Umeå University's logo

International peacebuilding paradigms represent women’s organizations as important peacebuilding partners. However, most conflict-affected states are authoritarian or hybrid regimes, where women’s peacebuilding work may be associated with both difficulties and danger. While feminist peacebuilding scholarship has focused its critique on the frictional encounters between local women’s organizations and international liberal peacebuilding, it has not sufficiently explored how women’s peacebuilding practices are shaped by authoritarian state policies. Bringing together feminist work on friction in global-local encounters and work on civil society-state relations in non-democratic settings, we argue that friction is manifested as tensions and conflicts in several relationships. Drawing on interviews with women activists in and from Sri Lanka and Myanmar, this article examines how women’s organizations negotiate the constraints and pressures emerging from their relationships with international peacebuilding partners and donors, as well as with state authorities. Women’s organizations engage in a delicate balancing act to navigate state tactics of repression, co-optation and legitimation, and this precarious position is often further complicated by the practices and norms of international peacebuilders. Exploring these multidimensional frictional dynamics, the article contributes to a fuller understanding of the political conditions that shape the peacebuilding practices of women’s organizations and the ways in which they mobilize to navigate these conditions.

Women are often at the forefront of high-risk struggles for peace and justice after war in contexts where the space for activism is severely restricted. This article explores how women’s organizations and activists involved in struggles for peace, justice and accountability in Sri Lanka navigate the repression and unpredictability that characterizes its hybrid post-war political order. Drawing on the concept of social navigation as an analytical lens, we show how women peace activists navigate risk and uncertainty through strategic decisions about and adaptation of how they organize; how they represent their activities and goals; and how they build networks with powerful allies who can provide protection and enhance their impact. These strategies enable activists to resist state surveillance, intimidation and repression and promote alternative, more inclusive and democratic forms of peace. Bridging scholarship on women’s peace activism and on civil society in authoritarian and hybrid regimes, we contribute to a better understanding of how state repression and uneven constraints on civil society shape women’s peacebuilding work, and respond to recent calls for more in-depth analysis of how civil society activists navigate constraints in contexts of restricted civic space.

Con frecuencia, las mujeres se encuentran en primera línea en luchas de alto riesgo por la paz y la justicia después de la guerra en contextos donde el espacio para el activismo está gravemente restringido. Este artículo analiza cómo las organizaciones de mujeres, así como las activistas involucradas en luchas por la paz, la justicia y la rendición de cuentas en Sri Lanka se enfrentan a la represión y a la imprevisibilidad que caracteriza su orden político híbrido posterior a la guerra. Demostramos, basándonos en el concepto de navegación social como una lente analítica, cómo las mujeres activistas por la paz gestionan el riesgo y la incertidumbre a través de decisiones estratégicas al respecto y de la adaptación de su organización, cómo representan sus actividades y objetivos y cómo construyen redes con aliados poderosos que pueden brindar protección y aumentar su impacto. Estas estrategias permiten a las activistas resistirse a la vigilancia estatal, la intimidación y la represión, y promover formas de paz alternativas, más inclusivas y democráticas. Conectamos la investigación sobre el activismo por la paz de las mujeres y sobre la sociedad civil en regímenes autoritarios e híbridos, lo que nos permite contribuir a un mejor entendimiento de cómo la represión estatal y las restricciones desiguales en la sociedad civil moldean el trabajo de las mujeres en la construcción de la paz, y responden a los recientes llamamientos relativos a realizar un análisis más profundo de cómo los activistas de la sociedad civil se enfrentan a las restricciones en contextos de espacio cívico limitado.

Les femmes se trouvent souvent au premier plan des luttes à haut risque pour la paix et la justice après une guerre dans des contextes où l’espace pour le militantisme est très restreint. Cet article s’intéresse à la façon dont les organisations féminines et militantes impliquées dans des luttes pour la paix, la justice et la prise de responsabilité au Sri Lanka gèrent la répression et le caractère imprévisible de son ordre politique hybride d’après-guerre. Nous fondant sur le concept de navigation sociale comme angle analytique, nous montrons comment les militantes pour la paix gèrent le risque et l’incertitude par le biais de décisions stratégiques et d’une adaptation quant à leur organisation, comment elles représentent leurs activités et objectifs et comment elles construisent des réseaux avec de puissants alliés qui peuvent les protéger et accentuer la portée de leurs actions. Ces stratégies permettent aux militantes de résister à la surveillance étatique, l’intimidation et la répression et de promouvoir d’autres formes de paix, plus inclusives et démocratiques. En rapprochant la recherche sur le militantisme féminin pour la paix et sur la société civile dans des régimes autoritaires et hybrides, nous contribuons à enrichir notre compréhension de la façon dont la répression étatique et la présence de contraintes inégales sur la société civile façonnent le travail de consolidation de la paix des femmes, et répondons à des appels récents à davantage d’analyses approfondies de la navigation des contraintes dans des contextes d’espace civique restreint par les militantes de la société civile.

This policy brief summarizes key findings from a research project which examined how women peacebuilders navigate their position between international peacebuilding agendas and state governance, and how the tensions they encounter shape their work. Findings highlight the delicate balancing act that women’s organizations and activists must undertake to navigate state attempts to control and limit their work. International partnerships can provide protection and resources but can also expose women to increased state surveillance and risk. In response, women activists strategically adapt how they organize; how they represent their activities and goals; and how they build protective networks with powerful allies to carve out space for peace work. The strategies of women peacebuilders in Sri Lanka and Myanmar illustrate both the precarity and resilience of women’s activism in unpredictable and repressive political contexts, offering lessons for civil society under shrinking civic space globally.

This article explores the encounter between the Women, Peace and Security agenda and rebel institutions in Mindanao. The analysis highlights that activities aiming to support women’s participation in peacebuilding often exist in parallel with and fail to fully recognise women’s existing forms of mobilisation within Non-State Armed Groups. This gap is bridged by civil society brokers who are associated with armed groups but speak the language of international peacebuilding frameworks. The findings point to the important role of such intermediaries in translating international norms, and to rebel groups and institutions as arenas for women’s political mobilisation and empowerment.

In recent years, liberal peacebuilding has been increasingly displaced by illiberal peacebuilding – illiberal norms and practices that prioritise regime control, stability, and order through economic co-optation, repression of dissent, and the promotion of hegemonic narratives. While studies have examined how illiberal peacebuilding is practiced in various contexts, few have thus far asked how people respond to, and possibly resist, illiberal ideas and practices of peacebuilding. Rather, the existing research on resistance and peacebuilding has primarily focused on local resistance to top-down, often internationally driven liberal peacebuilding. In this article, we address this gap by bringing resistance studies and peacebuilding into greater dialogue and by exploring civil society resistance to illiberal peacebuilding in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. We examine how civil society and social movement actors have resisted regime efforts to build peace through illiberal norms and practices and instead worked to imagine and construct alternative forms of peace that are more inclusive and egalitarian, though not necessarily liberal.

It is widely recognised in contemporary peace and conflict scholarshipthat exploring micro-level experiences is important for a fullerand more nuanced understanding of the forms of peace thatemerge post-war. In this article, we argue that such inquiry mightbe particularly urgent in the context of a victor’s peace. Muchresearch on victor’s peace focus on the state and macro level andseldom account for the outcome across local contexts. Based onfocus group discussions conducted across communities and geographicallocalities in Sri Lanka, we explore and compare narrativesof peace in order to elucidate plural understandings, experiencesand visions. The study moves beyond the dichotomous peaceconceptions often associated with the notion of victor’s peaceand provides insights into varieties of peace at the local and everydaylevel, and into challenges and possibilities for transformingconflict relationships post-war.

What strategies can be employed to conceptualize peace? In recent years, scholars have introduced an impressive array of “peace with adjectives” in order to make sense of some of the normative and empirical underpinnings of peace. Negative, positive, everyday, virtual, illiberal, partial, insecure, relational, emancipatory, agonistic, and feminist are some of the qualifiers that have been associated with the concept. While the growing attention to conceptualization is a welcomed development, we argue that the proliferation of new terms has led to increased fragmentation in the field of peace studies. Conceptual fragmentation impedes cumulative knowledge production and generates missed opportunities for fruitful discussions across theoretical and conceptual divides. In this article, we aim to provide more clarity to our field by mapping existing peace conceptualizations and identifying the strategies employed by scholars to construct innovative new terms. In our review, we identify 61 concepts and suggest that these conceptual innovations in peace research belong to one of three analytical strategies: developing diminished subtypes, conceptual narrowing, and conceptual expansion. Building on this categorization, we make recommendations for how peace researchers can enhance clarity and deepen constructive discussions between different conceptual approaches.

¿Qué estrategias se pueden utilizar para conceptualizar la paz? En los últimos años, los académicos han presentado una impresionante variedad de «paz acompañada de adjetivos» con el fin de dar sentido a algunos de los fundamentos normativos y empíricos de la paz. Algunos de los calificativos que se han asociado al concepto han sido: negativa, positiva, cotidiana, virtual, iliberal, parcial, insegura, relacional, emancipatoria, agonística y feminista. Si bien la creciente atención que se está prestando a la conceptualización es un desarrollo bienvenido, argumentamos que la proliferación de nuevos términos ha provocado una mayor fragmentación en el campo de los estudios de la paz. La fragmentación conceptual impide la producción acumulativa de conocimiento y provoca que se pierdan oportunidades para generar debates fructíferos a través de las divisiones teóricas y conceptuales. En este artículo pretendemos aportar más claridad a nuestro campo mediante el mapeo de las conceptualizaciones de paz existentes y la identificación de las estrategias que utilizan los académicos para construir nuevos términos innovadores. En nuestra revisión, identificamos 61 conceptos y sugerimos que estas innovaciones conceptuales dentro de la investigación en materia de la paz pertenecen a una de entre tres posibles estrategias analíticas: desarrollo de subtipos disminuidos, contracción conceptual y expansión conceptual. Partiendo de esta categorización, hacemos recomendaciones sobre cómo los investigadores en el campo de la paz pueden lograr una mejora con relación a la claridad y profundizar en los debates constructivos que se generan entre los diferentes enfoques conceptuales.

Quelles stratégies employer pour conceptualiser la paix ? Ces dernières années, les chercheurs ont introduit un éventail impressionnant de « paix avec adjectifs » afin de faire sens de certains fondements normatifs et empiriques de la paix. Négative, positive, quotidienne, virtuelle, illibérale, partielle, précaire, relationnelle, émancipatrice, agnostique, féministe… Tous ces mots ont été employés pour qualifier ce concept. Bien que l'attention croissante à la conceptualisation soit une évolution bienvenue, nous affirmons que la prolifération de nouveaux termes a engendré une fragmentation croissante du domaine des études sur la paix. La fragmentation conceptuelle entrave la production de connaissances cumulatives et crée des occasions manquées de discussions productives par delà les divisions théoriques et conceptuelles. Dans cet article, nous cherchons à contribuer à plus de clarté dans notre domaine en retraçant les conceptualisations existantes de la paix et en identifiant les stratégies employées par les chercheurs pour créer de nouveaux termes innovants. Notre revue de la littérature identifie 61 concepts et suggère que ces innovations conceptuelles dans la recherche sur la paix appartiennent à l'une des trois stratégies analytiques suivantes : le développement de sous-types 'diminués', le rétrécissement conceptuel et l'expansion conceptuelle. En nous appuyant sur cette catégorisation, nous émettons des recommandations pour aider les chercheurs à être plus clairs et à approfondir les discussions constructives entre différentes approches conceptuelles.