| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
159775
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the 1990s, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) experienced complex wars involving local, national and regional combatants and conflict drivers, which formally ended in 2002. Violence continued and the government and rebel groups negotiated a series of peace deals, most recently in 2013. The European Union (EU) has been engaged in the DRC since the 1990s. This article proposes a model for conceptualizing EU mediation engagement within the conflict and process contexts, and the necessary capabilities for different types of EU mediation. It uses the DRC case study to examine how different EU capabilities were engaged in various peace processes which addressed multiple layers of a complex situation, and also engaged with other external actors in a multilateral environment. It concludes that the EU can be conceptualized as a multi-mediator and identifies the necessary capabilities for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
137049
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article assesses whether the EU contributes to long-term positive change in societies emerging from violent conflict, helping them ‘mend’ or whether it simply encourages societies to ‘make do’ with the status quo. To do so, the article focuses on two of the principles found in the Treaty, peace and justice for human rights violations. It examines how the EU translates the principles of peace and justice into policy and puts them into practice by analyzing EU engagement in peace mediation, transitional justice, and security sector reform in general and through in-depth examination of EU engagement in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It questions the prevailing discourse that greater inter-institutional coherence would improve EU security provision and considers whether and how the EU prioritizes between peace and justice. The article finds that principles may be translated into policy and put into practice, and practice is often ahead of policy. But this is uneven within as well as across the institutions. Greater coherence between principle, policy, and practice, rather than between institutions, would improve EU security provision and enable prioritization. If the EU settles for making do, it undermines its considerable potential to contribute to long-term solutions to complex conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|