Abstract
AbstractThe theories and doctrines related to peacekeeping, mediation, peacebuilding, and statebuilding, as well as other tools used to end war and conflict, raise a range of long-standing questions about the evolution and integrity of what might be called an international peace architecture. A narrow version of this term has begun to appear in the context of peacebuilding through the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, other regional actors, the international legal system, and the International Financial Institutions. This article proposes a much broader, historical version, with six main theoretical stages, which have, from a critical perspective, produced a substantial, though fragile, international architecture.
Highlights
During the last century, the construction and evolution of an assemblage that can be described as an ‘international peace architecture’ (IPA) has spanned the local, state, and global scales of international relations
The theories and doctrines related to peacekeeping, mediation, peacebuilding, and statebuilding, as well as other tools used to end war and conflict, raise a range of long-standing questions about the evolution and integrity of what might be called an international peace architecture
A narrow version of this term has begun to appear in the context of peacebuilding through the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, other regional actors, the international legal system, and the International Financial Institutions
Summary
The construction and evolution of an assemblage that can be described as an ‘international peace architecture’ (IPA) has spanned the local, state, and global scales of international relations. The architecture represents an attempt to respond to the aftermath of different types of war while maintaining Western and Northern hegemony, to support the construction of a social state, and international framework capable of overcoming war’s causal roots, and to support a dynamic, networked peace from a subaltern perspective that transcends old injustices, losses, boundaries, and hierarchies.. The architecture represents an attempt to respond to the aftermath of different types of war while maintaining Western and Northern hegemony, to support the construction of a social state, and international framework capable of overcoming war’s causal roots, and to support a dynamic, networked peace from a subaltern perspective that transcends old injustices, losses, boundaries, and hierarchies.6 Several of these goals are contradictory: the IPA combines both emancipatory and hegemonic frameworks, in which ideological contestation of political and international order have not been resolved. It concludes with an evaluation of the architecture’s functionality and stability, and discusses what it means for how contemporary peace has developed as a concept
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
