Along with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on women, peace and security, women’s participation in peace processes has become an increasingly popular research topic in the 2000s. However, while several authors have written on the topic, there seems to be a lack of empirical data to support the argumentation regarding women’s participation in peace negotiations and its impact on agreements and post-conflict societies. Therefore, the objective of this study is to carry out an analysis on the recent research processes that concern women’s participation in formal peace negotiations and its impact, and assess this research in terms of its validity. As the primary data used for this study consisted of scientific publications, content analysis and discourse analysis proved to be appropriate methods to collect and categorise the data. After this process the data were analysed with the help of an analytical framework based on the criteria for validity in scientific research, which was composed of four different elements credibility, transferability, reliability and verifiability. The findings regarding the validity of the research processes concerning women’s participation in peace negotiations and its impact indicated that the research lacks validity to a great extent in all four areas depicted in the analytical framework. The main issues with the past research arose within the connections made between the methods, sources and findings. In addition, it was concluded that there are indications that the scientific discourse on women’s participation is heavily influenced by the UNSC resolutions on women, peace and security, creating more advocacy research with political agenda rather than scientific studies aiming at objectivity. In other words, there are great opportunities to be taken in different areas of research to create more validity on the argumentation and thus, to generate data to support relevant mechanisms for more sustainable peace-building in regards of women’s participation in peace negotiations.

This research is concerned with how in/security is understood and the implications of contested meanings of in/security. The basic premise of this thesis is that in/security in itself has no meaning and thus cannot exist in isolation. Instead, in/security is always defined in relation to something or someone. How we understand in/security derives from the contexts we navigate and the identities we construct. An inquiry into in/security therefore demands incorporating a multiplicity of narratives and discussing these in relation to each other. While scholars have called for a greater emphasis on exploring in/security in marginal sites, I argue that accounts from the margins must not be at the exclusion of other more dominant narratives. Such analysis – placing the elite/margin, included/excluded, powerful/weak – in the same framework in order to produce a relational account of in/security is largely missing. This thesis sets out to provide a rich and detailed understanding of the everyday complexities of in/security. I propose a framework for capturing relational and contextual dimensions of in/security, and the implication of contested meanings of in/security understandings. Through an in-depth case study in the context of the transitions towards a post-conflict period in Colombia, following five decades of armed conflict, I inquired into in/security understandings at the margins in relation to the centre. The margins were represented by conflict-affected communities whereas the centre was represented by the Colombian government and key security sector institutions. The research found several relational dimensions of in/security understandings between the state- and the marginalized community-levels. Moreover, contextual and identity factors had a significant impact on how in/security was spoken about and what was spoken of. Through the framework, it was possible to see in continuum the way deeply ingrained understandings of in/security reproduce violence as the government seeks to transition the country into a post-conflict period following five decades of armed conflict. The research, through a detailed empirical case study, supports the view that in/security is relational and derivative of context and with ties to identity. It contributes to further our understandings of in/security at three distinct levels. At the theoretical level, the research builds upon existing literature in the field of security studies to advance an enhanced understanding of the relational and contextual dimensions of in/security, the contested meanings of in/security and the implications thereof. Methodologically, it proposes an alternative framework to capture the relational dimensions through shifting the problem formulation from a traditional focus on who is to be secured from what threats to how in/security is understood by different people/communities in different contexts. Empirically, it contributes to an off-centred understanding of in/security dynamics in the official transitions into the post-conflict period in Colombia. Through its empirical evidence it has the potential to offer an important contribution to the analysis of post-conflict transitions more generally.

<p>The aim of this paper is to examine if the two latest Peace Plans in the Palestine-Israeli con-flict observes the sources of the conflict and presents measures in the purpose of solving them. The point of departure is William Azar’s theory of protracted social conflict (PSC). According to Azar, the internal sources of a PSC lies in three clusters of variables: the com-munal content of a society, the deprivation of human needs as an underlying source of PSC, and the role of the state in the deprivation or satisfaction of human needs. The study is de-signed as a multiple-case study where the units of analysis are the Roadmap to Peace and the Geneva Initiative. An analyze instrument, based on operationalization of Azar’s three clusters of internal sources of a PSC, is developed and used to analyze the Roadmap to peace and the Geneva Initiative. The conclusions are that the two Peace Plans observes and present meas-ures to solve the communal content of the conflict, but both Peace Plans are unsatisfactory in presenting measures aiming to solve problems related to the role of the state and human needs. Especially the acceptance need within the state is missing in the contents of the Peace Plans.</p>

Submitted by Elesbão Santiago Neto (neto10uepb@cche.uepb.edu.br) on 2018-03-26T21:25:31Z No. of bitstreams: 1 PDF - Catarina Rose Bezerra.pdf: 58156477 bytes, checksum: 17c0a6604a5f8d6de4f932533aaa75b5 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-26T21:25:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 PDF - Catarina Rose Bezerra.pdf: 58156477 bytes, checksum: 17c0a6604a5f8d6de4f932533aaa75b5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-04-17 / CAPES / This dissertation aims to identify the role of peace movements – and civil society – in transforming the 20th century conflict in Colombian. It presents a comparative analysis of the peace processes of the governments of Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002) and Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2014). This research starts from the assumption that such movements are essential in the construction of peace, especially in the Colombian context, in which the conflict originated from social dissatisfaction. For this, the critical approach of Peace Studies will be used, turning to the idea of transformation or transcendence of conflicts, diverging from traditional institutional models. This choice provides spaces to think beyond the formal peace process and the signing of a document or agreement. The work will be structured in four sections. In the first one, the theoretical basis to be used will be formulated, seeking also to build a bias of Peace Studies. The second chapter will then present the recent history of the conflict, focusing on the dialogues conducted before 1998 and in the peace movements. The third topic will present the peace processes implemented in the governments of Pastrana and Santos, in an in-depth study, seeking to identify failures, the corrective actions, and the participation or not of the civil society. In the end of same topic, it will be make a comparison between the two periods in question, based on the variables raised in the previous chapter. Lastly, the conclusions and perspectives on peace-building in the post-agreement scenario will be presented. / O presente trabalho visa identificar o papel dos movimentos pela paz – e da sociedade civil – para transformação do conflito colombiano a partir de uma análise comparativa dos processos de paz dos governos Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002) e Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2014). Sendo assim, a presente pesquisa parte do pressuposto de que tais movimentos são essenciais no que se refere à construção da paz, ainda mais no contexto colombiano, no qual o conflito se originou a partir das insatisfações sociais. Para isso, será utilizada a abordagem crítica dos Estudos de Paz, que se voltam à ideia de transformação ou transcendência de conflitos, divergindo dos tradicionais modelos institucionais. Tal escolha proporciona espaços para pensar além do processo de paz formal e da assinatura de um documento ou acordo. O trabalho será estruturado em quatro momentos. No primeiro será formulada a base teórica a ser utilizada, buscando também construir um viés dos Estudos de Paz. Em seguida, no segundo capítulo será apresentado o histórico recente do conflito, com foco nos processos de paz realizados antes de 1998 e nos movimentos pela paz. No terceiro tópico serão apresentados os processos de paz realizados nos governos Pastrana e Santos, de maneira aprofundada, buscando identificar as falhas, os acertos e a participação ou não da sociedade civil, sendo possível realizar, finalmente, uma comparação entre os dois períodos em questão, tendo como base as variáveis levantadas no capítulo anterior. Por fim, serão apresentadas as conclusões e perspectivas em relação à construção da paz no cenário pós-acordo.

No description available.

This thesis seeks to contribute to the literature exploring the prospects and obstacles to peace processes. The case study is based on the failed peace process between the Republic of Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) during 2009-2015. It offers a conceptual analysis of the changes in interests, attitudes and relationships that led to the emergence of a peace process but also which influenced its collapse. In doing so, the study draws from conflict resolution theories to analyse the case using the five transformers framework: context transformation, structural transformation, actor transformation, issue transformation, and personal and group transformation (Ramsbotham et al. 2005; 2016). The study found that the conflict became tractable not through external interventions or hurting stalemates as classical theories would hold, but through powerful intellectual leadership that moved beyond strict nationalist imaginaries to adopt different post-nationalist frameworks that emphasised solving the Kurdish question non-violently. Little is known about this type of endogenous peace process in the literature. Likewise, the study also found that, contrary to conventional wisdom on hurting stalemates, talks failed when parties reached near power parity following large and rapid shifts in the distribution of power in the region due to war in Syria and Iraq. A substantially empowered PKK emerged, causing great Turkish fears and uncertainty about implications to status quo, as well as PKK overconfidence and disinterest in settlement. Adversaries resumed war in order to weaken each other and gain more from future concessions.

O conflito intraestatal colombiano acumulou tentativas de pacificação negociada com diferentes grupos guerrilheiros. Enquanto o processo de paz de Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002) fracassou em acordar a paz com as FARC, os diálogos do presidente atual, Manuel Juan Santos (2010-2018), lograram firmar inédito acordo de paz com a guerrilha. Por que um acordo com as FARC foi possível em 2016, e não em 2002? Para responder tal questão, a pesquisa se vale do método comparativo de Sistemas Mais Similares para examinar a hipótese de que a Colômbia do presidente Santos dispôs de maiores capacidades estatais para empreender um bem-sucedido processo de paz do que na época de Andrés Pastrana. Através de levantamento bibliográfico ligado à literatura de Capacidade Estatal, bem como à literatura histórica sobre o conflito colombiano, elenca-se 12 variáveis agrupadas em três grupos para serem testadas em ambos os processos de paz. Para além da introdução, referencial teórico e referencial metodológico, esta dissertação se divide em quatro capítulos: (i) histórico do conflito colombiano, (ii) análise de variáveis socioeconômicas, (iii) análise de variáveis estratégico-militares, (iiii) análise dos principais atores envolvidos no conflito. Como conclusão, encontrou-se que melhores indicadores econômicos e militares, bem como maior coesão institucional, foram cruciais na garantia do acordo de paz de 2016. Contudo, compreender como se deu a relação causal entre esses aspectos e o desfecho positivo de 2016 demandará novas pesquisas mais aprofundadas em aspectos específicos. / The intrastate Colombian conflict has accumulated attempts of negotiated pacification with several guerrilla groups. If, in one hand, there is Andrés Pastrana’s (1998-2002) failure to achieve peace with the FARC, in the other hand, the current president’s attempt, Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2018) managed to stablish an unprecedented peace accord with the guerrilla. Why such accord was possible in 2016 but not in 2002? To answer this question, this research uses the Most Similar Systems comparative method in order to examine the hypothesis that the Colombia of current president Santos enjoyed better state capacities to undergo a well-succeeded peace process than during Andrés Pastrana’s years. Through literature review related to the State Capacity theory as well as the historic literature of the Colombian conflict, this research lists 12 variables grouped in three groups so that they can be tested in both peace processes. Besides an introduction, theoretical framework and methodological framework, this dissertation divides itself in four chapters: (i) history of the Colombian conflict, (ii) analysis of socioeconomic variables, (iii) analysis of strategic-military variables, (iiii) analysis of the main actors related to the conflict. As a conclusion, the research finds that better economic and military aspects, as well as better institutional cohesion, were crucial in achieving the peace agreement of 2016. However, understanding how such causal relation worked between these aspects and the positive outcome of 2016 will demand new deeper research on specific aspects.

O conflito intraestatal colombiano acumulou tentativas de pacificação negociada com diferentes grupos guerrilheiros. Enquanto o processo de paz de Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002) fracassou em acordar a paz com as FARC, os diálogos do presidente atual, Manuel Juan Santos (2010-2018), lograram firmar inédito acordo de paz com a guerrilha. Por que um acordo com as FARC foi possível em 2016, e não em 2002? Para responder tal questão, a pesquisa se vale do método comparativo de Sistemas Mais Similares para examinar a hipótese de que a Colômbia do presidente Santos dispôs de maiores capacidades estatais para empreender um bem-sucedido processo de paz do que na época de Andrés Pastrana. Através de levantamento bibliográfico ligado à literatura de Capacidade Estatal, bem como à literatura histórica sobre o conflito colombiano, elenca-se 12 variáveis agrupadas em três grupos para serem testadas em ambos os processos de paz. Para além da introdução, referencial teórico e referencial metodológico, esta dissertação se divide em quatro capítulos: (i) histórico do conflito colombiano, (ii) análise de variáveis socioeconômicas, (iii) análise de variáveis estratégico-militares, (iiii) análise dos principais atores envolvidos no conflito. Como conclusão, encontrou-se que melhores indicadores econômicos e militares, bem como maior coesão institucional, foram cruciais na garantia do acordo de paz de 2016. Contudo, compreender como se deu a relação causal entre esses aspectos e o desfecho positivo de 2016 demandará novas pesquisas mais aprofundadas em aspectos específicos. / The intrastate Colombian conflict has accumulated attempts of negotiated pacification with several guerrilla groups. If, in one hand, there is Andrés Pastrana’s (1998-2002) failure to achieve peace with the FARC, in the other hand, the current president’s attempt, Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2018) managed to stablish an unprecedented peace accord with the guerrilla. Why such accord was possible in 2016 but not in 2002? To answer this question, this research uses the Most Similar Systems comparative method in order to examine the hypothesis that the Colombia of current president Santos enjoyed better state capacities to undergo a well-succeeded peace process than during Andrés Pastrana’s years. Through literature review related to the State Capacity theory as well as the historic literature of the Colombian conflict, this research lists 12 variables grouped in three groups so that they can be tested in both peace processes. Besides an introduction, theoretical framework and methodological framework, this dissertation divides itself in four chapters: (i) history of the Colombian conflict, (ii) analysis of socioeconomic variables, (iii) analysis of strategic-military variables, (iiii) analysis of the main actors related to the conflict. As a conclusion, the research finds that better economic and military aspects, as well as better institutional cohesion, were crucial in achieving the peace agreement of 2016. However, understanding how such causal relation worked between these aspects and the positive outcome of 2016 will demand new deeper research on specific aspects.

O conflito intraestatal colombiano acumulou tentativas de pacificação negociada com diferentes grupos guerrilheiros. Enquanto o processo de paz de Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002) fracassou em acordar a paz com as FARC, os diálogos do presidente atual, Manuel Juan Santos (2010-2018), lograram firmar inédito acordo de paz com a guerrilha. Por que um acordo com as FARC foi possível em 2016, e não em 2002? Para responder tal questão, a pesquisa se vale do método comparativo de Sistemas Mais Similares para examinar a hipótese de que a Colômbia do presidente Santos dispôs de maiores capacidades estatais para empreender um bem-sucedido processo de paz do que na época de Andrés Pastrana. Através de levantamento bibliográfico ligado à literatura de Capacidade Estatal, bem como à literatura histórica sobre o conflito colombiano, elenca-se 12 variáveis agrupadas em três grupos para serem testadas em ambos os processos de paz. Para além da introdução, referencial teórico e referencial metodológico, esta dissertação se divide em quatro capítulos: (i) histórico do conflito colombiano, (ii) análise de variáveis socioeconômicas, (iii) análise de variáveis estratégico-militares, (iiii) análise dos principais atores envolvidos no conflito. Como conclusão, encontrou-se que melhores indicadores econômicos e militares, bem como maior coesão institucional, foram cruciais na garantia do acordo de paz de 2016. Contudo, compreender como se deu a relação causal entre esses aspectos e o desfecho positivo de 2016 demandará novas pesquisas mais aprofundadas em aspectos específicos. / The intrastate Colombian conflict has accumulated attempts of negotiated pacification with several guerrilla groups. If, in one hand, there is Andrés Pastrana’s (1998-2002) failure to achieve peace with the FARC, in the other hand, the current president’s attempt, Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2018) managed to stablish an unprecedented peace accord with the guerrilla. Why such accord was possible in 2016 but not in 2002? To answer this question, this research uses the Most Similar Systems comparative method in order to examine the hypothesis that the Colombia of current president Santos enjoyed better state capacities to undergo a well-succeeded peace process than during Andrés Pastrana’s years. Through literature review related to the State Capacity theory as well as the historic literature of the Colombian conflict, this research lists 12 variables grouped in three groups so that they can be tested in both peace processes. Besides an introduction, theoretical framework and methodological framework, this dissertation divides itself in four chapters: (i) history of the Colombian conflict, (ii) analysis of socioeconomic variables, (iii) analysis of strategic-military variables, (iiii) analysis of the main actors related to the conflict. As a conclusion, the research finds that better economic and military aspects, as well as better institutional cohesion, were crucial in achieving the peace agreement of 2016. However, understanding how such causal relation worked between these aspects and the positive outcome of 2016 will demand new deeper research on specific aspects.

Civil society inclusion in peace processes has been recognised to be crucial in achieving sustainable peace. The author first reviews the existing academic literature on this, before looking at how civil society, and especially civil society in non-western contexts and armed conflicts can be conceptualised. The variety of approaches and the limitations of Western actor-based concepts in non-Western contexts explains the choice of a function-based model of civil society being chosen to analyse it in the context of international peacebuilding efforts. Its involvement in formal peace processes and negotiations meanwhile is analysed using nine models of inclusion.  The case that is chosen for this exploration is Afghanistan. As a multi-facetted country with a long history of armed conflict and foreign involvement, the developments in the past two decades provide an interesting case study. The inductive desk research, using secondary data, is guided by the questions; which concept of civil society has informed the peace building process in Afghanistan in the past twenty years, how civil society in Afghanistan can be conceptualized and how this has affected the peace building process.  The findings paint a distinct picture of a country that has been shaped by armed conflict, tracing its roots back to the early days of modern Afghanistan and contrasting existing societal and political structures with Western concepts of civil society and state building. Civil society involvement is being analysed using exemplary stages of peace processes and external peace building efforts.  The research concludes that civil society inclusion has been limited by Western concepts of civil society being unfittingly applied to far more complex local realities, thereby excluding relevant actors and limiting the legitimacy and ownership of the peace process, with the prospect of peace being a long way off.