The critical impasse of peacebuilding: Toward an analytically eclectic critique of liberal peacebuilding

Abstract

In the decades following the Cold War, scholars of International Relations (IR) have struggled to come to grips with how the fundamental shifts in the international system affect the theoretical underpinnings of IR. The debates on peacebuilding have served as a fierce battleground between the dominant IR research programs—realism and liberalism—as to which provides both the best framework for understanding contemporary security challenges as well as policy prescriptions. I engage with the recent arguments made by David Chandler and Mark Sedra, two prominent critical scholars of IR, and argue that IR as a field would be best served to leave behind the “great debates” of the different research programs, and instead focus on middle-range problem-solving and analytically eclectic approaches. This essay further argues that the best way forward is for critical theorists to take a conciliatory approach with the contributions from the other research programs.