|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
110893
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Sierra Leoneans have long seen their governance institutions as unresponsive and inefficient. Following the civil war, the government adopted a plan of fiscal, administrative, and political decentralization to mitigate widespread corruption, enhance accountability, and reverse the over-concentration of central authority in Freetown. The key institutions of decentralization, the chieftaincy system and local councils, play important but uneven decision-making, management, and implementation roles, making the process prone to elite capture. This article analyses the peacebuilding implications resulting from variation in strategies to counter elite capture in decentralization. It argues that the UN's variation of this approach, which focuses on relations between elites, has yielded few positive results. A second variation, employed mainly by international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs), focuses on rebalancing asymmetries between elites and non-elites, and has been more effective in sensitizing non-elites to demand good governance and accountability. The challenges of redressing power imbalances between chiefdom actors and non-elites remain, and in addition to continued, robust oversight of local councils, the chieftaincy system requires deeper reforms to guard against further marginalization of non-elites and to achieve liberal peacebuilding goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
116896
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Classified by the UN as one of five core challenges to civilian protection, humanitarian access denial is an increasingly urgent dilemma facing humanitarian actors. Conventional thinking about humanitarian access denial focuses on its outcomes rather than factors that shape its occurrence. The norms associated with humanitarian access and civilian protection are highly institutionalised at the intergovernmental level, yet states demonstrate considerable variation in their compliance with them at the domestic level. Utilising an interpretivist approach, we analyse how actions taken by states to deny humanitarian access in Ethiopia, Sri Lanka and Darfur/Sudan are given meaning and how they come to be understood by state actors themselves as a conduit to pursue other goals. We propose a descriptive typology of humanitarian access denial, and discuss the implications this phenomenon carries for civilian protection by humanitarian actors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|