Challenges to Peacebuilding in a Changing World

题目：地方起源，自由主义轨迹？分析缅甸、尼泊尔和菲律宾的建设和平干预与不自由的地方秩序之间的纠缠本研究旨在探究受冲突影响社会中自由主义建设和平努力与不自由的地方秩序之间的纠缠，以期解决阻碍世界各地建设和平干预的日益上升的威权主义和非自由主义问题。具体来说，我提出了最初的问题：地方一级根深蒂固的政治/社会结构如何影响国际建设和平干预，反之亦然？我的研究希望能够解决冲突后建设和平努力所固有的正面困境，这些努力在陷入地方政府占领、军阀政治和精英讨价还价的社会中；其目的是建立一个有用的框架，以理解大男人/女人政治和基于亲属关系的联盟对受冲突影响社区的国际建设和平和国家建设干预的影响。由此产生的框架可能为冲突后的国家建设提供替代途径，并消除对亚洲国家有限的社会（缅甸、尼泊尔和菲律宾）自由建设和平实践的批评和争论。毫无疑问，自由主义和平模式赋予了符合威斯特伐利亚国家特征的特权——强大的机构、有价值的官僚机构和平等代表权，使得地方性的国家-社会安排变得无足轻重。以亲属为基础的联盟和个人主义政治等外围安排植根于亚洲的历史和国家形成过程，但在文学和实践中，人们对它们与当前政治秩序和更广泛的和平建设景观的纠缠知之甚少。建设和平的支持者和学者往往不承认现有的战前和战后结构，更不用说认识到它们的长期遗产和它们成功运作的背景。即使在关键的建设和平和地方转向文学的帮助下，直到今天，学术和实践都在努力理解建设和平和国家建设干预在促进世界各地脆弱社会和平方面的不足。通过定性的方法，我将分析国际和平建设干预的纠缠嵌入的政治和社会秩序在缅甸，尼泊尔和菲律宾。主要数据将通过档案、历史和人种学研究收集，采用半结构化访谈和对当地社区的参与性观察，包括各自的地方政府单位、土著机构、传统司法系统和基层组织等。还设想在亚洲的一两个国际警报办事处以志愿人员的身份扩大实地参与。分析将分三个阶段进行。分析的第一部分是描述具有“有限国家地位”的社会中的社会和政治制度，将范围扩大到基于亲属关系、联盟、“大人物”和叛乱政治的地方衍生秩序，从历史到现代。然后，我将把这些机构及其实践与国际预警组织在1988年菲律宾、2001年尼泊尔和2012年缅甸这三个背景下的国际建设和平和国家建设干预措施并置。通过比较历史社会学的视角，这些纠缠将相对于“潜在结构——经济、制度、社会和地缘政治（海德曼和西德尔，2005年，第6页）”的顺序进行分析。我假设，地方和国际秩序对建设和平成果的影响比以前在实践和文献中所假设的要大。这种影响在不同的方向来来去去，产生冲突和争论，但也有谈判和适应

Title: Local origins, liberal trajectories?: Analyzing the entanglements of peacebuilding interventions to the illiberal local order in Myanmar, Nepal, and the PhilippinesThe proposed research aims to interrogate the entanglements of liberal peacebuilding efforts to the illiberal local order in conflict-affected societies, in hopes of addressing the rising authoritarianism and illiberalism that has hampered peacebuilding interventions all over the world. Specifically, I ask the initial question: How do embedded political/social structures at the local level shape international peacebuilding interventions, and vice versa? My research hopes to tackle head-on dilemmas inherent to post-conflict peacebuilding efforts in societies mired with local state capture, warlord politics, and elite bargaining; and aims to develop a useful framework to understand the effects of big men/women politics and kinship-based alliances to international peacebuilding and statebuilding interventions in conflict-affected communities. The resulting framework can potentially offer alternative pathways for post-conflict statebuilding and unsettle criticisms and contestations of the practice of liberal peacebuilding in societies with limited statehood in Asia (Myanmar, Nepal, and the Philippines). There is no debate that the liberal peace template privileges state characteristics that conform to Westphalian states-- strong institutions, meritorious bureaucracy, and equal representation, rendering locally derived state-society arrangements as insignificant. Peripheral arrangements such as kin-based alliances and personalistic politics are rooted in history and state formation processes in Asia, yet little is known about their entanglements to the current political order and broader peacebuilding landscape in both literature and practice. Proponents and scholars of peacebuilding often fail to acknowledge the existing pre- and post-war structures, let alone recognize their long-term legacies and the backdrop from which they successfully operate. Even with the aid of critical peacebuilding and local turn literature, to this day, both scholarship and practice have grappled to understand where peacebuilding and statebuilding interventions fell short in fostering peace in fragile societies all over the world. Through qualitative methods, I will analyze the entanglements of international peacebuilding interventions to the embedded political and social order in Myanmar, Nepal, and the Philippines. Primary data will be collected through archival, historical, and ethnographic research, employing semi-structured interviews and participant observation among local communities: their respective local government units, indigenous institutions, traditional justice systems, and grassroots organizations, among others. An extended field involvement as a volunteer at one or two of International Alert's offices in Asia is also envisioned.The analysis will proceed in three stages. The first part of the analysis is to characterize the social and political institutions in societies with 'limited statehood', zooming into locally-derived orders based on kinship, alliances, "big men" and insurgent politics, spanning from historical to modern times. I will then juxtapose these institutions and their practices to international peacebuilding and statebuilding interventions by International Alert in the three contexts since 1988 in the Philippines, 2001 in Nepal, and 2012 in Myanmar. Through the lens of comparative historical sociology, these entanglements will then be analyzed vis-a-vis the "underlying structures-- economic, institutional, social, and geopolitical (Hedman and Sidel, 2005, p. 6)" orders. I hypothesize that the local and international orders influence peacebuilding outcomes more than previously assumed in practice and literature. This influence comes and goes in different directions, creating collisions, and contestation but also negotiations and accommodat