Laura Davis

Archive
Mediaton

Screenshot 2014-09-03 15.19.57

 This book analyses how the European Union translates its principles of peace and justice into policy and puts them into practice, particularly in societies in or emerging from violent conflict.

The European Union treaty states that in its relations with the wider world, the EU is to promote peace, security, the protection of human rights, and the strict observance and the development of international law. The EU is active in peace processes around the world, yet its role in international peace mediation is largely ignored.

Read More

In these short videos onTransitional justice and peace mediation for the Peace Mediation Platform, I discuss the Peace and Justice DebateAddressing justice questions in peace processesGender Inclusive Transitional Justice and Universal Laws and Norms in Peace Processes

Read More
This article, published in European Security (2014), 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 EU 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.
In the article, I question 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. I find 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.

 

Read More

This briefing paper for the Oslo Forum Africa Mediators Retreat 2013 aims to stimulate discussion within the mediation community about the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in peace processes. In a brief overview of the peace-versus-justice debate to date, it lays out the main arguments for and against the Court. The paper then argues that the ICC has become a ‘straw man’ in the peace and justice debate, being misrepresented sometimes. It is one actor among many in the complex fields of justice and peacemaking – equating the ICC with justice oversimplifies the complexity of justice in (post-) conflict situations. The paper closes with suggestions for greater synergies between peace and justice, including the Court. There are many options on the spectrum between ICC indictments and amnesty that are yet to be explored, and which could advance a pro-justice and pro-peace agenda.

The paper is available here.

Read More

The Global Accord (2002) ended the Congo War, contributed to the creation of the Third Republic and influenced subsequent peace agreements. This article (in the International Journal of Human Rights, 2013, Vol. 17, No. 2, 289–306) analyses how justice for human rights violations was included in the Global Accord and later peace deals. It assesses how the power-sharing aspects of these agreements affected the pursuit of accountability, and finds they undermined transitional justice efforts and contributed to continued abuse. It concludes that free-wheeling power-sharing within the security institutions is the biggest challenge to both accountability and peace: post-conflict security arrangements are therefore the crucial nexus between peacebuilding and accountability for human rights violations.

Keywords: power-sharing; transitional justice; Democratic Republic of Congo; security arrangements; peacebuilding; gender

The article is available here.

Read More

The EU’s Nobel Peace Prize is well-deserved.  The EU has transformed most of Europe from a continent of war to one of peace, as the committee said. It has done so by supporting democracy, human rights and the rule of law, building interdependent economies and institutions. Far from the spotlight of high-level peace negotiations, this is the slow slog of peacebuilding. Peace by bureaucratisation, as Catherine Woollard calls it.

This is not a technocratic exercise. Far from it. The belief in the EU as a peace project is alive and well – and much debated (as at the recent EPLO event). The European project was driven by the conviction that the contintent must never be devastated by war and genocide again. It is a profoundly political project. When driven by politics (Enlargement),  the project is successful. When passed off as a technocratic exercise (the Euro), less so.

Read More

In this letter to the European Voice (published 11 October 2012), I argue that the EU has the instruments to build peace but tends not to use them effectively.

Any future European Institute of Peace should harness the wealth of experience and expertise in the EU institutions and in think-tanks, NGOs and academia, to strengthen the European External Action Service.  It should not add yet another layer of bureaucracy or undermine the EEAS or existing practitioners.

Read More

The EU has become increasingly engaged in peace processes, which is welcome. This engagement has often been through the European Union Special Representatives (EUSRs), and has tended to be ad hoc. In this Security Policy Brief for Egmont, the Royal Institute for Foreign Affairs  I argue that the External Action Service (EAS) should address the role the EU could and should play early on in peace processes. It is not a role that can develop organically anymore; it is time for strategic decision-making. Ten years on, the review of the Gothenburg programme on conflict prevention has been shelved, and the direction of the so-called ‘horizontal’ issues – like peace mediation – in the EAS are still under consideration.. This presents an ideal opportunity to assess what EU diplomats should be contributing to peace processes, and for making the necessary support available to them. After all, interventions of this kind affect not only the EU’s external action and its intended beneficiaries, but also the Union’s identity on the world stage.

Read More

The European Union is increasingly involved in mediating peace deals around the world, and has strong commitments to international justice and human rights. Including justice provisions for the victims of a conflict in the peace agreement may make an important contribution to a durable peace. In this paper published by the Initiative forPeacebuilding, I analyse EU capacities for promoting justice for human rights violations in peacemaking, identify gaps and recommend ways to fill these gaps. I argue that a comprehensive EU approach to transitional justice would make the EU a more credible mediator, and should also improve the impact of post-conflict peace- and democracy-building interventions.

Read More

As the EU becomes increasingly engaged in peace mediation, in this paper published by the Initiative for Peacebuilding, I compare how justice issues have been handled in four mediation processes in Indonesia (Maluku and Aceh), Nepal and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Eight key issues emerged from this comparison concerning the role of the mediator, technical support and assistance to negotiations, and engaging more actors than the mediators and their advisors in peace processes. This paper argues that the EU will need to be able to address these types of questions in order to support durable peace by promoting justice and human rights in peacemaking.

Read More