Explaining post-conflict reconstruction. By Desha M. Girod; Violence after war: explaining instability in post-conflict states. By Michael J. Boyle

Abstract

There is no shortage of studies addressing the challenges of reconstructing states and societies in the aftermath of conflict. From the UK's official histories on occupation policies and postwar reconstruction in the 1940s (e.g. Frank Donnison's 1961 Civil affairs and military government north-west Europe 1944–1946) to RAND reports on reconstructing contemporary Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, there is nothing new about exploring the political violence and economies found in post-conflict societies. Even so, the last 20 years have seen significant changes in the intent, terminology and approaches used. Whether this reflects a proliferation of high-quality studies and a growing methodological sophistication is debatable, but several shifts can be identified. The first occurred in the 1990s, when the aftermath of the Balkans wars saw the publication of a number of innovative studies on the nature and dynamics of emergent political orders. These often combined analyses based in area or international studies with individual data collected at the regional and national levels; and it was not by accident that that the journal International Peacekeeping was launched in 1994. Unlike earlier studies like Donnison's, which provided an account of the decision-making and organizational responses needed for reconstruction in the aftermath of the Second World War, this research asks whether countries are able to reconstruct their economies and states in such a way as to be responsive to the needs of their citizens, and whether the international community can help or hinder such efforts. The publication of multiple special issues on, for example, humanitarian intervention, security sector reform and the Responsibility to Protect is indicative of contemporary interests, as is Timothy Donais's Peacebuilding and local ownership (Routledge, 2012).