Exploring local compliance with peacebuilding reforms: legitimacy, coercion and reward-seeking in police reform in Kosovo

This article explores why local police officers choose to comply or to resist the police reforms stipulated by an international peacebuilding mission operating in their country. In order to understand the role and impact of local agency and shine light on local actors’ compliance decisions, this article analyses two examples of police reform of the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo. This article makes three contributions to the peacebuilding and compliance literatures. First, it formulates and tests causal mechanisms showing exactly how local actors’ motivations for compliance – legitimacy, coercion and reward-seeking – are causally linked to compliance. Second, it shows that legitimacy, coercion, and reward-seeking do not influence compliance directly, but only through the hypothesised intervening variables. Finally demonstrates that while legitimacy matters to local compliance choices, it does so only in specific contexts and situations

Legitimacy and Coercion in Peacebuilding: A Balancing Act

Despite the tendency of the power literature to analyse legitimacy and coercion in isolation, both theoretical and empirical evidence suggest that coercion and legitimacy are not parallel lines but can interact in different ways, supporting or undermining each other. A methodical exploration of the relationship between legitimacy and coercion is important not only for improving the theoretical literatures on power and legitimacy but also in the light of the increasing interest in the power of legitimacy in statebuilding and peacebuilding. This article first analyses the overall interaction between coercion and legitimacy, and then explores the question that emerges from the interaction analysis; what level of coercion is permitted or required in order for a mission’s local legitimacy to be sustained? Finally, for the practice of peacebuilding, the article shows that an operation needs to understand its initial legitimacy standing with the local population, as this determines how much coercive force it can employ without undermining its overall legitimacy

Building peaceful states and societies: a critical assessment of the evidence

This paper commissioned by DFID in 2015 reviewed the evidence underpinning the key elements of DFID's "Building Peaceful States and Societies" framework. It systematically examines the evidence landscape, evaluates how it changed over the last 5 years, and identifies some of the implications of this. The paper proceeds in three steps. First, drawing on BSOS and BPSS, it briefly outlines the peace- and statebuilding model, and critically examines some of the key assumptions underpinning the model in light of the current evidence landscape. Second, it identifies and evaluates research evidence published since 2010, which pertains to the four guiding objectives of the BPSS framework: addressing causes and consequences of conflict; inclusive political settlements; development of core state functions; and responsiveness to public expectations. The final section outlines the changes in the evidence landscape for peace- and statebuilding, and their implications for PBSB policy

Legitimacy in conflict: concepts, practices, challenges

The study of legitimacy in situations of conflict and peacebuilding has increased in recent years. However, current work on the topic adopts many assumptions, definitions, and understandings from classical legitimacy theory, which centers on the relationship between the nation-state and its citizens. In this introduction, we provide a detailed critical overview of current theories of legitimacy and legitimation and demonstrate why they have only limited applicability in conflict and post-conflict contexts, focusing on the three main areas that the articles included in this special issue examine: audiences for legitimacy, sources of legitimacy, and legitimation. In particular, we show how conflict and post-conflict contexts are marked by the fragmentation and personalization of power; the proliferation and fragmentation of legitimacy audiences; and ambiguity surrounding legitimation strategies

The sum of its parts? Sources of local legitimacy

The article analyses the sources of local actors’ legitimacy perceptions towards international peacebuilding operations. Local legitimacy perceptions are increasingly recognised as shaping local behaviour towards international peacebuilding, which influences the effective functioning of the operation. Legitimacy debates in peacebuilding are either absent or imported from the literature on domestic legitimacy, without respect to the specific temporal and spatial situation of international operations. The article first explores which legitimacy sources influence local legitimacy perceptions of international peacebuilding operations. It finds that two sources are relevant: output and procedure. Second, it investigates how exactly legitimacy arises from them. In doing so, it demonstrates that output and procedure are umbrella terms comprising several sub-elements which influence legitimacy in different, sometimes contradictory, ways. Finally, the article empirically explores which of the sources are important to local actors’ legitimacy perceptions using field data from the EU peacebuilding operations EULEX in Kosovo and EUPM Bosnia-Herzegovina

Theorizing Decision-Making in International Bureaucracies: UN Peacekeeping Operations and Responses to Norm Violations

Many international organizations (IOs) provide assistance to governments through country offices or peacekeeping operations. Sometimes, government authorities in countries receiving IO services violate norms that underpin IO’s engagement. IO officials must then choose between confrontational and conciliatory responses. These responses are located on a spectrum that ranges from a firm and public response to silence and downplaying. How do IO officials decide on their response? Based on over 200 interviews with UN peacekeeping officials, we argue that the factors that shape their decision-making are found across three categories: individual, departmental, and positional. In terms of individual characteristics, previous experience, career security, and the length of service at a particular duty station matter. Regarding departmental factors, politicization of work, professional composition, and the type of interlocutors predispose departments to be supporters or critics of authorities in recipient countries. In terms of positional considerations, the place of a post or department in the IO hierarchy, relations with other IO entities, and the distance from the field play a role. While important in its own right, decision-making by civilian UN peacekeeping officials is informative about similar processes in other IOs that employ individuals from diverse backgrounds in complex bureaucracies