- 著者
-
古澤 嘉朗
- 出版者
- 一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会
- 雑誌
- 国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.2018, no.194, pp.194_111-194_124, 2018-12-25 (Released:2019-05-16)
- 参考文献数
- 65
A quarter century has passed since the release of the Agenda for Peace in 1992, which, retrospectively, can be marked as the beginning of recent surge in peacebuilding research and practice. The institutionalization of the term “peacebuilding” appears to be a success, as many organizations around the globe incorporated the term framing their own activities in post-conflict and transitional countries. This can be symbolically represented by the establishment of the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission and Peacebuilding Support Office in 2005. On peacebuilding research, major publishers have released books such as Palgrave Advance in Peacebuilding and Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding, published in 2010 and 2013 respectively, and the peer-reviewed journal entitled Peacebuilding was launched in 2013. So-called “liberal” peacebuilding debate is also taking place between two camps: policy-oriented research and critical research. While former seeks effectiveness of peacebuilding practices, while the latter seeks a quality of peace built as a result of peacebuilding practices. Taking these developments into account, this article will analyze a strategy of peacebuilding policy by looking into terms such as “rule of law” and “legal pluralism.” In this process, the article will look into the police reform and chiefdom police reform in Sierra Leone. The first section of the paper will explain how “rule of law” fits into peacebuilding policy by examining the police reform in Sierra Leone (1998–2005). The second section will explain how “legal pluralism” fits into peacebuilding policy by examining the chiefdom police reform in Sierra Leone (2008–2017). The paper points out that a difference between the two approaches—rule of law and legal pluralism—results from a different conception of the term “policing.” The former is based on the narrow understanding of policing, while the latter is based on the broader understanding. The paper raises following three points. First, the intent of this article is to make a point that revising peacebuilding strategy is necessary in order to improve quality of peace built via peacebuilding practices. Second, the paper argues that, instead of making peacebuilding policy and research into a normative framework and a standard set of assumptions about how post-conflict and transitional countries should be reformed, peacebuilding policy and research need to be context-based. Third, paper also points out that whether peacebuilding policy will be context-based or not will largely be affected by politics surrounding actors engaged in peacebuilding in each case.