Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Visions of Peace of Professional Peace Workers pp 199–238Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Conclusion: Visions, Divisions, Tensions and Solutions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 318 Accesses

Part of the book series: Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies ((RCS))

Abstract

In this concluding chapter all visions are summarized and compared, using the peace cube as a conceptual tool. Three main faultlines are identified. First a professional one: governmental peace workers see peace as a limited goal, whereas civil society peaceworkers see it as a holistic process. Second, a geographical divide: Dutch peace workers tend to see peace as a political objective—dubbed ‘Security Council peace’—whereas for peace workers from Lebanon and Mindanao, it is primarily a personal endeavour—they work on ‘UNESCO peace’, or peace in the minds of men and women. Finally, a hierarchical divide: privileged groups tend to work on civil peace, or peace-as-harmony, whereas peaceworkers from marginalized groups favour peace-as-justice. These observations are tied back into the literature on peacebuilding, discussing both the four alternatives to liberal peace identified in Chap. 2, as well as more recent developments such as the notion of sustaining peace.

When I was still doing research, peace had a lot to do with governance. (…) [But] when I started managing projects and work with grassroots organizations, I found out that it had a lot do to with socio-economic development, education, job security. So it’s not a universal phenomenon, it really depends on your experience.

(Interview Mitzi Austero (Non-violence International, Mindanao))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Chap. 7, Sect. 7.2.3 and Chap. 8, Sect. 8.2.3.

  2. 2.

    See Chap. 7, Sect. 7.2.2 and Chap. 8, Sect. 8.2.2.

  3. 3.

    In Sect. 9.4.

  4. 4.

    See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.3.2.

  5. 5.

    Interview Joost van Puijenbroek (PAX, the Netherlands). See also Sect. 6.2.

  6. 6.

    See Sects. 6.3 and 9.3.2 below.

  7. 7.

    See Chap. 8, Sect. 8.2.4.

  8. 8.

    See, e.g., the comparison with achieving 100% vaccination coverage by the WHO, mentioned in Sect. 6.1.

  9. 9.

    See Chap. 8, Sect. 8.2.4.

  10. 10.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.1.1.

  11. 11.

    See Chap. 7, Sect. 7.3.2 and Chap. 8, Sect. 8.4.2.

  12. 12.

    See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.4.

  13. 13.

    See Sect. 8.2.2. A similar move can be observed amongst Lebanese non-violent activists. See Chap. 7, Sect. 7.2.2.

  14. 14.

    Interview Ziad Saab (Fighters for Peace, Lebanon).

  15. 15.

    See Sect. 6.2.

  16. 16.

    See Sect. 3.1.1. See also Sects. 7.3.3 and 8.4.3.

  17. 17.

    In Chap. 6, it was shown that the political reading of peace was also more popular amongst more ‘senior’ civil society peace workers, including the interviewed directors of Dutch NGOs. See Sects. 6.4.4 and 5.3.1. I will return to this point below.

  18. 18.

    Although sometimes this mandate is contested, as, e.g., the Dutch involvement in the 2003 Iraq war shows. The point here, however, is that the Dutch Army is never asked to intervene in an area by UNESCO, making their deployment intrinsically part of political, rather than personal, peacebuilding efforts. Cf. also the second military vision of peace as a functioning state authority in Sect. 4.2.

  19. 19.

    See Chap. 7, Sect. 7.3.3.

  20. 20.

    As it is the only organ that can issue binding resolutions on member states.

  21. 21.

    In terms of position (e.g. NGO directors), not necessarily age or experience.

  22. 22.

    Though arguably also the majority of the settler interviewees treats—civil—peace as a personal phenomenon, a position dealt with below.

  23. 23.

    E.g., in Sects. 4.5, 5.3.4, 6.4.4 and 6.5.

  24. 24.

    The visions of Dutch civil society peace workers also offer many possibilities for complementarity, but given their rather holistic view of ‘Peace Writ Large’ and the insistence by part of them that the process is more important than the outcome (see Sect. 9.3.1 above), this should not come as a surprise.

  25. 25.

    At the level of operational visions that is, for more practical problems see, e.g. (De Coning and Friis 2011).

  26. 26.

    To expand a metaphor originally developed in (Mac Ginty 2008: 145).

  27. 27.

    See Sect. 5.3.1. We saw in par 6.3.4 that part of the Dutch civil society peace workers suffers from the same blind spot for any kind of peace that is not political in nature.

  28. 28.

    E.g., anonymous interview diplomat #5 (Dutch MoFA, North Africa and Middle East Department (DAM)). See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.3.4.

  29. 29.

    Anonymous interview diplomat #1 (Dutch MoFA, Stabilization and Humanitarian Aid Department (DSH))

  30. 30.

    Anonymous interview diplomat #3 Dutch MoFA, DSH).

  31. 31.

    Interview Rosalie Sluijter (retired diplomat, the Netherlands). See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.3.4. See also (Richmond and Franks 2009: 54–82) on the failure of statebuilding in Bosnia; (Whitt 2010) on levels of distrust; and (Puljek-Shank 2017) on how local civil society organizations deal with the neopatrimonial character of Bosnian institutions.

  32. 32.

    See also Chap. 6, Sect. 6.4.4.

  33. 33.

    See Chap. 8, Sect. 8.4.

  34. 34.

    See Chap. 8, Sect. 8.2.1.

  35. 35.

    See Sect. 9.3.1.

  36. 36.

    See Chap. 7, Sect. 7.2.3. A similar conclusion is drawn by Anne de Jong in her work on joint non-violent protesters in Israel and Palestine (De Jong 2011).

  37. 37.

    With the interesting exception of a few civil society peace workers who had worked closely with marginalized groups such as Palestinians or Kashmiri. E.g., interviews Marjolein Wijninckx (PAX, the Netherlands), Marjan Lucas (independent consultant, the Netherlands).

  38. 38.

    See Chap. 2, Sects. 2.3 and 2.4.

  39. 39.

    See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.

  40. 40.

    For their attitudes towards democracy, see a.o. their low scores for the Q-statement ‘peace means living in a democratic state with rule of law’ reported in Chap. 3, Sect. 3.1.2 and Appendix B. For the political/economic character of peace, see Sects. 5.2 and 5.3.1.

  41. 41.

    See Chap. 6, Sects. 6.4.2 and 6.4.3.

  42. 42.

    Though not necessarily more emancipatory forms of peace, since military officers tend to stress the need for a functioning state authority as a second step in building peace.

  43. 43.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.1.2.

  44. 44.

    Although arguably they also do not explicitly reject it. See also the debates in (Millar 2014; Mac Ginty and Richmond 2016).

  45. 45.

    The interviews did not provide sufficient data to draw any conclusions on this, but future research more focused on this particular question could.

  46. 46.

    See Chap. 6, Sect. 6.4.4.

  47. 47.

    See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.1 and Chap. 3, Sect. 3.1.3.

References

  • Abu-Nimer, M., Ed. (2001). Reconciliation, justice, and coexistence: Theory and practice. Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Advisory Group of Experts (2015). The challenge of sustaining peace. Report of the Advisory Group of Experts for the 2015 Review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggestam, K., F. Cristiano, et al. (2015). “Towards agonistic peacebuilding? Exploring the antagonism–agonism nexus in the Middle East peace process.” Third World Quarterly 36(9): 1736–1753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allan, P. (2006). “Measuring international ethics: A moral scale of war, peace, justice, and global care.” In What is a just peace. P. Allan and A. Keller (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 90–129.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. B. and L. Olson (2003). Confronting war: Critical lessons for peace practitioners. Cambridge: Collaborative for Development Action.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autesserre, S. (2010). The trouble with the Congo: Local violence and the failure of international peacebuilding. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, M. (1987). “Four conceptions of peace.” In Conflict management and problem solving: Interpersonal to international applications. D. J. D. Sandole and I. Sandole-Staroste (Eds.). London: Pinter: 259–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beirne, M. and C. Knox (2014). “Reconciliation and human rights in Northern Ireland: A false dichotomy?” Journal of Human Rights Practice 6(1): 26–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belloni, R. (2012). “Hybrid peace governance: Its emergence and significance.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 18(1): 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berents, H. and S. McEvoy-Levy (2015). “Theorising youth and everyday peace (building).” Peacebuilding 3(2): 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björkdahl, A. and S. Kappler (2017). Peacebuilding and spatial transformation: Peace, space and place. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Björkdahl, A. and J. Mannergren Selimovic (2016). “A tale of three bridges: Agency and agonism in peace building.” Third World Quarterly 37(2): 321–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, D. (2006). On good terms: Clarifying reconciliation. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boege, V. (2012). “Hybrid forms of peace and order on a South Sea Island: Experiences from Bougainville (Papua New Guinea).” In Hybrid forms of peace: From everyday agency to post-liberalism. O. Richmond and A. Mitchell (Eds.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 88–106.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boege, V., M. A. Brown, et al. (2008). “States emerging from hybrid political orders: Pacific experiences The Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies Occasional Papers Series.” Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. The Occasional Papers 10(11): 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusset, E., C. De Coning, et al. (2016). Complexity thinking for peacebuilding practice and evaluation. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, R. J. and R. Aspeslagh (2014). Three decades of peace education around the world: An anthology. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Call, C. T. (2008). “Knowing peace when you see it: Setting standards for peacebuilding success.” Civil Wars 10(2): 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2010). “The uncritical critique of ‘liberal peace’.” Review of International Studies 36(S1): 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2014). Resilience: The governance of complexity. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2017). Peacebuilding: The twenty years’ crisis, 1997–2017. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. and O. Richmond (2015). “Contesting postliberalism: Governmentality or emancipation.” Journal of International Relations and Development 18(1): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenoweth, E. and M. J. Stephan (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, J. and T. Hohe (2004). “Participatory intervention.” Global Governance 10(3): 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, N., M. Turner, et al. (2011). “The end of history and the last liberal peacebuilder: A reply to Roland Paris.” Review of International Studies 1(1): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, C. (2006). Civil war is not a stupid thing. Accounting for violence in developing countries. Hurst & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Carvalho, B. and C. De Coning (2013). Rising powers and the future of peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Oslo: Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre (NOREF).

    Google Scholar 

  • De Coning, C. (2016). “From peacebuilding to sustaining peace: Implications of complexity for resilience and sustainability.” Resilience 4(3): 166–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Coning, C. (2018a). “Adaptive peacebuilding.” International Affairs 94(2): 301–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Coning, C. and K. Friis (2011). “Coherence and coordination: The limits of the comprehensive approach.” Journal of International Peacekeeping 15(1–2): 243–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, A. (2011). The silent voice: Palestinian and Israeli nonviolent activism and resistance. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • De la Rey, C. and S. McKay (2006). “Peacebuilding as a gendered process.” Journal of Social Issues 62(1): 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, W. (2002). “Farewell to the one peace.” Peace Review 14(1): 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, W. (2012). Interpretations of peace in history and culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, W. and W. Sützl (1997). A call for many peaces. Peace Center Burg Schlaining.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donais, T. (2009). “Empowerment or imposition? Dilemmas of local ownership in post-conflict peacebuilding processes.” Peace & Change 34(1): 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Taranco, O. (2016). “Sustaining peace is a core activity of the UN.” Global peace operations review. Retrieved from https://peaceoperationsreview.org/commentary/sustaining-peace-is-a-core-activity-of-the-un/.

  • Firchow, P. (2018). Reclaiming everyday peace: Local voices in measurement and evaluation after war. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2005). “Reframing justice in a globalizing world.” New Left Review 36: 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, N. C. (2012). “Building on what’s already there: Valuing the local in international peacebuilding.” International Journal 67(2): 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1969). “Violence, peace, and peace research.” Journal of Peace Research 6(3): 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (2007). “Introduction: Peace by peaceful conflict transformation—The transcend approach.” In Handbook of peace and conflict studies. C. Webel and J. Galtung (Eds.). London and New York: Routledge: 14–32.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, N. P., J. Nordkvelle, et al. (2014). “Peace research—Just the study of war?” Journal of Peace Research 51(2): 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, B. S. (2003). “Johan Galtung: Positive and negative peace.” Retrieved April 5, 2013, from http://www.activeforpeace.org/no/fred/positive_negative_peace.pdf.

  • Heathershaw, J. (2013). “Towards better theories of peacebuilding: Beyond the liberal peace debate.” Peacebuilding 1(2): 275–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilhorst, D. and M. Van Leeuwen (2005). “Grounding local peace organisations: A case study of Southern Sudan.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 43(4): 537–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höglund, K. and M. S. Kovacs (2010). “Beyond the absence of war: The diversity of peace in post-settlement societies.” Review of International Studies 36(2): 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. and M. L. Hutchison (2012). “Hybridity, political order and legitimacy: Examples from Nigeria.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(2): 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klem, B. (2018). “The problem of peace and the meaning of ‘post-war’.” Conflict, Security & Development 18(3): 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J. P. (2015). Little book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes Cardozo, M. T. and R. Shah (2016). “A conceptual framework to analyse the multiscalar politics of education for sustainable peacebuilding.” Comparative Education 52(4): 516–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2008). “Indigenous peace-making versus the liberal peace.” Cooperation and Conflict 43(2): 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2010). “Hybrid peace: The interaction between top-down and bottom-up peace.” Security Dialogue 41(4): 391–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2011). International peacebuilding and local resistance: Hybrid forms of peace. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2012). “Routine peace: Technocracy and peacebuilding.” Cooperation and Conflict 47(3): 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2014). “Everyday peace: Bottom-up and local agency in conflict-affected societies.” Security Dialogue 45(6): 548–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and P. Firchow (2016). “Top-down and bottom-up narratives of peace and conflict.” Politics 36(3): 308–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and O. P. Richmond (2013). “The local turn in peace building: A critical agenda for peace.” Third World Quarterly 34(5): 763–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and O. Richmond (2016). “The fallacy of constructing hybrid political orders: A reappraisal of the hybrid turn in peacebuilding.” International Peacekeeping 23(2): 219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and G. Sanghera (2012a). “Hybridity in peacebuilding and development: An introduction.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(2): 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoud, Y. and A. Makoond (2017). Sustaining peace: What does it mean in practice. Issue Brief. New York: International Peace Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallat, C. (2015). Philosophy of nonviolence: Revolution, constitutionalism, and justice beyond the Middle East. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (2014). “Disaggregating hybridity: Why hybrid institutions do not produce predictable experiences of peace.” Journal of Peace Research 51(4): 501–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (2016). “Local experiences of liberal peace.” Journal of Peace Research 53(4): 569–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagle, J. (2014). “From the politics of antagonistic recognition to agonistic peace building: An exploration of symbols and rituals in divided societies.” Peace & Change 39(4): 468–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noma, E., D. Aker, et al. (2012). “Heeding women’s voices: Breaking cycles of conflict and deepening the concept of peacebuilding.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(1): 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, A., L. Bui-Wrzosinska, et al. (2012). “Sustainable peace: A dynamical systems perspective.” In Psychological components of sustainable peace. Springer: 265–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paarlberg-Kvam, K. (2018). “What’s to come is more complicated: Feminist visions of peace in Colombia.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 21(2): 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paffenholz, T. (2014). “International peacebuilding goes local: Analysing Lederach’s conflict transformation theory and its ambivalent encounter with 20 years of practice.” Peacebuilding 2(1): 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paffenholz, T. (2015). “Unpacking the local turn in peacebuilding: A critical assessment towards an agenda for future research.” Third World Quarterly 36(5): 857–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, R. (2004). At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, R. (2010). “Saving liberal peacebuilding.” Review of International Studies 36: 337–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parlevliet, M. (2015). Embracing concurrent realities: Revisiting the relationship between human rights and conflict resolution. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polat, N. (2010). “Peace as war.” Alternatives 35(4): 317–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, M. (2010). “Welfare in war-torn societies: Nemesis of the liberal peace?” In Palgrave advances in peacebuilding: Critical developments and approaches. O. Richmond (Ed.). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 262–273.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, M., N. Cooper, et al., Eds. (2008). Whose peace? Critical perspectives on the political economy of peacebuilding. New Security Challenges. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puljek-Shank, R. (2017). “Dead letters on a page? Civic agency and inclusive governance in neopatrimonialism.” Democratization 24(4): 670–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsbotham, O. (2010). Transforming violent conflict: Radical disagreement, dialogue and survival. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, P. (2005). No peace, no war: The anthropology of contemporary armed conflicts. James Currey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2005). The transformation of peace. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2008b). “Welfare and the civil peace: Poverty with rights?” In Whose peace? Critical perspectives on the political economy of peacebuilding. M. Pugh, N. Cooper, and M. Turner (Eds.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 287–301.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2009a). “A post-liberal peace: Eirenism and the everyday.” Review of International Studies 35: 557–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2009b). “The romanticisation of the local: Welfare, culture and peacebuilding.” The International Spectator 44(1): 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2011). A post-liberal peace. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. and J. Franks (2009). Liberal peace transitions: Between statebuilding and peacebuilding. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. and A. Mitchell, Eds. (2012). Hybrid forms of peace. From everyday agency to post-liberalism. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelili, B. and A. B. Çelik (2017). “Ontological insecurity in asymmetric conflicts: Reflections on agonistic peace in Turkey’s Kurdish issue.” Security Dialogue. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010617695715.

  • Sabaratnam, M. (2013). “Avatars of Eurocentrism in the critique of the liberal peace.” Security Dialogue 44(3): 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schia, N. N. and J. Karlsrud (2013). “‘Where the rubber meets the road’: Friction sites and local-level peacebuilding in Haiti, Liberia and South Sudan.” International Peacekeeping 20(2): 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, G. (2012). From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinko, R. E. (2008). “Agonistic peace: A postmodern reading.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 36(3): 473–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sriram, C. L. (2010). “Resolving conflicts and pursuing accountability: Beyond ‘justice versus peace’.” In Palgrave advances in peacebuilding: Critical developments and approaches. O. Richmond (Ed.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 288–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamnes, E. and K. M. Osland (2016). “Synthesis report: Reviewing UN peace operations, the UN peacebuilding architecture and the implementation of UNSCR 1325.”

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadjbakhsh, S. and A. M. Chenoy (2012). Human security: Concepts and implications. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, M., W. Verkoren, et al. (2012). “Thinking beyond the liberal peace: From utopia to heterotopias.” Acta Politica 47(3): 292–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallensteen, P. (2015a). Quality peace: Peacebuilding, victory and world order. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitt, S. (2010). “Institutions and ethnic trust: Evidence from Bosnia.” Europe-Asia Studies 62(2): 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zizek, S. (2009). Violence: Six sideways reflections. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Gijsbert M. van Iterson Scholten

Authors
  1. Gijsbert M. van Iterson Scholten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gijsbert M. van Iterson Scholten .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van Iterson Scholten, G.M. (2020). Conclusion: Visions, Divisions, Tensions and Solutions. In: Visions of Peace of Professional Peace Workers. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27975-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation