"State-Building for Peace": A New Paradigm for International Engagement in Post-Conflict Fragile States?

From the Introduction of this European University Institute (EUI) Working Paper: "This paper is intended to analyse two leading approaches that have guided international efforts to promote peace and development in conflict-afflicted fragile states since the 1990s, namely peacebuilding and state-building. In a relatively recent development, a growing number of donors has sought to bring these two closer together, based upon the perception that the challenges posed by (post-) conflict fragile states need to be addressed through an approach that combines both - "statebuilding for peace".... The paper thus seeks to explore how the processes of building peace are related to the processes of building more resilient, effective, and responsive states in (post-) conflict settings. The paper provides an overview of the evolution of these two concepts and analyses key complementarities between peace-building and state-building. It also explores the challenges that arise for both on the basis of these complementarities. The paper goes on to examine some of the most significant tensions that arise between the two, and what these tensions may imply for the international assistance community. By way of a conclusion, the paper offers a few key lessons that emerge from the analysis for improved donor policy and practice in state-building for peace efforts."

In its analysis of the role of non-state organisations and institutions, such as civil society organisations and supra-national organisations like the United Nations (UN), the paper states that "what is needed is a state that is organically linked to the society that it is intended to govern..." through the creation of a legitimate political centre that includes actors, both marginalised and majority, who need to be brought onboard in peace- and state-building endeavours. Perception of legitimacy is crucial to the state as state institutions begin to function for the public good rather than narrow interests, resulting from "positive and mutually-reinforcing linkages between state and society to sustain an effective and resilient public sphere."

The function of assembling a peace agreement is analysed as a foundation for reconstituting state-society relations. Whether participatory and inclusive in negotiations or not, the resulting actions need to establish priorities and the sequencing of interventions both among and within priorities such as "a rights-based approach to economic and social development, containing detailed lists of rights for individuals in general and marginalised groups like indigenous people, refugees, internally displaced people, former combatants, and women in particular." The peace agreements in post-conflict settings are a step in a long process of "redrawing the formal and informal foundations of the state so as to help build states that are more legitimate and representative, and that serve the public good rather than the narrow interests of those in power.... [T]he drive behind both peace-building and state-building, especially in post-conflict settings, inevitably lies in negotiation and compromise, rather than on fundamental transformation."

The document explores the key characteristics of state legitimacy , recognising that "the form of legitimacy that tends to be emphasised by the international assistance community is that based on democratic representation and accountability, as well as justice and the rule of law....Moreover, in general, international development actors have not adequately engaged with traditional and more grounded forms of legitimacy... Among other things, it requires the development of deep local knowledge and trust among different interlocutors at the sub-national level, as well as substantial time and commitment over the long term." Further implications for donors include: the problem that state-building may not lead to peace; peace settlements might undermine state-building in the long term, particularly if they bypass the state institutions; and, in contrast, state-building efforts may be too focused on centralised state institutions.

Emerging lessons for donor practice include the following:

1. “Donors need to be more humble in their approach to fragile states and more realistic about what international actors can achieve from the outside....
   
2. Donors need to build or sharpen their political understanding and effective support for state building....
   
3. [D]onors need to start with the domestic context in order to make informed policy decisions among competing priorities....
   
4. Donors need to be prepared to remain committed over the long term....”