Women and peace in a divided society:peace-building potentials of feminist advocacy and reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Despite an improving international rhetoric highlighting the necessity of women’s participation in postwar settings, women still tend to be disadvantaged in peace-building processes (Chinkin and Charlesworth, 2006; United Nations, 2002). This chapter argues that women’s struggles for rights entail important potentials for peace-building in divided postwar societies. Women frequently are among the first who cooperate across ethnic divisions established and hardened during ethno-political wars. Feminist policy reforms often strengthen common state structures and their legitimacy, contributing to the overcoming of ethnic divisions. Women’s participation and contributions should, therefore, be much more recognized and promoted in peace-building processes. However, it is feminist advocacy that is key, not women’s participation per se. Women have often promoted nationalistic and violent agendas; yet, only if they champion the rights of women independent of their ethnic and political differences can peace-building potentials come into effect.

Mapping the nexus of transitional justice and peacebuilding

This paper explores the convergences and divergence between transitional justice and peace-building, by considering some of the recent developments in scholarship and practice. We examine the notion of ‘peace’ in transitional justice and the idea of ‘justice’ in peacebuilding. We highlight that transitional justice and peacebuilding often engage with similar or related ideas, though the scholarship on in each field has developed, largely, in parallel to each other, and of-ten without any significant engagement between the fields of inquiry. We also note that both fields share other commonalities, insofar as they often neglect questions of capital (political, social, economic) and at times, gender. We suggest that trying to locate the nexus in the first place draws attention to where peace and justice have actually got to be produced in order for there not to be conflict and violence. This in turn demonstrates that locally, ‘peace’ and ‘justice’ do not always look like the ‘peace’ and ‘justice’ drawn up by international donors and peace-builders; and, despite the ‘turn to the local’ in international relations, it is surprising just how many local and everyday dynamics are (dis)missed as sources of peace and justice, or potential avenues of addressing the past.

Unity in Christ or Pan-Europeanism?:Nathan Söderblom and the ecumenical peace movement in the interwar period

In the summer of 2014 the Swedish Church is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the appointment of Nathan Söderblom as archbishop of Uppsala, and thus head of the Swedish church organisation. As a Lutheran with an enormously broad-minded and broad-reaching approach to ecumenical understanding and community-building, Söderblom shot to prominence in the interwar period not only because of his ecumenical engagement, calling for an evangelical catholicity so stand side by side with the Roman catholic and Orthodox catholic traditions, but also because of his comprehensive secular engagement for peace and understanding between peoples. In the latter context he also acquired a solid reputation as a perhaps less prominent but still noteworthy figure in the history of European integration. This article investigates how, why and to what extent Söderblom’s ecumenical and secular engagements were intertwined. The first part discusses how his biographical and academic background led to such staunch ecumenical positions, while the second part focuses on the secular engagement, which was perceived by Söderblom as necessary to make progress on the ecumenical front in the practical political realities of the 1920s. The final part, comparing and contrasting Söderblom’s views with those of Count Richard von Coudenhove-Calergi and the Pan-European Union, demonstrates why Söderblom’s engagement for Europe had to be limited: unity in Christ is by definition global in nature and therefore cannot be continent-specific.