최신자료
Building peace from the institutions of war
- Post-conflict recovery planners often assume they are working from an institutional blank slate. Yet conflict not only destroys lives, markets, trust, and public authority; it also creates governance, authority, and social organization, which shape how societies are governed long after fighting ends. Recovery efforts that ignore these wartime realities risk overlooking how war reorders institutions and society and missing opportunities to support sustainable peace and economic recovery.
- Supporting peace, recovery, and legitimate political authority after conflict remains a major development challenge. Governments, donors, and peacebuilders invest heavily in rebuilding state institutions-from justice and security to local administration and public services. Yet fragmented authority, mistrust, weak public institutions, and renewed violence often persist.
- Our new volume, Institutional Legacies of Violent Conflict, argues that one reason lies in failure to account for institutional changes produced during war. When state authority collapses, retreats, or becomes contested, governance rarely disappears. Armed groups, militias, customary authorities, local leaders, civil society, criminal networks, and communities may organize security, justice, taxation, services, markets, and dispute resolution.
- Such arrangements can persist after peace agreements, and may support resilience, local legitimacy, and recovery or reproduce exclusion, mistrust, or patterns of violence.
- Peace agreements, elections, and institutional reforms are starting points in a long and often contested statebuilding process, shaped by institutions, power relations, and social contracts formed before and during war.
[Findings]
- Conflict does not only dismantle institutions; it reorganizes authority and creates new forms of governance whose legacies can support recovery or reproduce coercion, exclusion, and mistrust
- Governance arrangements created during conflict can persist long after peace agreements are signed, shaping authority, legitimacy, and access to resources
- Post-war legitimacy is shaped by how civilians experienced and interacted with authority during conflict, not only by what happens after fighting ends
- Supporting peace, recovery, and legitimate political authority after conflict remains a major development challenge. Governments, donors, and peacebuilders invest heavily in rebuilding state institutions-from justice and security to local administration and public services. Yet fragmented authority, mistrust, weak public institutions, and renewed violence often persist.
- Our new volume, Institutional Legacies of Violent Conflict, argues that one reason lies in failure to account for institutional changes produced during war. When state authority collapses, retreats, or becomes contested, governance rarely disappears. Armed groups, militias, customary authorities, local leaders, civil society, criminal networks, and communities may organize security, justice, taxation, services, markets, and dispute resolution.
- Such arrangements can persist after peace agreements, and may support resilience, local legitimacy, and recovery or reproduce exclusion, mistrust, or patterns of violence.
- Peace agreements, elections, and institutional reforms are starting points in a long and often contested statebuilding process, shaped by institutions, power relations, and social contracts formed before and during war.
[Findings]
- Conflict does not only dismantle institutions; it reorganizes authority and creates new forms of governance whose legacies can support recovery or reproduce coercion, exclusion, and mistrust
- Governance arrangements created during conflict can persist long after peace agreements are signed, shaping authority, legitimacy, and access to resources
- Post-war legitimacy is shaped by how civilians experienced and interacted with authority during conflict, not only by what happens after fighting ends
많이 본 자료
