Abstract

In this article, we revisit the ‘local turn’ debate in the peacebuilding literature, and explore its most recent and promising approach to ‘the local’, focussing on post-war cities and on urban dimensions of peacebuilding. There is still substantive contestation and frustration in the peacebuilding research field with regards to the conceptual fuzziness of ‘the local’, and with the continual failures of international interventions to actually take into account local perspectives, promote local agency and establish local ownership. In this article, we explore to what extent recent urban approaches to peacebuilding can help alleviate some of the conceptual problems that has persisted in the literature. We reflect on and raise questions about what a focus on cities and urban perspectives is contributing to the study of local peacebuilding more specifically. We suggest three facets of analytical added value: (1) an increased understanding of how the particularities of urban and rural space affects peacebuilding locally and potentially beyond; (2) how cities and urban space are interrelated with traditional territoriality; and (3) the methodological benefits of the city/urban as (local) analytical entry point. We also discuss potential pitfalls and limitations of urban approaches to peacebuilding, and identify prospective pathways for further research.

摘要

在本文中，我们重新审视了建设和平文献中关于“地方转向”的辩论，并探讨了其最新的、有希望的“地方”方法，重点关注战后城市和建设和平的城市维度。关于“地方”概念的模糊性，以及国际干预在实际考虑地方观点、促进地方代理和建立地方所有权方面不断失败，建设和平研究领域仍然存在实质性的争论和挫折。在本文中，我们探讨了最近的城市建设和平方法在多大程度上有助于缓解文献中一直存在的一些概念问题。我们反思并提出问题，关注城市和城市视角对更具体的地方建设和平研究有何贡献。我们建议分析附加值的三个方面：(1) 进一步了解城市和农村空间的特殊性如何影响当地和潜在的和平建设；(2) 城市和城市空间如何与传统地域性相互关联；(3) 城市/城市作为（本地）分析切入点的方法论优势。我们还讨论了城市建设和平方法的潜在缺陷和局限性，并确定了进一步研究的预期途径。(2) 城市和城市空间如何与传统地域性相互关联；(3) 城市/城市作为（本地）分析切入点的方法论优势。我们还讨论了城市建设和平方法的潜在缺陷和局限性，并确定了进一步研究的预期途径。(2) 城市和城市空间如何与传统地域性相互关联；(3) 城市/城市作为（本地）分析切入点的方法论优势。我们还讨论了城市建设和平方法的潜在缺陷和局限性，并确定了进一步研究的预期途径。