![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper draws on constructivist theory to assess the contemporary debate around inclusion within peace-building and state-building processes and on inclusivity as an emerging norm within international policy processes. Within the wider context of an ongoing but still incomplete normative shift in terms of how peace building is both understood and practised, it focuses on the case of the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, and makes the case that the inclusivity agenda marks a significant shift towards fulfilling a longstanding commitment to respecting national ownership of peace-building processes.
Notes
1. IDPS, “A New Deal.”
2. United Nations, Strengthening the Role of Mediation, 6.
3. Paris, “International Peacebuilding,” 638.
4. Chopra and Hohe, “Participatory Peacebuilding.”
5. McCandless et al., “Vertical Integration.”
6. For fuller discussion on this topic, see Hearn et al., “Independent Review”; and McCandless, “Safeguarding Inclusivity.”
7. Barnes, “Renegotiating the Political Settlement,” 18.
8. Castillejo, Promoting Inclusion, 1.
9. Call, Why Peace Fails.
10. Cited in Barnes, “Renegotiating the Political Settlement,” 23.
11. Paffenholz, “Inclusive Politics”; and McCandless, “Safeguarding Inclusivity,” 9.
12. See also McCandless, “Wicked Problems.”
13. Finnemore and Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics.”
14. Zimmerman, “Same Same or Different?”
15. Grillot, “Global Gun Control,” 534. In addition, as Charli Carpenter, “Setting the Advocacy Agenda,” has noted, constructivism has also been criticised for failing to provide an adequate account of where norms come from in the first place.
16. Auger, “Norm Consolidation and Resistance”; and Zimmerman, “Same Same or Different?”
17. While we acknowledge different ‘dimensions’ of inclusion and the different actors this could involve, our analysis here focuses on the inclusion of non-state actors – and particularly civil society organisations – within conflict-affected states. Within the New Deal process there has been increasing desire on the part of the g7+, in particular, to include the business community, as well as the rising powers, notably BRICS, in these processes.
18. The authors are grateful to one anonymous TWQ reviewer for drawing attention to this point.
19. Krook and True, “Rethinking the Life Cycles,” 104.
20. Paffenholz, “Inclusive Politics.”
21. Acharya, “How Ideas Spread.”
22. Martin and Wilmer, “Transnational Normative Struggles.”
23. TANs are coalitions of movements and organisations – including international, domestic and grassroots NGOs and other formal research and advocacy organisations – that organise to promote causes, principled ideas and norms through soft power strategies. Yang, “Accounting for Accountability,” 519.
24. Keck and Sikkink, “Transnational Advocacy Networks,” 89.
25. Keck and Sikkink, “Transnational Advocacy Networks,” 93.
29. The document was signed by g7+ governments, development partners and international organisations.
30. IDPS, “New Deal Monitoring Report,” 7.
31. IDPS, “A New Deal.”
32. McCandless, “Wicked Problems,” 227.
33. The g7+ prefers the term ‘inclusive’.
34. IDPS, “A New Deal.”
36. There are extensive literatures on participation and inclusion that cover issues of who participates and can represent, sufficiently authoritatively and effectively, stakeholder groups, and how to understand the quality of participation. For example, McGee and Norton, Participation in Poverty Reduction Strategies, 14, have suggested that degrees of participation include: information sharing, consultation, joint decision making and the ultimate – initiation and control by stakeholders. Christian Aid, Quality Participation, has argued, importantly, that expectations about the process and influence of political context are central to understanding the quality of participation.
37. IDPS, “A New Deal.”
38. Ibid.
39. The fragility spectrum is divided into the five PSG areas that ran across phases of deemed progress from fragility to resilience.
40. Its analytical framing was developed jointly in the Indicator Working Group, in an effort to ensure that the Common Indicators and Fragility Spectrum would have common ‘divisions and sub-divisions’ of PSG areas.
41. IDPS, “Guidance Note.”
42. IDPS, “A New Deal.”
43. IDPS, “New Deal Monitoring Report,” 13.
44. Hearn et al., “Independent Review,” 20–21.
45. Not included in the IDPS’ list of ‘official’ fragility assessments.
46. Hearn and Zimmerman, “A New Deal for Somalia?,” 4.
47. Cited in Van de Velde et al., “Ensuring Inclusivity,” 11.
48. IDPS, “New Deal Monitoring Report,” 42–43.
49. Saferworld and World Vision, “Strengthening the New Deal,” 10; and Hearn and Zimmerman, “A New Deal for Somalia?,” 9.
50. IDPS, “New Deal Monitoring Report,” 11.
51. Wani, “The g7+ and the New Deal.”
52. Wani and Wani, “The New Deal Implementation.”
53. Hearn et al., “Independent Review,” 27–28.
54. IDPS, “Small Scale Consultations,” 1.
55. IDPS, “New Deal Monitoring Report,” 13.
56. See CSPPS website (http://www.cspps.org/) for numerous collective statements prepared over the duration of the process that detail these arguments; Attree, “The Peacebuilding Potential”; McCandless, “Cautions against Conflation”; Hughes et al., Implementing the New Deal, 4; and de Coning, “Can the New Deal?”
57. Pires, “The New Deal Process.”
58. Wani and Wani, “The New Deal Implementation,” 6.
59. g7+, “Note on the Fragility Spectrum.”
60. The g7+ “Note on the Fragility Spectrum” consolidates and presents these in its Annex 1.
61. IDPS, “New Deal Monitoring Report,” 13.
62. CSPPS, Amplifying the Voice, 9.
63. McCandless, “Cautions against Conflation,” 22.
64. Hughes et al., Implementing the New Deal, 1.
65. CSPPS, “Fulfilling New Deal Commitments.” See also IDPS, “New Deal Monitoring Report,” 14.
66. South Sudan provides one example where crisis appears to have triggered a reversion to ‘exclusive’ political processes. See Case, “Without Inclusion.”
67. The movement towards the post-2015 ‘SDG’ development framework has played a significant role here, while the New Deal has been a strong force in the development of peace-building considerations within the framework, and notably in Goal 16.
68. Deqa Yasin, quoted in CSPPS, Strengthening the Voice.
69. For a comprehensive discussion on civil society views in this process, see McCandless, “Safeguarding Inclusivity.”
70. Hughes et al., Implementing the New Deal, 7.
71. Hearn et al., “Independent Review,” 4.
72. See the IDPS global ministerial “Statement on Addressing Fragility and Building Peace in a Changing World,” http://www.pbsbdialogue.org/en/events/2016/04/05/fifth-global-meeting-international-dialogue/.