The past two decades have witnessed the proliferation of comprehensive international missions of peacebuilding and reconstruction, aimed not simply at bringing conflict to an end but also at preventing its recurrence. Recent missions, ranging from relatively modest involvement to highly complex international administrations, have generated a debate about the rights and duties of international actors to reconstruct postconflict states.
In view of the recent growth of such missions, and the serious challenges and crises that have plagued them, we seek in this article to address some of the gaps in the current literature and engage in a critical analysis of the moral purposes and dilemmas of reconstruction.
More specifically, we construct a map for understanding and evaluating the different ethical imperatives advanced by those who attempt to rebuild war-torn societies. In our view, such a mapping exercise is a necessary step in any attempt to build a normative defense of postconflict reconstruction. The article proceeds in two stages: first, we present the various rationales for reconstruction offered by international actors, and systematize these into four different "logics"; second, we evaluate the implications and normative dilemmas generated by each logic.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Summer 2009 (23.2) • Essay
Ethical Competence in International Relations [Full Text]
In order to participate effectively in international relations, this essay argues that international actors of all kinds, including states, international organizations, corporations, and individuals, have ...
Summer 2009 (23.2) • Feature
The Norms and Politics of Exit: Ending Postconflict Transitional Administrations
This paper examines the impact of the liberal-democratic norms governing statebuilding operations on the timing and process of exit of post-conflict international transitional administrations.
Summer 2009 (23.2) • Review
Defending Humanity: When Force is Justified and Why by George Fletcher and Jens David Ohlin
The authors seek a legal foundation for humanitarian intervention without Security Council authorization squarely within the UN Charter's Article 51, which grants UN members an "inherent ...