Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBARNETT, Michael
dc.date.accessioned2010-03-12T10:45:10Z
dc.date.available2010-03-12T10:45:10Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.issn1028-3625
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/13537
dc.description.abstractThis paper develops two claims that follow from two general conclusions from recent re-search on peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction. The first is that international peacebuilders are fairly good at ending violence and at producing stability, but are less talented at creating liberal states. In order to understand why, Section I develops the concept of the “peacebuilders’ contract”, which is intended to map the kinds of strategic interactions that are likely to unfold between peacebuilders and local élites and capture why these interactions are likely to favour the status quo preferred by local forces. Following on the general recognition that international peacebuilders are limited in what they can produce, the second conclusion concerns the need for peacebuilders to be more strategic in their thinking and to be satisfied with producing small victories that can sup-port the emergence of decent governments which provide the foundations for future movements towards a positive peace. These observations and their implications are applicable not only to post-war interventions, but also to the broader international agenda of fixing states.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEUI RSCASen
dc.relation.ispartofseries2010/14en
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEuropean Report on Developmenten
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectpeacebuildingen
dc.subjectfailed statesen
dc.subjectpostconflict administrationen
dc.titleState Fragility, the Peacebuilder’s Contract, and the Search for the Least Bad Stateen
dc.typeWorking Paperen
eui.subscribe.skiptrue


Files associated with this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record