The dominant liberal peacebuilding critiques tends to focus on ‘states’ and the failure of interventions in rebuilding them. Consequently, a standardised critique has emerged largely because the critics apply a broad brush across a diverse range of contexts, programmes, issues and activities as illustrated by the lack of scrutiny on mine action and emerging contexts such as Somaliland. The liberal peacebuilding critics critique the standardised ‘one size fits all approach’ employed by interveners, yet they take the same approach. I therefore argue for the need to broaden the critique to include other elements and contexts of peacebuilding. I demonstrate that as an intervention mine action has intrinsic peacebuilding potential. However, the way mine action is implemented both globally and in Somaliland reflects the same dominant characteristics of the liberal peacebuilding critique i.e.; it is externally led; uses technical and standardised formulaic approaches; disregards local context thus failing to secure local ownership. Attributes that the critics argue have led to the failure and/or limited success of peacebuilding interventions. I therefore contend with the critics and demonstrate how these attributes have contributed to the challenges of implementing mine action activities thereby limiting mine actions ‘peace-ability’ potential in Somaliland. However, beyond the implementation modalities there are other factors that further contribute to limiting this potential; these include the Sector Actors; the Somaliland context i.e. the historical and political context, and the perception of Somaliland people. Thus in conclusion I argue for a nuanced critique that acknowledges the challenging realities of implementing programmes in challenging post conflict environments.

The dominant liberal peacebuilding critiques tends to focus on ‘states’ and the failure of interventions in rebuilding them. Consequently, a standardised critique has emerged largely because the critics apply a broad brush across a diverse range of contexts, programmes, issues and activities as illustrated by the lack of scrutiny on mine action and emerging contexts such as Somaliland. The liberal peacebuilding critics critique the standardised ‘one size fits all approach’ employed by interveners, yet they take the same approach. I therefore argue for the need to broaden the critique to include other elements and contexts of peacebuilding. I demonstrate that as an intervention mine action has intrinsic peacebuilding potential. However, the way mine action is implemented both globally and in Somaliland reflects the same dominant characteristics of the liberal peacebuilding critique i.e.; it is externally led; uses technical and standardised formulaic approaches; disregards local context thus failing to secure local ownership. Attributes that the critics argue have led to the failure and/or limited success of peacebuilding interventions. I therefore contend with the critics and demonstrate how these attributes have contributed to the challenges of implementing mine action activities thereby limiting mine actions ‘peace-ability’ potential in Somaliland. However, beyond the implementation modalities there are other factors that further contribute to limiting this potential; these include the Sector Actors; the Somaliland context i.e. the historical and political context, and the perception of Somaliland people. Thus in conclusion I argue for a nuanced critique that acknowledges the challenging realities of implementing programmes in challenging post conflict environments.

There is a growing awareness among researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners regarding the importance of increased coordination among numerous post-conflict peacebuilding processes and the consequent need for conceptual clarity as a precondition for coordinated, holistic peacebuilding interventions. Disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR), and Mine Action are among the very first entry points in post-conflict reconstruction, however, despite sharing similarities they form part of distinct communities of practice, and the nexus between the two remains widely unaddressed academically and in practice. This research aims to address this disconnection. A particular window of opportunity is identified through the difficulties that DDR reintegration generates.  In particular, this study proposes the reintegration of ex-combatants through mine action. The author suggests that DDR can only enable sustainable long-term results if it is part of a wider set of security promotion strategies with devoted attention to community security which is argued to be achieved through mine action. Using a qualitative single case idea analyses the research argues that the adoption of a bottom-up approach provides an alternative understanding of ex-combatant reintegration. The results suggest that Humanitarian Demining, Explosive Ordnance Risk Education (EORE) and Victim assistance (VA) can pave the way for reintegration and reconciliation between ex-combatants and local communities in the case of Colombia.

Ukraine belongs to the most landmine contaminated countries in the world. Therefore, humanitarian mine action (HMA) is an important area of work for Ukraine’s humanitarian protection cluster. In Ukraine, landmine contamination produces gendered insecurities and vulnerabilities. Casualties are predominantly men, while the affected population has a high proportion of vulnerable people, including women, the elderly, displaced and the disabled.  This study investigates which strategies were applied by organisations in the Ukraine’s mine action sub-cluster in order to respond to gendered insecurities and vulnerabilities to landmine contamination and by empowering vulnerable groups through their programmes. It is based on semi-structured interviews with representatives of HMA operators and international organisations in Ukraine. The main findings are that HMA operators in Ukraine considered gender and diversity to reach marginalised groups for operational purposes, such as internally displaced people (IDPs) and the elderly, by conducting household visits and deploying diverse teams. While operators adopted an evidence-based approach to explosive ordnance risk education (EORE), programmes predominantly focused on children, despite the largest at-risk group being adult men. More than in operations, gender mainstreaming was visible in operators’ efforts to offer equal employment opportunities in the HMA sector, supporting the affected population socio-economically. However, for meaningful participation in decision making in the sector, more time and continuous effort is required to help women advance even further into senior roles of impact.  Challenges to adequately mainstream gender were the lack of a centralised information management system and difficulties accessing the affected population. Particularly since early 2020, gender mainstreaming in community interaction has been severely limited due to COVID-19 related contact restrictions. Technological solutions were identified as the main opportunity for continued community interaction and EORE amid these access restrictions.

Two international treaty frameworks - Amended Protocol II (APII) to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC) - have been developed to prohibit or restrict the use of landmines. However, reflecting a gap in current academic research, there is a lack of knowledge of their effectiveness in supporting the humanitarian goals that underpin both treaties. In order to address gaps in the existing literature, this thesis applies an analytical framework grounded in regime theory to develop new insights into the design, implementation and effectiveness of APII and the APMBC within the broader framework of international humanitarian law (IHL). Two main hypotheses are explored. The first considers the importance for regime effectiveness of the relationship between design and implementation processes. The second analyses the significance for the landmine regimes of regime interplay and nesting within wider IHL and mine action discourses. In addressing these hypotheses, design/implementation interplay, agency dynamics and normative considerations represent key themes that enable us to develop new insights to a specific issue area that also demonstrates important linkages to wider humanitarian, security and developmental agendas.

There is always competition between regions when it comes to their needs after facing a conflict, disaster, or long-term crisis. Donors allocating ODA or Humanitarian Assistance must decide to whom they want to allocate their support. While the literature broadly identifies the motivation for sending allocation to specific recipients and not to others, it has not yet researched the processes of the opposite, the reduction or break-off of aid allocation. This thesis researches the topic at the level of Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA). The question focuses on donors of bilateral HMA allocation and their motives of decision-making, when under financial pressure and forced to shorten their overall HMA budget. Using a most-different in-depth case study based on two steps on the cases of Australia and Germany, the question is researched, if the donors base their decisions and priorities on the needs of people when they have to reduce HMA budgets. The findings show that HMA rarely is documented separately and mostly connected either with ODA or Humanitarian Assistance. To get clear answers about the thoughts and motivations of decision-makers when it comes to the reduction or cut of HMA allocation, deeper research including interviews is needed.

Two international treaty frameworks ¿ Amended Protocol II (APII) to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC) ¿ have been developed to prohibit or restrict the use of landmines. However, reflecting a gap in current academic research, there is a lack of knowledge of their effectiveness in supporting the humanitarian goals that underpin both treaties. In order to address gaps in the existing literature, this thesis applies an analytical framework grounded in regime theory to develop new insights into the design, implementation and effectiveness of APII and the APMBC within the broader framework of international humanitarian law (IHL). Two main hypotheses are explored. The first considers the importance for regime effectiveness of the relationship between design and implementation processes. The second analyses the significance for the landmine regimes of regime interplay and nesting within wider IHL and mine action discourses. In addressing these hypotheses, design/implementation interplay, agency dynamics and normative considerations represent key themes that enable us to develop new insights to a specific issue area that also demonstrates important linkages to wider humanitarian, security and developmental agendas.