by David Chandler, Lene Hansen, Mark Hoffman, Anthony Lang, and David Mutimer and chaired by Susan Woodward. Francois Debrix was also involved as a discussant. Our thanks are due to all these participants.

2. Ethnographic studies of conflicts and post-conflict spaces are however emerging from anthropology. For example, see Richards (2005) and Nordstrom and Robben (1995).

3. The following two sub-sections draw on ideas explored in a paper by Heathershaw (2008).

4. ICISS was established by the Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chrietien, in September 2000 in response to Kofi Annan's challenge to the UN General Assembly to unite on the question of ‘humanitarian intervention’ following the Kosovo military intervention of 1999. See Chandler (2004, p. 60).

5. We thank Madeleine Reeves for her insightful comments on this paragraph.

6. Migdal (2001, p. 135–142) has, however, suggested that constructivist international relations theory is a ‘state in society’ approach writ large into global politics.