​Reassessing Peacebuilding Paradigms in the Context of Interstate Power Asymmetry

Abstract

Peacebuilding scholarship has historically concentrated on intra-state conflict, privileging frameworks that emphasize reconciliation, institutional reform, and social cohesion. While these approaches have proven effective in post–civil war environments, they remain insufficient for addressing contemporary interstate conflicts characterized by power asymmetry and weak enforcement of international norms. This article argues that the degradation of multilateral institutions—particularly the United Nations—has exacerbated conditions in which powerful states increasingly abuse weaker states with limited accountability. The article calls for a reorientation of peacebuilding theory to address interstate aggression in an era of declining global governance.

Introduction

Peacebuilding theory has evolved largely in response to intra-state conflicts, especially those emerging in the post–Cold War era. Civil wars, identity-based violence, and post-authoritarian transitions shaped dominant paradigms that prioritize bottom-up reconciliation, governance reform, and community-led healing. While these frameworks have made meaningful contributions to conflict transformation within states, their applicability to interstate conflict remains limited.

Interstate conflict operates within a fundamentally different structural logic. Sovereignty, military deterrence, geopolitical interests, and asymmetrical power relations often override normative commitments to peace and justice. As such, peacebuilding theories grounded primarily in social transformation struggle to confront conflicts driven by strategic domination rather than internal societal breakdown.

International Relations, Multi-Track Diplomacy, and Their Limits

In addressing interstate conflict, the international community has relied predominantly on international relations theory and multi-track diplomacy. These approaches emphasize state-to-state negotiation, balance of power, confidence-building measures, and diplomatic engagement across formal and informal channels. In theory, such mechanisms offer pathways for de-escalation and conflict management.

However, their effectiveness depends heavily on the legitimacy and enforcement capacity of international institutions. As global governance structures weaken, diplomatic frameworks increasingly function as symbolic gestures rather than binding constraints. Multi-track diplomacy, while valuable, cannot compensate for the absence of credible accountability mechanisms when powerful states act unilaterally.

Institutional Degradation and the Rise of Impunity

The erosion of international institutions—most notably the United Nations—has created conditions conducive to systemic impunity. Veto politics, selective application of international law, and geopolitical bargaining have undermined the UN’s role as a guarantor of collective security. Rather than preventing aggression, institutional paralysis often enables it.

This degradation has transformed multilateral institutions from stabilizing forces into arenas of political deadlock. As a result, powerful states increasingly exploit weaker and less powerful states through military, economic, and narrative means with minimal consequence. Such practices not only violate the principles of international law but also normalize coercion as an acceptable tool of statecraft.

Implications for Peacebuilding Theory

The persistence of interstate power abuse exposes a critical gap in contemporary peacebuilding theory. Frameworks designed for intra-state reconciliation lack the analytical tools necessary to address structural violence embedded in the international system. Without enforceable norms and impartial institutions, peacebuilding risks becoming normatively aspirational rather than practically effective.

To remain relevant, peacebuilding must expand beyond its traditional focus and confront the realities of interstate domination. This requires integrating structural power analysis, accountability mechanisms, and global justice perspectives into peacebuilding discourse. Failure to do so risks rendering peacebuilding complicit in a system that tolerates aggression under the guise of sovereignty and security.

Conclusion

The growing prevalence of interstate conflict driven by power asymmetry demands a fundamental reassessment of peacebuilding paradigms. As international institutions weaken, the potential for chaos increases, particularly for smaller and less powerful states. Addressing this challenge requires not only institutional reform but also a theoretical shift that acknowledges and confronts structural inequality at the international level. Without such transformation, peacebuilding will remain ill-equipped to respond to the defining conflicts of the contemporary global order.