This chapter advances the fundamental and decisive role of conflict analysis as the primary enabler of effective intervention, and explores elements of horizontal working of intervention missions observed in the EU Common Security and Defence Policy tools and instruments. Its originality is in its focus on the challenges of integrated conflict analysis within multilateral peacebuilding efforts when intervention actors are shaped by their own formation and organisational mindsets. It suggests a process of applying the Causal Layered Analysis, drawing in aspects of power, gender and interest based approaches while incorporating impacts of climate change. It suggests if the EU wishes to establish peacebuilding programmes or initiatives, conversations with fragile states currently rooted in ‘consequential’ goal attainment driven by the political ambitions of member states, need to shift to ‘appropriate’ ontological approaches, centred in the needs of the situation. This means generating a range of alternative possibilities with peacebuilding as the primary necessity, driven by local needs, as opposed to a focus on security capabilities.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Conflict Analysis and Integrated Working: Policy Recommendations

  • Kieran Doyle,
  • Sean Mc Gearty

摘要

This chapter advances the fundamental and decisive role of conflict analysis as the primary enabler of effective intervention, and explores elements of horizontal working of intervention missions observed in the EU Common Security and Defence Policy tools and instruments. Its originality is in its focus on the challenges of integrated conflict analysis within multilateral peacebuilding efforts when intervention actors are shaped by their own formation and organisational mindsets. It suggests a process of applying the Causal Layered Analysis, drawing in aspects of power, gender and interest based approaches while incorporating impacts of climate change. It suggests if the EU wishes to establish peacebuilding programmes or initiatives, conversations with fragile states currently rooted in ‘consequential’ goal attainment driven by the political ambitions of member states, need to shift to ‘appropriate’ ontological approaches, centred in the needs of the situation. This means generating a range of alternative possibilities with peacebuilding as the primary necessity, driven by local needs, as opposed to a focus on security capabilities.