Politikwissenschaft (Goetschel)Head of Research Unit Prof. Dr.Laurent GoetschelOverviewMembersPublicationsProjects & CollaborationsProjects & Collaborations OverviewMembersPublicationsProjects & Collaborations Projects & Collaborations 37 foundShow per page10 10 20 50 Power-Sharing for Peace? Between Adoptability and Durability in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq Research Project | 2 Project MembersPower-sharing, referring to elite cooperation and territorial decentralization, is a main tool used by international actors to pacify violent conflicts and ensure democracy in divided societies. Yet, the adoption of a power-sharing agreement is challenging, as demonstrated by the ongoing negotiations in Syria. Even when adopted, it is not always durable. While it has pacified some countries, such as Lebanon, it has been unable to transform their political frameworks into ones based on functional cooperation and durable peace. Iraq, meanwhile, demonstrates the danger of partial power-sharing implementation. Comparing three Middle Eastern countries - Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon - this project examines the adoptability and durability of power-sharing agreements, focusing on two main Research Questions: RQ1: Under what conditions do power-sharing agreements come into being? RQ2: Once agreed, what implementation challenges might impede functional governance and subsequently durable peace? Using a multi-disciplinary approach (Political Science, Comparative Constitutional Law, and Political Economy), the project will not only extend and refine power-sharing theory but will also provide concrete policy recommendations for national, international, and non-state actors. An international research team with members from Switzerland, Canada, Lebanon, and Iraq will work with civil society organizations in order to examine expectations of power-sharing as well as on-the-ground assessments of its durability in the case countries. Utilizing an international advisory board and existing links to a variety of state and civil society actors, project findings, based on local knowledge and insights, will be translated into concrete policy recommendations and three academic journal outputs. Rethinking transnational feminism and power relations in times of backlash Research Project | 1 Project MembersThe rise of authoritarianism in post-communist Europe goes hand in hand with an anti-gender backlash. Authoritarian regimes in the region use the backlash to conduct what I call "Othering back". Anti-gender backlash is used to brand the West / the EU as a perverted Other who tries to impose supposedly alien values and norms. As a result, the West / the EU not only no longer figure as legitimate reference points to assess one's own development. More importantly still, this acts as a shortcut to refute democratisation and liberal rights altogether and thus to justify the own mode of governance and an aggressive foreign policy, which only serves to defend this "normative attack". Against this background, it is primordial that the scholarship on transnational feminism rethinks which power relations is considers salient. Since inception it has been primarily preoccupied with unearthing how asymmetrical relationships between the West and the rest function, both in feminist thought and practice, to silence "other" women. With the rise of authoritarianism, I argue we ought to shift focus on internal power dynamics within authoritarian regimes. For this is the power axis feminists on the ground are most concerned with at this historical junction. Sticking with the traditional focus on Western hegemony not only no longer reflects their main concern, it crucially plays into the hand of the authoritarian regimes they actually try to oppose. This research project therefore looks at how Othering back is conducted in official discourse and through policies, the impact is has on feminists in two case studies (Russia and Serbia) and how they reject the traditional notion of West-Rest power relations and advocate for a reformulation of transnational feminism that goes beyond this harmful geographical dichotomy. International Peacemaking in Pursuit of a "Good Peace": Integration or Separation? Research Project | 2 Project MembersThe challenge of peacemaking has predominantly been understood as a pragmatic exercise in problem solving - how to devise the most effective peace deal that will be adopted by the conflict parties and end the violence. However, international peacemakers and conflict parties do not only ask "what works?" in trying to end conflicts; they are also driven by the question "what is the right thing to do?". This research project asks how this normative dimension shapes international peacemaking, thereby addressing a thus far undertheorised facet. To do so, it focuses on a particular aspect of peacemaking: approaches to managing diversity after conflict. What do international peacemakers and conflict parties believe to be a "good peace", and how does this shape their views on diversity management? From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, diversity can be managed in a range of ways, which entail either the integration or separation of groups, including through partitions and the re-drawing of borders, the resettlement of populations, or the recognition or denial of minority rights. And yet, while some of these may reduce violence, not all are considered equally acceptable or desirable. This indicates that there is a normative dimension to international peacemaking, whereby peacemakers' visions of a "good peace" contribute to shaping their actions. Despite the important influence of this normative dimension in delineating the options available to peacemakers, mediation scholars have overlooked how it operates. The project draws on constructivist assumptions of interests and identities as socially constructed, and of political actors choosing strategies as much out of a sense of wanting to do the right thing, as wanting to do what works best. In other words, we assume that actors make decisions based on both normative imperatives and utility-maximising, and we employ tools from norms research to study the contestation over norms of diversity management in peace processes. The project connects three bodies of literature filling gaps in each: the literatures on peacemaking, on norms in international relations (IR), and on diversity management following ethnic and other inter-group conflicts. It contributes to these by foregrounding normative dimensions that are undertheorised in peacemaking scholarship. To do so, the project studies the discourses and practices of international peacemakers in relation to their vision of appropriate diversity management and how those interact with the conflict parties' respective visions. Further, it conceptually extends the existing scholarship on diversity management in peace and conflict studies by mapping approaches across policy levels including demographic, territorial, institutions, and legal spheres. The project contributes to theory building and sheds light on an understudied phenomenon, making inductive use of case study methods through a combination of conceptual work, intra-case analysis with process tracing, and cross-case comparisons. Empirically, the project explores visions of a "good peace" in relation to diversity by studying how questions of population displacement and resettlement, political boundary-making, and institutional and legal recognition of diversity have been addressed in six different contexts of international peacemaking over the last decades. Within each of these contexts, a number of discrete peacemaking episodes, spanning several decades and including a range of different peacemakers, are explored in depth through process tracing. The final research step consists of exploratory comparisons that aim at theory building about peacemaking's underexplored normative dimension. CLOC Digital Education And Research for MENA Research Project | 3 Project MembersAccess to digital education and research is crucial for the implementation of several Sustainable Development Goals, such as SDG4 (Quality Education) and SDG9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). It narrows the gap in education and research quality between the Global North and the Global South. New information and communication technologies allow delivering modern digital methods with new emerging forms of learning, teaching and technology transfer. The questions of access to information and knowledge are particularly relevant in fragile and conflict-affected contexts and need to be dealt with in a contextsensitive way. The Cluster of Cooperation "Digital Education And Research for MENA - DEAR MENA" therefore aims at contributing to a research and education network between Institutions of Higher Education in Switzerland and the MENA region. The network hub will be based in Lebanon (at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut) and functions as a regional hub on: A) Focus on digital education & partnerships; B) Focus on engineering education; and C) Focus on peacebuilding, gender & diversity. One size does not fit all: the strategic use of inclusion in mediation processes Research Project | 1 Project MembersIn 2012, the UN General Assembly adopted inclusivity, understood as "the extent and manner in which the views and needs of conflict parties and other stakeholders are represented and integrated into the process and outcome of a mediation effort," as one of eight fundamental principles for effective mediation (United Nations 2012). There is however little agreement and even less evidence-based data regarding the two key elements of this definition: the extent and the manner in which views are represented and integrated in mediation processes. If these are indeed essential factors for effective mediation processes, it is both theoretically and practically important to produce evidence-based research on inclusivity. Current academic debates pit proponents of inclusivity against skeptics. Proponents of inclusivity argue that inclusion increases public support for the peace process, provides local expertise and knowledge, broadens the discussion beyond the narrow interests of the negotiating parties, and increases the sustainability of peace agreements. Skeptics counter that inclusivity lowers the chances of reaching an agreement. They contend that agreement is easier reached amongst a limited number of actors; that exclusionary talks are sometimes necessary to achieve breakthroughs, and that selection problems prevent the real inclusion of societal views at the table. We argue that the current debate creates a false dichotomy between inclusion and exclusion. To overcome this, we focus on context and process , two dimensions that the current literature eludes. First, whereas proponents of inclusivity argue in favor of inclusion irrespective of the actors, the issues at stake and the geographical levels at which the conflicts play out, we ask: What is the relation between inclusion and conflict type ? Do all contexts require the inclusion of the same set of actors? Second, while academics on both sides of the debate have paid little attention to the strategic use of inclusion at different points in a mediation process, we ask: Can mediators strategically use inclusion in a process to advance their objectives ? If so, how and what are the conditions under which this strategy makes mediation more effective? By studying the relationship between inclusion, context and process, the project seeks to refocus attention on inclusivity's initial purpose as spelled out in the UN Guidance: increasing the effectiveness of mediation processes. To this end, we will conduct comparative case study analysis of mediators' inclusion strategies in six cases that vary on 1) conflict type and 2) mediator identity distinguishing between international/regional organizations, state actors, and non-state third parties. The selected cases - Syria, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Colombia, Nepal, Myanmar and Kenya - include a mix of recent (sometimes still ongoing) and historical mediation processes. Education for Development (EFORD) Research Project | 2 Project MembersResearch and education are fundamental to sustainable development. This project entitled Education for Development (EFORD) aims at improving academic and vocational education of researchers and professionals who work on and in development and conflict-affected contexts. By improving the coordination between distinct educational institutions (universities, universities of applied sciences, vocational training schools, independent research centers) and their curricula it will reduce the gap between research results and their actual uptake. EFORD works together with social sciences, natural sciences and health sciences to draw on findings and transcend traditional disciplinary clusters. In terms of policies, EFORD follows an SDG16+ approach according to which the promotion of peace is closely linked to the development of just and inclusive societies. Health policies and natural resource and ecosystem management policies are crucial to the development and to the well-being of all societies. In terms of research, EFORD will concentrate on the generation of "interface-knowledge" between the three polices mentioned and on science-practice transfer knowledge. From Fragility to Resilience: Accounting for the Diversity of State-making Trajectories in Africa Research Project | 2 Project MembersState fragility has come to lay at the heart of the international community's engagement in developing countries. This is evidenced by the concept's centrality in the OECD's Development Assistance Committee's agenda, and its inclusion in the World Bank's 2011 World Development Report as well as the Swiss government's 2013-2016 Message on International Cooperation. While policymakers have frequently linked fragility to a range of humanitarian concerns and transnational security threats (cf. McLoughlin 2012), research organizations such as The Fund for Peace have developed indexes that provide a gloomy outlook on the state(s) of the world. This applies particularly to Africa, which is summarily judged to be "undoubtedly plagued by systematic state failure" (Howard 2014), and which is allegedly home to 30 out of a total of 49 fragile states in the world (OECD 2015). However, Burkina Faso's huge successes towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Tanzania's notable political stability, Botswana's stunning economic progress, Zambia's completely peaceful development, and the fact that out of 54 African countries more than half have neither experienced internal nor intrastate war between 1947 and 2015 (UCDP/PRIO 2015; see also Lindemann 2008), all call such blanket propositions on 'the African state' into question. Thus, and given that the alleged structural causes of fragility-ranging from arbitrary colonial borders (Herbst 2000) to widespread poverty and inequality (Sachs 2003)-are widely shared among African countries, the real puzzle is not necessarily why so many countries have succumbed to fragility, but why numerous African states have not . Framed differently, the central question motivating this research project is how differences in state trajectories in Africa can be explained, and under what conditions it is state-making or state-breaking that prevails. The project hypothesizes that a defining characteristic of state trajectories lies in the process of 'rule standardization'. It proposes that whereas states of fragility are marked by a plurality of coexisting institutions (i.e. 'rules of the game') and identities (i.e. 'rules of the mind'), resilient states have witnessed a process whereby such rules came to be standardized across a politically defined territory and its population. While this novel analytical lens provides the project's originality, its rationale lies in gaining a more nuanced understanding of state-making and its underlying currents. Informed by historical sociology and political economy, and framed in the language of institutions, this research advances theoretical and empirical insights into state dynamics, not least by bringing issues of social cohesion and identity formation back into debates on state-making. Unlike many past studies of fragility, which have generally treated cases of fragile statehood in isolation and exhibited insufficient variation on the dependent variable, this project avoids such methodological flaws by proposing a comparative case studies research design. Accordingly, a few carefully selected pairs of African countries that are marked by divergent state trajectories will be subject to in-depth research and comparative analysis-both within and across pairs. This not only promises to provide a better understanding of why and under what conditions fragile statehood does (not) occur, but also allows to rethink processes of state-making and -breaking more generally. Knowledge for peace. Understanding research, policy and practice synergies r4d Research Project | 2 Project MembersThe aim of the project is to develop recommendations on how to enhance research-policy-practice synergies that are relevant to peace building and sustainable development. The starting point of our research project is the hypothesis that improved synergies between research policy and practice will produce better knowledge for peacebuilding. We define 'better' knowledge for peacebuilding as reliable, critical, policy-relevant and useful knowledge for practitioners. These synergies would consist of knowledge exchange, production and assessment through a series of interactions between actors which would not be based on hierarchies of knowledge but on a mutual desire to produce better knowledge. We add to previous knowledge on this subject by investigating that which has been under‐researched: the process of knowledge production itself. This draws on, but goes beyond, stud-ies which focus on how to translate complex realities to policy actors, on how research feeds into development practice and can be used by development practitioners, on how researchers can justify programmes or convince donors, or on a taken for granted assumption about the importance of the relationship between research, policy and practice. In order to shed empirical light on this under‐researched area our project will study research‐policy‐practice synergies in transitional justice, namely how knowledge is generated, how the boundaries of such knowledge come to be determined, which forms of knowledge are considered to be more legitimate, and how the politics of knowledge production shapes the types of policies which are considered, designed and implemented. Our findings will then allow us to develop recommendations on how to enhance research‐policy‐practice synergies beyond our focus on transitional justice, and with a relevance for peacebuilding and development more broadly. Objective of the project An analysis of the discursive and material practices of transitional justice. An exploration of how knowledge about 'peace' and 'justice' is produced, the politics of this process, and how knowledge is exchanged between different actors and between research‐policy‐practice domains of activity. An analysis of what the first two processes mean for which types of policies are enacted and what types of policy options might be overlooked, marginalised and/or missing. A set of recommendations for how actors can strengthen and optimise research‐policy‐practice synergies to improve research and practice. Desired Change / Impact This project is focused on improving the policy‐making of transitional justice and thus to improve the lives of people living in contexts where peacebuilding and development work is taking place. Our project has the key meta‐objective to contribute to better knowledge at the intersection between development, peacebuilding and transitional justice. It is here that we focus our impact. Our underlying framework for seeking changes in transitional justice, peacebuilding and development is based on a thorough understanding of the politics of knowledge production. Thus our research sets out to capture discursive and material practices of knowledge production, to explore the boundaries of knowledge and how they come to be determined, to explain which forms of knowledge are considered more legitimate, and to illustrate how the politics of knowledge production shapes the types of policies which are considered, designed and implemented. We assume that a thorough understanding of the politics of knowledge production bears the potential of raising awareness among key stakeholder groups in order to foster a change in perspectives and thinking with regard to policies and practices of transitional justice. Modified perspectives and following engagements of key stakeholder groups will in turn impact on the design and implementation of policies and interventions in transitional justice which will provoke spill‐over effects to peacebuilding and development overall. Following our initial assumption about the production of knowledge based on the interaction between knowledge and policy, this will increase the effectiveness of policies and interventions. Are mediators norm entrepreneurs? Research Project | 2 Project MembersNorms play an increasingly important role in mediation processes. Mediators are no longer supposed to only bring a conflict to an end, they are also asked to integrate certain norms into mediation processes. However, although the role and diffusion of norms have been widely researched in international relations and peacebuilding literature, the same does not count for the field of mediation. While the conditions under which mediation leads to a sustainable agreement have been assessed, the role of mediators in norm diffusion has only been treated in a largely prescriptive way in policy debates. This is surprising given the fact that mediation is at the core of a wider peacebuilding process. This project seeks to shed light on the role of mediators in norm diffusion by asking to what extent mediators are norm entrepreneurs defined by Finnemore and Sikkink (1998: 895) as actors who "attempt to convince a critical mass of [actors] to embrace new norms". More specifically, it addresses the questions of what norms belong to the normative framework for mediation processes; whether mediators promote and imitate norms and how; and which norms have been internalized in mediation processes. Thereby, the project responds to three biases in current research on norm diffusion. First, it also allows insights into those norms that have not diffused in contrast to earlier research which has largely neglected instances of non-diffusion. Second, norm diffusion will neither be seen as a priori positive or negative compared to current analyses which often portray it as inherently positive. Third, the project allows for agency of actors while earlier research mainly focused on the influence of the structure on agents. Methodologically, the project is based on a combination of case study and process-tracing. Three cases of mediators are chosen which are mandated by the most typical actors in the mediation field: an intergovernmental organization (the United Nations (UN)), a regional organization (the African Union (AU)) and a state (Switzerland). On the basis of these three cases, a two-level analysis is conducted. First, and most importantly, the project assesses causal processes at the within-case level focusing on the agency of mediators. It does this through process-tracing because it allows for an in-depth description of a trajectory of change, namely the process of norm diffusion, and analyzes closely the sequences of independent, dependent, and intervening variables. Second, it conducts a comparison at the cross-case level examining how the role of mediators as norm entrepreneurs varies between the three cases. Data is collected through content analysis, interviews, focus group discussions as well as participant observation. The main contribution of the proposed research project is twofold. First, it addresses three important gaps in academic literature on norm diffusion and second, it adds empirical evidence to an often merely policy-based prescriptive debate on the role of mediators in norm diffusion. As such, this project makes a coherent and highly important contribution to scientific debates. Resistances to Transitional Justice at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) Research Project | 1 Project MembersThis PhD thesis analyses resistances to the state-sanctioned transitional justice process in Cambodia, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). This PhD research is embedded within critical approaches to transitional justice. In this scholarship, transitional justice is analysed as a political process of negotiations between different actors; as such, it is necessarily contested. Such an approach to transitional justice enables to see resistances to transitional justice not as deviant but as a legitimate object of enquiry. This PhD thesis is based on an empirical approach with a strong emphasis on qualitative fieldwork. 1234 1...4 OverviewMembersPublicationsProjects & Collaborations
Projects & Collaborations 37 foundShow per page10 10 20 50 Power-Sharing for Peace? Between Adoptability and Durability in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq Research Project | 2 Project MembersPower-sharing, referring to elite cooperation and territorial decentralization, is a main tool used by international actors to pacify violent conflicts and ensure democracy in divided societies. Yet, the adoption of a power-sharing agreement is challenging, as demonstrated by the ongoing negotiations in Syria. Even when adopted, it is not always durable. While it has pacified some countries, such as Lebanon, it has been unable to transform their political frameworks into ones based on functional cooperation and durable peace. Iraq, meanwhile, demonstrates the danger of partial power-sharing implementation. Comparing three Middle Eastern countries - Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon - this project examines the adoptability and durability of power-sharing agreements, focusing on two main Research Questions: RQ1: Under what conditions do power-sharing agreements come into being? RQ2: Once agreed, what implementation challenges might impede functional governance and subsequently durable peace? Using a multi-disciplinary approach (Political Science, Comparative Constitutional Law, and Political Economy), the project will not only extend and refine power-sharing theory but will also provide concrete policy recommendations for national, international, and non-state actors. An international research team with members from Switzerland, Canada, Lebanon, and Iraq will work with civil society organizations in order to examine expectations of power-sharing as well as on-the-ground assessments of its durability in the case countries. Utilizing an international advisory board and existing links to a variety of state and civil society actors, project findings, based on local knowledge and insights, will be translated into concrete policy recommendations and three academic journal outputs. Rethinking transnational feminism and power relations in times of backlash Research Project | 1 Project MembersThe rise of authoritarianism in post-communist Europe goes hand in hand with an anti-gender backlash. Authoritarian regimes in the region use the backlash to conduct what I call "Othering back". Anti-gender backlash is used to brand the West / the EU as a perverted Other who tries to impose supposedly alien values and norms. As a result, the West / the EU not only no longer figure as legitimate reference points to assess one's own development. More importantly still, this acts as a shortcut to refute democratisation and liberal rights altogether and thus to justify the own mode of governance and an aggressive foreign policy, which only serves to defend this "normative attack". Against this background, it is primordial that the scholarship on transnational feminism rethinks which power relations is considers salient. Since inception it has been primarily preoccupied with unearthing how asymmetrical relationships between the West and the rest function, both in feminist thought and practice, to silence "other" women. With the rise of authoritarianism, I argue we ought to shift focus on internal power dynamics within authoritarian regimes. For this is the power axis feminists on the ground are most concerned with at this historical junction. Sticking with the traditional focus on Western hegemony not only no longer reflects their main concern, it crucially plays into the hand of the authoritarian regimes they actually try to oppose. This research project therefore looks at how Othering back is conducted in official discourse and through policies, the impact is has on feminists in two case studies (Russia and Serbia) and how they reject the traditional notion of West-Rest power relations and advocate for a reformulation of transnational feminism that goes beyond this harmful geographical dichotomy. International Peacemaking in Pursuit of a "Good Peace": Integration or Separation? Research Project | 2 Project MembersThe challenge of peacemaking has predominantly been understood as a pragmatic exercise in problem solving - how to devise the most effective peace deal that will be adopted by the conflict parties and end the violence. However, international peacemakers and conflict parties do not only ask "what works?" in trying to end conflicts; they are also driven by the question "what is the right thing to do?". This research project asks how this normative dimension shapes international peacemaking, thereby addressing a thus far undertheorised facet. To do so, it focuses on a particular aspect of peacemaking: approaches to managing diversity after conflict. What do international peacemakers and conflict parties believe to be a "good peace", and how does this shape their views on diversity management? From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, diversity can be managed in a range of ways, which entail either the integration or separation of groups, including through partitions and the re-drawing of borders, the resettlement of populations, or the recognition or denial of minority rights. And yet, while some of these may reduce violence, not all are considered equally acceptable or desirable. This indicates that there is a normative dimension to international peacemaking, whereby peacemakers' visions of a "good peace" contribute to shaping their actions. Despite the important influence of this normative dimension in delineating the options available to peacemakers, mediation scholars have overlooked how it operates. The project draws on constructivist assumptions of interests and identities as socially constructed, and of political actors choosing strategies as much out of a sense of wanting to do the right thing, as wanting to do what works best. In other words, we assume that actors make decisions based on both normative imperatives and utility-maximising, and we employ tools from norms research to study the contestation over norms of diversity management in peace processes. The project connects three bodies of literature filling gaps in each: the literatures on peacemaking, on norms in international relations (IR), and on diversity management following ethnic and other inter-group conflicts. It contributes to these by foregrounding normative dimensions that are undertheorised in peacemaking scholarship. To do so, the project studies the discourses and practices of international peacemakers in relation to their vision of appropriate diversity management and how those interact with the conflict parties' respective visions. Further, it conceptually extends the existing scholarship on diversity management in peace and conflict studies by mapping approaches across policy levels including demographic, territorial, institutions, and legal spheres. The project contributes to theory building and sheds light on an understudied phenomenon, making inductive use of case study methods through a combination of conceptual work, intra-case analysis with process tracing, and cross-case comparisons. Empirically, the project explores visions of a "good peace" in relation to diversity by studying how questions of population displacement and resettlement, political boundary-making, and institutional and legal recognition of diversity have been addressed in six different contexts of international peacemaking over the last decades. Within each of these contexts, a number of discrete peacemaking episodes, spanning several decades and including a range of different peacemakers, are explored in depth through process tracing. The final research step consists of exploratory comparisons that aim at theory building about peacemaking's underexplored normative dimension. CLOC Digital Education And Research for MENA Research Project | 3 Project MembersAccess to digital education and research is crucial for the implementation of several Sustainable Development Goals, such as SDG4 (Quality Education) and SDG9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). It narrows the gap in education and research quality between the Global North and the Global South. New information and communication technologies allow delivering modern digital methods with new emerging forms of learning, teaching and technology transfer. The questions of access to information and knowledge are particularly relevant in fragile and conflict-affected contexts and need to be dealt with in a contextsensitive way. The Cluster of Cooperation "Digital Education And Research for MENA - DEAR MENA" therefore aims at contributing to a research and education network between Institutions of Higher Education in Switzerland and the MENA region. The network hub will be based in Lebanon (at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut) and functions as a regional hub on: A) Focus on digital education & partnerships; B) Focus on engineering education; and C) Focus on peacebuilding, gender & diversity. One size does not fit all: the strategic use of inclusion in mediation processes Research Project | 1 Project MembersIn 2012, the UN General Assembly adopted inclusivity, understood as "the extent and manner in which the views and needs of conflict parties and other stakeholders are represented and integrated into the process and outcome of a mediation effort," as one of eight fundamental principles for effective mediation (United Nations 2012). There is however little agreement and even less evidence-based data regarding the two key elements of this definition: the extent and the manner in which views are represented and integrated in mediation processes. If these are indeed essential factors for effective mediation processes, it is both theoretically and practically important to produce evidence-based research on inclusivity. Current academic debates pit proponents of inclusivity against skeptics. Proponents of inclusivity argue that inclusion increases public support for the peace process, provides local expertise and knowledge, broadens the discussion beyond the narrow interests of the negotiating parties, and increases the sustainability of peace agreements. Skeptics counter that inclusivity lowers the chances of reaching an agreement. They contend that agreement is easier reached amongst a limited number of actors; that exclusionary talks are sometimes necessary to achieve breakthroughs, and that selection problems prevent the real inclusion of societal views at the table. We argue that the current debate creates a false dichotomy between inclusion and exclusion. To overcome this, we focus on context and process , two dimensions that the current literature eludes. First, whereas proponents of inclusivity argue in favor of inclusion irrespective of the actors, the issues at stake and the geographical levels at which the conflicts play out, we ask: What is the relation between inclusion and conflict type ? Do all contexts require the inclusion of the same set of actors? Second, while academics on both sides of the debate have paid little attention to the strategic use of inclusion at different points in a mediation process, we ask: Can mediators strategically use inclusion in a process to advance their objectives ? If so, how and what are the conditions under which this strategy makes mediation more effective? By studying the relationship between inclusion, context and process, the project seeks to refocus attention on inclusivity's initial purpose as spelled out in the UN Guidance: increasing the effectiveness of mediation processes. To this end, we will conduct comparative case study analysis of mediators' inclusion strategies in six cases that vary on 1) conflict type and 2) mediator identity distinguishing between international/regional organizations, state actors, and non-state third parties. The selected cases - Syria, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Colombia, Nepal, Myanmar and Kenya - include a mix of recent (sometimes still ongoing) and historical mediation processes. Education for Development (EFORD) Research Project | 2 Project MembersResearch and education are fundamental to sustainable development. This project entitled Education for Development (EFORD) aims at improving academic and vocational education of researchers and professionals who work on and in development and conflict-affected contexts. By improving the coordination between distinct educational institutions (universities, universities of applied sciences, vocational training schools, independent research centers) and their curricula it will reduce the gap between research results and their actual uptake. EFORD works together with social sciences, natural sciences and health sciences to draw on findings and transcend traditional disciplinary clusters. In terms of policies, EFORD follows an SDG16+ approach according to which the promotion of peace is closely linked to the development of just and inclusive societies. Health policies and natural resource and ecosystem management policies are crucial to the development and to the well-being of all societies. In terms of research, EFORD will concentrate on the generation of "interface-knowledge" between the three polices mentioned and on science-practice transfer knowledge. From Fragility to Resilience: Accounting for the Diversity of State-making Trajectories in Africa Research Project | 2 Project MembersState fragility has come to lay at the heart of the international community's engagement in developing countries. This is evidenced by the concept's centrality in the OECD's Development Assistance Committee's agenda, and its inclusion in the World Bank's 2011 World Development Report as well as the Swiss government's 2013-2016 Message on International Cooperation. While policymakers have frequently linked fragility to a range of humanitarian concerns and transnational security threats (cf. McLoughlin 2012), research organizations such as The Fund for Peace have developed indexes that provide a gloomy outlook on the state(s) of the world. This applies particularly to Africa, which is summarily judged to be "undoubtedly plagued by systematic state failure" (Howard 2014), and which is allegedly home to 30 out of a total of 49 fragile states in the world (OECD 2015). However, Burkina Faso's huge successes towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Tanzania's notable political stability, Botswana's stunning economic progress, Zambia's completely peaceful development, and the fact that out of 54 African countries more than half have neither experienced internal nor intrastate war between 1947 and 2015 (UCDP/PRIO 2015; see also Lindemann 2008), all call such blanket propositions on 'the African state' into question. Thus, and given that the alleged structural causes of fragility-ranging from arbitrary colonial borders (Herbst 2000) to widespread poverty and inequality (Sachs 2003)-are widely shared among African countries, the real puzzle is not necessarily why so many countries have succumbed to fragility, but why numerous African states have not . Framed differently, the central question motivating this research project is how differences in state trajectories in Africa can be explained, and under what conditions it is state-making or state-breaking that prevails. The project hypothesizes that a defining characteristic of state trajectories lies in the process of 'rule standardization'. It proposes that whereas states of fragility are marked by a plurality of coexisting institutions (i.e. 'rules of the game') and identities (i.e. 'rules of the mind'), resilient states have witnessed a process whereby such rules came to be standardized across a politically defined territory and its population. While this novel analytical lens provides the project's originality, its rationale lies in gaining a more nuanced understanding of state-making and its underlying currents. Informed by historical sociology and political economy, and framed in the language of institutions, this research advances theoretical and empirical insights into state dynamics, not least by bringing issues of social cohesion and identity formation back into debates on state-making. Unlike many past studies of fragility, which have generally treated cases of fragile statehood in isolation and exhibited insufficient variation on the dependent variable, this project avoids such methodological flaws by proposing a comparative case studies research design. Accordingly, a few carefully selected pairs of African countries that are marked by divergent state trajectories will be subject to in-depth research and comparative analysis-both within and across pairs. This not only promises to provide a better understanding of why and under what conditions fragile statehood does (not) occur, but also allows to rethink processes of state-making and -breaking more generally. Knowledge for peace. Understanding research, policy and practice synergies r4d Research Project | 2 Project MembersThe aim of the project is to develop recommendations on how to enhance research-policy-practice synergies that are relevant to peace building and sustainable development. The starting point of our research project is the hypothesis that improved synergies between research policy and practice will produce better knowledge for peacebuilding. We define 'better' knowledge for peacebuilding as reliable, critical, policy-relevant and useful knowledge for practitioners. These synergies would consist of knowledge exchange, production and assessment through a series of interactions between actors which would not be based on hierarchies of knowledge but on a mutual desire to produce better knowledge. We add to previous knowledge on this subject by investigating that which has been under‐researched: the process of knowledge production itself. This draws on, but goes beyond, stud-ies which focus on how to translate complex realities to policy actors, on how research feeds into development practice and can be used by development practitioners, on how researchers can justify programmes or convince donors, or on a taken for granted assumption about the importance of the relationship between research, policy and practice. In order to shed empirical light on this under‐researched area our project will study research‐policy‐practice synergies in transitional justice, namely how knowledge is generated, how the boundaries of such knowledge come to be determined, which forms of knowledge are considered to be more legitimate, and how the politics of knowledge production shapes the types of policies which are considered, designed and implemented. Our findings will then allow us to develop recommendations on how to enhance research‐policy‐practice synergies beyond our focus on transitional justice, and with a relevance for peacebuilding and development more broadly. Objective of the project An analysis of the discursive and material practices of transitional justice. An exploration of how knowledge about 'peace' and 'justice' is produced, the politics of this process, and how knowledge is exchanged between different actors and between research‐policy‐practice domains of activity. An analysis of what the first two processes mean for which types of policies are enacted and what types of policy options might be overlooked, marginalised and/or missing. A set of recommendations for how actors can strengthen and optimise research‐policy‐practice synergies to improve research and practice. Desired Change / Impact This project is focused on improving the policy‐making of transitional justice and thus to improve the lives of people living in contexts where peacebuilding and development work is taking place. Our project has the key meta‐objective to contribute to better knowledge at the intersection between development, peacebuilding and transitional justice. It is here that we focus our impact. Our underlying framework for seeking changes in transitional justice, peacebuilding and development is based on a thorough understanding of the politics of knowledge production. Thus our research sets out to capture discursive and material practices of knowledge production, to explore the boundaries of knowledge and how they come to be determined, to explain which forms of knowledge are considered more legitimate, and to illustrate how the politics of knowledge production shapes the types of policies which are considered, designed and implemented. We assume that a thorough understanding of the politics of knowledge production bears the potential of raising awareness among key stakeholder groups in order to foster a change in perspectives and thinking with regard to policies and practices of transitional justice. Modified perspectives and following engagements of key stakeholder groups will in turn impact on the design and implementation of policies and interventions in transitional justice which will provoke spill‐over effects to peacebuilding and development overall. Following our initial assumption about the production of knowledge based on the interaction between knowledge and policy, this will increase the effectiveness of policies and interventions. Are mediators norm entrepreneurs? Research Project | 2 Project MembersNorms play an increasingly important role in mediation processes. Mediators are no longer supposed to only bring a conflict to an end, they are also asked to integrate certain norms into mediation processes. However, although the role and diffusion of norms have been widely researched in international relations and peacebuilding literature, the same does not count for the field of mediation. While the conditions under which mediation leads to a sustainable agreement have been assessed, the role of mediators in norm diffusion has only been treated in a largely prescriptive way in policy debates. This is surprising given the fact that mediation is at the core of a wider peacebuilding process. This project seeks to shed light on the role of mediators in norm diffusion by asking to what extent mediators are norm entrepreneurs defined by Finnemore and Sikkink (1998: 895) as actors who "attempt to convince a critical mass of [actors] to embrace new norms". More specifically, it addresses the questions of what norms belong to the normative framework for mediation processes; whether mediators promote and imitate norms and how; and which norms have been internalized in mediation processes. Thereby, the project responds to three biases in current research on norm diffusion. First, it also allows insights into those norms that have not diffused in contrast to earlier research which has largely neglected instances of non-diffusion. Second, norm diffusion will neither be seen as a priori positive or negative compared to current analyses which often portray it as inherently positive. Third, the project allows for agency of actors while earlier research mainly focused on the influence of the structure on agents. Methodologically, the project is based on a combination of case study and process-tracing. Three cases of mediators are chosen which are mandated by the most typical actors in the mediation field: an intergovernmental organization (the United Nations (UN)), a regional organization (the African Union (AU)) and a state (Switzerland). On the basis of these three cases, a two-level analysis is conducted. First, and most importantly, the project assesses causal processes at the within-case level focusing on the agency of mediators. It does this through process-tracing because it allows for an in-depth description of a trajectory of change, namely the process of norm diffusion, and analyzes closely the sequences of independent, dependent, and intervening variables. Second, it conducts a comparison at the cross-case level examining how the role of mediators as norm entrepreneurs varies between the three cases. Data is collected through content analysis, interviews, focus group discussions as well as participant observation. The main contribution of the proposed research project is twofold. First, it addresses three important gaps in academic literature on norm diffusion and second, it adds empirical evidence to an often merely policy-based prescriptive debate on the role of mediators in norm diffusion. As such, this project makes a coherent and highly important contribution to scientific debates. Resistances to Transitional Justice at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) Research Project | 1 Project MembersThis PhD thesis analyses resistances to the state-sanctioned transitional justice process in Cambodia, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). This PhD research is embedded within critical approaches to transitional justice. In this scholarship, transitional justice is analysed as a political process of negotiations between different actors; as such, it is necessarily contested. Such an approach to transitional justice enables to see resistances to transitional justice not as deviant but as a legitimate object of enquiry. This PhD thesis is based on an empirical approach with a strong emphasis on qualitative fieldwork. 1234 1...4
Power-Sharing for Peace? Between Adoptability and Durability in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq Research Project | 2 Project MembersPower-sharing, referring to elite cooperation and territorial decentralization, is a main tool used by international actors to pacify violent conflicts and ensure democracy in divided societies. Yet, the adoption of a power-sharing agreement is challenging, as demonstrated by the ongoing negotiations in Syria. Even when adopted, it is not always durable. While it has pacified some countries, such as Lebanon, it has been unable to transform their political frameworks into ones based on functional cooperation and durable peace. Iraq, meanwhile, demonstrates the danger of partial power-sharing implementation. Comparing three Middle Eastern countries - Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon - this project examines the adoptability and durability of power-sharing agreements, focusing on two main Research Questions: RQ1: Under what conditions do power-sharing agreements come into being? RQ2: Once agreed, what implementation challenges might impede functional governance and subsequently durable peace? Using a multi-disciplinary approach (Political Science, Comparative Constitutional Law, and Political Economy), the project will not only extend and refine power-sharing theory but will also provide concrete policy recommendations for national, international, and non-state actors. An international research team with members from Switzerland, Canada, Lebanon, and Iraq will work with civil society organizations in order to examine expectations of power-sharing as well as on-the-ground assessments of its durability in the case countries. Utilizing an international advisory board and existing links to a variety of state and civil society actors, project findings, based on local knowledge and insights, will be translated into concrete policy recommendations and three academic journal outputs.
Rethinking transnational feminism and power relations in times of backlash Research Project | 1 Project MembersThe rise of authoritarianism in post-communist Europe goes hand in hand with an anti-gender backlash. Authoritarian regimes in the region use the backlash to conduct what I call "Othering back". Anti-gender backlash is used to brand the West / the EU as a perverted Other who tries to impose supposedly alien values and norms. As a result, the West / the EU not only no longer figure as legitimate reference points to assess one's own development. More importantly still, this acts as a shortcut to refute democratisation and liberal rights altogether and thus to justify the own mode of governance and an aggressive foreign policy, which only serves to defend this "normative attack". Against this background, it is primordial that the scholarship on transnational feminism rethinks which power relations is considers salient. Since inception it has been primarily preoccupied with unearthing how asymmetrical relationships between the West and the rest function, both in feminist thought and practice, to silence "other" women. With the rise of authoritarianism, I argue we ought to shift focus on internal power dynamics within authoritarian regimes. For this is the power axis feminists on the ground are most concerned with at this historical junction. Sticking with the traditional focus on Western hegemony not only no longer reflects their main concern, it crucially plays into the hand of the authoritarian regimes they actually try to oppose. This research project therefore looks at how Othering back is conducted in official discourse and through policies, the impact is has on feminists in two case studies (Russia and Serbia) and how they reject the traditional notion of West-Rest power relations and advocate for a reformulation of transnational feminism that goes beyond this harmful geographical dichotomy.
International Peacemaking in Pursuit of a "Good Peace": Integration or Separation? Research Project | 2 Project MembersThe challenge of peacemaking has predominantly been understood as a pragmatic exercise in problem solving - how to devise the most effective peace deal that will be adopted by the conflict parties and end the violence. However, international peacemakers and conflict parties do not only ask "what works?" in trying to end conflicts; they are also driven by the question "what is the right thing to do?". This research project asks how this normative dimension shapes international peacemaking, thereby addressing a thus far undertheorised facet. To do so, it focuses on a particular aspect of peacemaking: approaches to managing diversity after conflict. What do international peacemakers and conflict parties believe to be a "good peace", and how does this shape their views on diversity management? From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, diversity can be managed in a range of ways, which entail either the integration or separation of groups, including through partitions and the re-drawing of borders, the resettlement of populations, or the recognition or denial of minority rights. And yet, while some of these may reduce violence, not all are considered equally acceptable or desirable. This indicates that there is a normative dimension to international peacemaking, whereby peacemakers' visions of a "good peace" contribute to shaping their actions. Despite the important influence of this normative dimension in delineating the options available to peacemakers, mediation scholars have overlooked how it operates. The project draws on constructivist assumptions of interests and identities as socially constructed, and of political actors choosing strategies as much out of a sense of wanting to do the right thing, as wanting to do what works best. In other words, we assume that actors make decisions based on both normative imperatives and utility-maximising, and we employ tools from norms research to study the contestation over norms of diversity management in peace processes. The project connects three bodies of literature filling gaps in each: the literatures on peacemaking, on norms in international relations (IR), and on diversity management following ethnic and other inter-group conflicts. It contributes to these by foregrounding normative dimensions that are undertheorised in peacemaking scholarship. To do so, the project studies the discourses and practices of international peacemakers in relation to their vision of appropriate diversity management and how those interact with the conflict parties' respective visions. Further, it conceptually extends the existing scholarship on diversity management in peace and conflict studies by mapping approaches across policy levels including demographic, territorial, institutions, and legal spheres. The project contributes to theory building and sheds light on an understudied phenomenon, making inductive use of case study methods through a combination of conceptual work, intra-case analysis with process tracing, and cross-case comparisons. Empirically, the project explores visions of a "good peace" in relation to diversity by studying how questions of population displacement and resettlement, political boundary-making, and institutional and legal recognition of diversity have been addressed in six different contexts of international peacemaking over the last decades. Within each of these contexts, a number of discrete peacemaking episodes, spanning several decades and including a range of different peacemakers, are explored in depth through process tracing. The final research step consists of exploratory comparisons that aim at theory building about peacemaking's underexplored normative dimension.
CLOC Digital Education And Research for MENA Research Project | 3 Project MembersAccess to digital education and research is crucial for the implementation of several Sustainable Development Goals, such as SDG4 (Quality Education) and SDG9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). It narrows the gap in education and research quality between the Global North and the Global South. New information and communication technologies allow delivering modern digital methods with new emerging forms of learning, teaching and technology transfer. The questions of access to information and knowledge are particularly relevant in fragile and conflict-affected contexts and need to be dealt with in a contextsensitive way. The Cluster of Cooperation "Digital Education And Research for MENA - DEAR MENA" therefore aims at contributing to a research and education network between Institutions of Higher Education in Switzerland and the MENA region. The network hub will be based in Lebanon (at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut) and functions as a regional hub on: A) Focus on digital education & partnerships; B) Focus on engineering education; and C) Focus on peacebuilding, gender & diversity.
One size does not fit all: the strategic use of inclusion in mediation processes Research Project | 1 Project MembersIn 2012, the UN General Assembly adopted inclusivity, understood as "the extent and manner in which the views and needs of conflict parties and other stakeholders are represented and integrated into the process and outcome of a mediation effort," as one of eight fundamental principles for effective mediation (United Nations 2012). There is however little agreement and even less evidence-based data regarding the two key elements of this definition: the extent and the manner in which views are represented and integrated in mediation processes. If these are indeed essential factors for effective mediation processes, it is both theoretically and practically important to produce evidence-based research on inclusivity. Current academic debates pit proponents of inclusivity against skeptics. Proponents of inclusivity argue that inclusion increases public support for the peace process, provides local expertise and knowledge, broadens the discussion beyond the narrow interests of the negotiating parties, and increases the sustainability of peace agreements. Skeptics counter that inclusivity lowers the chances of reaching an agreement. They contend that agreement is easier reached amongst a limited number of actors; that exclusionary talks are sometimes necessary to achieve breakthroughs, and that selection problems prevent the real inclusion of societal views at the table. We argue that the current debate creates a false dichotomy between inclusion and exclusion. To overcome this, we focus on context and process , two dimensions that the current literature eludes. First, whereas proponents of inclusivity argue in favor of inclusion irrespective of the actors, the issues at stake and the geographical levels at which the conflicts play out, we ask: What is the relation between inclusion and conflict type ? Do all contexts require the inclusion of the same set of actors? Second, while academics on both sides of the debate have paid little attention to the strategic use of inclusion at different points in a mediation process, we ask: Can mediators strategically use inclusion in a process to advance their objectives ? If so, how and what are the conditions under which this strategy makes mediation more effective? By studying the relationship between inclusion, context and process, the project seeks to refocus attention on inclusivity's initial purpose as spelled out in the UN Guidance: increasing the effectiveness of mediation processes. To this end, we will conduct comparative case study analysis of mediators' inclusion strategies in six cases that vary on 1) conflict type and 2) mediator identity distinguishing between international/regional organizations, state actors, and non-state third parties. The selected cases - Syria, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Colombia, Nepal, Myanmar and Kenya - include a mix of recent (sometimes still ongoing) and historical mediation processes.
Education for Development (EFORD) Research Project | 2 Project MembersResearch and education are fundamental to sustainable development. This project entitled Education for Development (EFORD) aims at improving academic and vocational education of researchers and professionals who work on and in development and conflict-affected contexts. By improving the coordination between distinct educational institutions (universities, universities of applied sciences, vocational training schools, independent research centers) and their curricula it will reduce the gap between research results and their actual uptake. EFORD works together with social sciences, natural sciences and health sciences to draw on findings and transcend traditional disciplinary clusters. In terms of policies, EFORD follows an SDG16+ approach according to which the promotion of peace is closely linked to the development of just and inclusive societies. Health policies and natural resource and ecosystem management policies are crucial to the development and to the well-being of all societies. In terms of research, EFORD will concentrate on the generation of "interface-knowledge" between the three polices mentioned and on science-practice transfer knowledge.
From Fragility to Resilience: Accounting for the Diversity of State-making Trajectories in Africa Research Project | 2 Project MembersState fragility has come to lay at the heart of the international community's engagement in developing countries. This is evidenced by the concept's centrality in the OECD's Development Assistance Committee's agenda, and its inclusion in the World Bank's 2011 World Development Report as well as the Swiss government's 2013-2016 Message on International Cooperation. While policymakers have frequently linked fragility to a range of humanitarian concerns and transnational security threats (cf. McLoughlin 2012), research organizations such as The Fund for Peace have developed indexes that provide a gloomy outlook on the state(s) of the world. This applies particularly to Africa, which is summarily judged to be "undoubtedly plagued by systematic state failure" (Howard 2014), and which is allegedly home to 30 out of a total of 49 fragile states in the world (OECD 2015). However, Burkina Faso's huge successes towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Tanzania's notable political stability, Botswana's stunning economic progress, Zambia's completely peaceful development, and the fact that out of 54 African countries more than half have neither experienced internal nor intrastate war between 1947 and 2015 (UCDP/PRIO 2015; see also Lindemann 2008), all call such blanket propositions on 'the African state' into question. Thus, and given that the alleged structural causes of fragility-ranging from arbitrary colonial borders (Herbst 2000) to widespread poverty and inequality (Sachs 2003)-are widely shared among African countries, the real puzzle is not necessarily why so many countries have succumbed to fragility, but why numerous African states have not . Framed differently, the central question motivating this research project is how differences in state trajectories in Africa can be explained, and under what conditions it is state-making or state-breaking that prevails. The project hypothesizes that a defining characteristic of state trajectories lies in the process of 'rule standardization'. It proposes that whereas states of fragility are marked by a plurality of coexisting institutions (i.e. 'rules of the game') and identities (i.e. 'rules of the mind'), resilient states have witnessed a process whereby such rules came to be standardized across a politically defined territory and its population. While this novel analytical lens provides the project's originality, its rationale lies in gaining a more nuanced understanding of state-making and its underlying currents. Informed by historical sociology and political economy, and framed in the language of institutions, this research advances theoretical and empirical insights into state dynamics, not least by bringing issues of social cohesion and identity formation back into debates on state-making. Unlike many past studies of fragility, which have generally treated cases of fragile statehood in isolation and exhibited insufficient variation on the dependent variable, this project avoids such methodological flaws by proposing a comparative case studies research design. Accordingly, a few carefully selected pairs of African countries that are marked by divergent state trajectories will be subject to in-depth research and comparative analysis-both within and across pairs. This not only promises to provide a better understanding of why and under what conditions fragile statehood does (not) occur, but also allows to rethink processes of state-making and -breaking more generally.
Knowledge for peace. Understanding research, policy and practice synergies r4d Research Project | 2 Project MembersThe aim of the project is to develop recommendations on how to enhance research-policy-practice synergies that are relevant to peace building and sustainable development. The starting point of our research project is the hypothesis that improved synergies between research policy and practice will produce better knowledge for peacebuilding. We define 'better' knowledge for peacebuilding as reliable, critical, policy-relevant and useful knowledge for practitioners. These synergies would consist of knowledge exchange, production and assessment through a series of interactions between actors which would not be based on hierarchies of knowledge but on a mutual desire to produce better knowledge. We add to previous knowledge on this subject by investigating that which has been under‐researched: the process of knowledge production itself. This draws on, but goes beyond, stud-ies which focus on how to translate complex realities to policy actors, on how research feeds into development practice and can be used by development practitioners, on how researchers can justify programmes or convince donors, or on a taken for granted assumption about the importance of the relationship between research, policy and practice. In order to shed empirical light on this under‐researched area our project will study research‐policy‐practice synergies in transitional justice, namely how knowledge is generated, how the boundaries of such knowledge come to be determined, which forms of knowledge are considered to be more legitimate, and how the politics of knowledge production shapes the types of policies which are considered, designed and implemented. Our findings will then allow us to develop recommendations on how to enhance research‐policy‐practice synergies beyond our focus on transitional justice, and with a relevance for peacebuilding and development more broadly. Objective of the project An analysis of the discursive and material practices of transitional justice. An exploration of how knowledge about 'peace' and 'justice' is produced, the politics of this process, and how knowledge is exchanged between different actors and between research‐policy‐practice domains of activity. An analysis of what the first two processes mean for which types of policies are enacted and what types of policy options might be overlooked, marginalised and/or missing. A set of recommendations for how actors can strengthen and optimise research‐policy‐practice synergies to improve research and practice. Desired Change / Impact This project is focused on improving the policy‐making of transitional justice and thus to improve the lives of people living in contexts where peacebuilding and development work is taking place. Our project has the key meta‐objective to contribute to better knowledge at the intersection between development, peacebuilding and transitional justice. It is here that we focus our impact. Our underlying framework for seeking changes in transitional justice, peacebuilding and development is based on a thorough understanding of the politics of knowledge production. Thus our research sets out to capture discursive and material practices of knowledge production, to explore the boundaries of knowledge and how they come to be determined, to explain which forms of knowledge are considered more legitimate, and to illustrate how the politics of knowledge production shapes the types of policies which are considered, designed and implemented. We assume that a thorough understanding of the politics of knowledge production bears the potential of raising awareness among key stakeholder groups in order to foster a change in perspectives and thinking with regard to policies and practices of transitional justice. Modified perspectives and following engagements of key stakeholder groups will in turn impact on the design and implementation of policies and interventions in transitional justice which will provoke spill‐over effects to peacebuilding and development overall. Following our initial assumption about the production of knowledge based on the interaction between knowledge and policy, this will increase the effectiveness of policies and interventions.
Are mediators norm entrepreneurs? Research Project | 2 Project MembersNorms play an increasingly important role in mediation processes. Mediators are no longer supposed to only bring a conflict to an end, they are also asked to integrate certain norms into mediation processes. However, although the role and diffusion of norms have been widely researched in international relations and peacebuilding literature, the same does not count for the field of mediation. While the conditions under which mediation leads to a sustainable agreement have been assessed, the role of mediators in norm diffusion has only been treated in a largely prescriptive way in policy debates. This is surprising given the fact that mediation is at the core of a wider peacebuilding process. This project seeks to shed light on the role of mediators in norm diffusion by asking to what extent mediators are norm entrepreneurs defined by Finnemore and Sikkink (1998: 895) as actors who "attempt to convince a critical mass of [actors] to embrace new norms". More specifically, it addresses the questions of what norms belong to the normative framework for mediation processes; whether mediators promote and imitate norms and how; and which norms have been internalized in mediation processes. Thereby, the project responds to three biases in current research on norm diffusion. First, it also allows insights into those norms that have not diffused in contrast to earlier research which has largely neglected instances of non-diffusion. Second, norm diffusion will neither be seen as a priori positive or negative compared to current analyses which often portray it as inherently positive. Third, the project allows for agency of actors while earlier research mainly focused on the influence of the structure on agents. Methodologically, the project is based on a combination of case study and process-tracing. Three cases of mediators are chosen which are mandated by the most typical actors in the mediation field: an intergovernmental organization (the United Nations (UN)), a regional organization (the African Union (AU)) and a state (Switzerland). On the basis of these three cases, a two-level analysis is conducted. First, and most importantly, the project assesses causal processes at the within-case level focusing on the agency of mediators. It does this through process-tracing because it allows for an in-depth description of a trajectory of change, namely the process of norm diffusion, and analyzes closely the sequences of independent, dependent, and intervening variables. Second, it conducts a comparison at the cross-case level examining how the role of mediators as norm entrepreneurs varies between the three cases. Data is collected through content analysis, interviews, focus group discussions as well as participant observation. The main contribution of the proposed research project is twofold. First, it addresses three important gaps in academic literature on norm diffusion and second, it adds empirical evidence to an often merely policy-based prescriptive debate on the role of mediators in norm diffusion. As such, this project makes a coherent and highly important contribution to scientific debates.
Resistances to Transitional Justice at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) Research Project | 1 Project MembersThis PhD thesis analyses resistances to the state-sanctioned transitional justice process in Cambodia, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). This PhD research is embedded within critical approaches to transitional justice. In this scholarship, transitional justice is analysed as a political process of negotiations between different actors; as such, it is necessarily contested. Such an approach to transitional justice enables to see resistances to transitional justice not as deviant but as a legitimate object of enquiry. This PhD thesis is based on an empirical approach with a strong emphasis on qualitative fieldwork.
