Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKeranen, Outi
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-19T04:01:49Z
dc.date.available2020-08-19T04:01:49Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn1942-6720
dc.identifier.doi10.1163/19426720-02203003
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/396556
dc.description.abstractWhile significant obstacles to the realisation of the responsibility to protect in practice remain, it has nonetheless made considerable progress in transforming from an idea to an emerging norm. At the same time, however, its sister component, the responsibility rebuild has elicited less scholarly and policy attention. The lack of attention to rebuilding responsibilities has been made all the more urgent by the violent aftermath of the first protection intervention in Libya in 2011. Against this backdrop, the article examines the way in which the responsibility to rebuild is understood and operationalized, with reference to Libya and Côte d’Ivoire, theatres of two recent protection interventions. The conceptual evolution of the responsibility to rebuild reveals a distinct shift towards a more statist understanding of the rebuilding phase; what was initially considered a part of the wider international protection responsibility has become to be viewed as a domestic responsibility. This recalibration of the responsibility to rebuild stems from the concept’s association with the ‘reactive’ element of R2P as well as from the changes in the wider normative environment. The more statist understanding of rebuilding responsibilities has manifested itself not only in the emphasis on domestic ownership of the rebuilding process in the wake of protection interventions but also in the reconceptualization of the wider international responsibility to rebuild as a narrower responsibility to assist in building the capacity of the state subjected to protection intervention. This has been problematic in policy terms as the attempt to build capacity through the standard ‘statebuilding’ measures has resulted at best in negative peace and at worst in armed violence.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.publisherBrill
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom331
dc.relation.ispartofpageto348
dc.relation.ispartofissue3
dc.relation.ispartofjournalGlobal Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations
dc.relation.ispartofvolume22
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBusiness and Management
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPolicy and Administration
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPolitical Science
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1503
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1605
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1606
dc.titleWhat Happened to the Responsibility to Rebuild?
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationKeranen, O, What Happened to the Responsibility to Rebuild?, Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 2016, 22 (3), pp. 331-348
dc.date.updated2020-08-19T03:44:27Z
dc.description.versionAccepted Manuscript (AM)
gro.rights.copyright© 2016 Brill Academic Publishers. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal website for access to the definitive, published version.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorDonovan, Outi E.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record