Whose Peace? Which Peace?

The document examines the 'political architecture' of liberal peacebuilding, which seeks to establish liberal market democracies in post-conflict states. It argues that while this approach is dominant in international politics, it faces significant legitimacy challenges. Communitarians argue it imposes external Western values over local cultures; critical theorists contend it reinforces a hegemonic and unjust global order; and postmodernists critique its reliance on technocratic 'social engineering.' The author proposes alternative frameworks, such as 'building the capacity for peaceful self-governance' and 'dialogic peacebuilding,' to reconcile liberal ideals with local autonomy and global justice.

• Liberal peacebuilding is the dominant practice in international politics, aiming to establish 'liberal-democracy, free market economy and jurisdiction in accordance with human rights' in war-torn states.
• The 'peacebuilding paradox' describes the contradiction of using undemocratic, imperial-like means—such as temporary benevolent autocracies—to establish democratic foundations in a failed state.
• Communitarian critics argue that liberal peacebuilding acts as a modern 'mission civilisatrice,' imposing Western standards of behavior and culture on host-communities without regard for local identities or traditions.
• Critical international theory posits that liberal peacebuilding is 'hegemonic,' serving to maintain an unjust global distribution of power and wealth that benefits the liberal core more than the populations in the periphery.
• Postmodern analysis critiques the 'mechanical rationality' of peacebuilding, viewing it as a form of 'social engineering' that treats human societies as machines to be 'kick-started' rather than organic systems.
• The author suggests shifting the goal of peacebuilding from imposing a Western model to 'building the capacity for peaceful self-governance,' which requires defining the 'self' and 'governance' on local premises.
• A 'dialogic peacebuilding' approach, based on Habermasian discourse ethics, is proposed to replace instrumental recipes with a process of recognition and open dialogue with the affected populations.
• Radical democratic pluralism offers a 'multipolar peacebuilding' vision that rejects centralized global governance in favor of a plurality of regional powers, local initiatives, and peace movements.

APA

Lidén, K. (2006). Whose Peace? Which Peace? Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/56042cac-fae4-4a5a-b67c-2994fc90faa6/Whose Peace Which Peace On the Political Architecture of Liberal Peacebuilding.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

Lidén, Kristoffer. Whose Peace? Which Peace? Peace Research Institute Oslo, 2006. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/56042cac-fae4-4a5a-b67c-2994fc90faa6/Whose Peace Which Peace On the Political Architecture of Liberal Peacebuilding.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Lidén |first1=Kristoffer |title=Whose Peace? Which Peace? |publisher=Peace Research Institute Oslo |date=2006 |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/56042cac-fae4-4a5a-b67c-2994fc90faa6/Whose Peace Which Peace On the Political Architecture of Liberal Peacebuilding.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{lidn2006whose, author = {Lidén, Kristoffer}, title = {{Whose Peace? Which Peace?}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, year = {2006}, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/56042cac-fae4-4a5a-b67c-2994fc90faa6/Whose Peace Which Peace On the Political Architecture of Liberal Peacebuilding.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }