The academic concept of “peacebuilding” was inspired by former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's “Agenda for Peace”, dating back to 1992. As editor Henry F. Carey observes, this new concept led to the rapid evolvement of a variety of definitions and paradigms of peacebuilding, each with their own set of assumptions and central characters, which are often incompatible with those of other paradigms.
Peacebuilding Paradigms offers an interesting and truly diverse collection of thoughts on the theory of peacebuilding. Carefully chosen to represent as wide a range of perspectives as possible, its contributors come from genuinely diverse backgrounds: from military strategist to psychologist, from neuroscientist to mathematician, the reader will come across a variety of viewpoints and expertise, each offering its own unique take on how peace was (attempted to be) built in the past and how it should be done in the future. Contributors are also wide-ranging in their levels of academic seniority and geographical location, thus offering a real diversity of thought and experiences.
Approaching the topic of peacebuilding from a very philosophical, theory-based perspective, the contributors consider all major peace paradigms, namely, realism, liberalism, constructivism, cosmopolitanism, critical theory, localism, and, finally, the policy paradigm. The editor, Henry F. Carey, offers his own synthesis, both in the form of a rather lengthy introduction (written with Onur Sen) and in a similarly detailed conclusion (written with Stacey M. Mitchell).
The Introduction, “Bridging the Conceptual and Theoretical Divides on Peace and Peacebuilding”, summarises each peace paradigm and each contribution to the volume – naturally, as the editor and his co-writer understands them. While this is certainly very helpful to those who have no background in peace theory, the reader cannot help but think that the editor and his co-writer are somehow critiquing the contributions before the reader even had his or her chance to read them and form his or her own view. In this author's view, the unique beauty of pieces of academic writing about theory and philosophy is the opportunity they give to the reader to get acquainted with new sets of views based on another's unique background and individual expertise. The reader should have the chance to interpret each piece without a third person, here the editor, explaining what they do achieve and what they fail to achieve individually. All contributions to this volume provoke interesting thoughts in the reader, each in its own way. They are all clearly written and offer great examples and case studies backing up their individual proposals. In other words, one does not see the need for the very detailed and occasionally rather circular introduction – the contributions speak for themselves. Naturally, edited collections wish to show a point, to offer a specific view. However, an editor must be cautious not to allow his or her own views to take precedence over the collection of well-written and well-researched pieces of academic work.
Turning to the individual contributions, it is certainly a great strength of this volume that each presents its own central paradigm together with that specific paradigm's shortcomings. Each contribution reaches the conclusion that following the rules of one individual paradigm simply cannot lead to lasting peace on its own. The contributors conduct superb analyses of why following one single theory could never lead to sustainable peace in any situation, and they support their analyses with vivid, practical examples from history. For instance, Michael Fowler, in Chapter 1, “Strategies for Peace”, looks to several examples involving the US (mostly in connection with the Middle East), where the post-9/11 “maximise-power-to-avoid-war” approach has proved unsuccessful as a tool for building sustainable peace. Fowler indeed explains very well what does not work with the given paradigm (here: realism) and suggests combining it with constructivism. Yet, he falls short of explaining how this combination would work in practice.
In fact, several contributors develop their own hybrid theories that they believe can lead to more successful implementation in practice, in other words, they may lead to more sustainable peace. While one may question why the volume does not present one specific hybrid model that could be a “one-size-fits-all” solution, the editor and his carefully selected contributors recognise the fact that each situation is different, and several hybrids might have to be developed in order to find the most optimal solution for each case.
Fowler's contribution is a great sample of the volume's overall character: superb explanations of why one paradigm does not work on its own and good suggestions for combining multiple paradigms. The last step, however, is missing: how would these combined theories work in practice? Have they ever been used? The reader may wonder if there have already been instances where multiple paradigms influenced the solution of a conflict and inspired the exercise of peacebuilding – and he or she may well conclude that there have been.
As Louis-Alexandre Berg observes, in Chapter 4, “Liberal Peacebuilding”, “overwhelming focus on building liberal democratic institutions and on the role of external actors has resulted in conceptual blind spots” (p. 78). The same may well be true for those convinced that one peace paradigm can never work on its own and cannot ever lead to sustainable peace in any environment. As the contributors to this volume recognise, each society is different, each situation is different, each conflict is different. Is it not possible that there may be a situation where one established peace paradigm, whichever it might be, could work and plant the seeds of sustainable stability?
Despite these observations, Peacebuilding Paradigms truly excels is bringing experts of wildly different disciplines together to offer their views of peacebuilding. This author would single out Sarah F. Brosnan's contribution in Chapter 3, “Building Peace through Social Relationships”, as perhaps the most unique. She studies decision-making in non-human primates, and argues that peacekeeping and peacebuilding, in one form or another, is innate in all social species. Even chimpanzees will seek support before entering into a conflict. Even non-human primate groups have dominance hierarchies – stronger in times of conflict (realism) and less defined in peaceful times (liberalism). Finally, even non-human species know reconciliation and will strive to stabilise their “peace”. Studying non-human primates’ behaviour may well inform the way we think about peace. Understanding the reasons behind the existence of dominance hierarchy and the role of equality (and to what extent it can exist) in other, non-human, species can and very likely should influence our theories for peacebuilding and whether and how they can be implemented in practice.
The individual reader's own understanding and conclusions may differ – on occasion, significantly – from those of the editor or this author. Yet this is the very point of academic writing: to provoke thoughts in the reader and inspire further research or practical actions. This volume is very much capable of this. As declared by Henry F. Carey and Rebecca Sims in Chapter 9, “The International Law of Peace”, the human right to peace is soft law. It is not binding. And this is precisely why it is flexible. The obligation to keep peace and build peace is there, but the “how” can be tailored to each situation.
In the conclusion, “A Hybrid Approach to Understanding Peacebuilding”, it is stated that the authors of this volume have pushed for more effective peacemaking yet the success of their efforts is still to be determined. This is true: humankind has moved on from thinking only about negative, stabilising peace, and is now increasingly considering ways to ensure positive peace whereby the causes of conflict are slowly eliminated, and sustainable peace can be achieved. It is also true, however, that the world is becoming more polarised – especially along political lines which end up affecting all other spheres of life. Yet, as the editor rightly observes, the negative effects of polarisation can be avoided “[b]y sharing ideas held in common … to find actual common ground in their own enlightened self-interest and for the benefit of conflict preemption and resolution, as well as longer term peacebuilding” (p. 346).
This author cannot help but wonder whether a blended, multiply hybrid peacebuilding model is possible, into which the good in all main paradigms is integrated. Certain components of each of paradigm appear to be necessary for the maintenance of lasting peace. We need dominance from realism, not least because this is what evolution proved to us. We need equality because democratic societies tend to have less armed conflict. But we also need to take into account local specificities and cultural aspects in order to be able to build “a peace” that is sustainable. Is it possible to combine all these features and create one blended theory to guide peacebuilding in the future? If it is possible to create such a theory, will we be able to implement it in practice? Will we be able to implement it across the globe? The seeds are sown – it remains to be seen how we nurture them and whether it will bring the desired fruit: positive peace for all humankind.
