Owners or Partners? A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Local Ownership
Owners or Partners? A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Local Ownership
复制标题
业主还是合作伙伴？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Hellmüller
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Hellmüller
本章批判性地考察了地方所有权这一术语。它表明，虽然这一概念在政策辩论中得到广泛使用和接受，但许多国际建设和平方案在实践中仍然主要是外部设计的。由于自由主义和平范式在当代建设和平的辩论中占主导地位，这意味着这些方案受到自由主义原则的严重影响。与此同时，地方倡议是根据其与自由价值观的兼容性来评估的。另一种选择是由社区主义方法提供的，它建议以当地为起点。按照这种观点，国际行动者的作用仅仅是支持当地行动者已经采取的战略。基于经验的见解，本章质疑在后一种情况下，地方所有权是否仍然是一个相关的概念，或者谈论地方领导是否会更准确。然后，它通过研究外部和内部行动者之间的相互作用，提出了自由主义和社群主义方法之间的中间立场。因此，它建议在更加注重多元性和每个行动者的比较优势的基础上建立伙伴关系。本章的结论是，只有这样，建设和平才能围绕国际和地方行动者之间的真正合作，同时尊重每个行动者的独特观点。
This chapter critically examines the term local ownership. It shows that while the concept is widely used and accepted in policy debates, many international peacebuilding programmes are still largely externally designed in practice. Due to the dominance of the liberal peace paradigm in contemporary peacebuilding debates, this means that such programmes are heavily influenced by liberal principles. At the same time, local initiatives are assessed based on their compatibility with liberal values. An alternative is provided by communitarian approaches which suggest taking the local as a starting point. In this view, the role of international actors is merely to support strategies already undertaken by local actors. Based on empirical insights, this chapter questions however whether in this latter case, local ownership is still relevant as a concept or whether it would not be more accurate to talk about local leadership. It then proposes a middle ground between liberal and communitarian approaches by examining the interaction between external and internal actors. Thereby, it suggests partnerships based on a greater focus on plurality and each actor’s comparative advantages. Only in such a way, the chapter concludes, does peacebuilding revolve around a true cooperation between international and local actors while respecting each actor’s unique perspectives.