INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue

Page 488

www.rsisinternational.org

The Ethics of Dialogue in a Fragmented World: A Comparative

Study of Civilizational Engagement and Conflict in Contemporary

Global Affairs

Mohamad Zaidin Mohamad

, Wan Khairul Firdaus Wan Khairaldin

, Hanif Md Lateh@Junoh

, Noor

Safuan Che Noh

, Sofyuddin Yusof

, Faizuri Abd Latif

Research Institute for Islamic Products & Civilization (INSPIRE), UniSZA, Terengganu,

Faculty of Islamic Contemporary Studies, UniSZA, Terengganu,

Department of Aqidah and Islamic Thought, UM

Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.930000062

Received: 11 December 2025; Accepted: 19 December 2025; Published: 27 December 2025

ABSTRACT

The contemporary world, despite its interconnectedness, remains deeply fragmented between narratives of

civilizational clash and often superficial dialogical efforts. This paper examines this paradox by proposing the

ethical framework of “constructive discussion” (hiwar muqni’) by Badi‘ al-Zaman Sa‘id al-Nursi as a normative

alternative to the “clash of civilizations” thesis. Through conceptual analysis and in-depth documentary review

including observations of international diplomatic initiatives and post-conflict peace processes, this study

demonstrates that Al-Nursi’s principles of “universal brotherhood,” “forgiveness,” and “principled openness”

(wasatiyyah) provide a practical foundation for authentic dialogue. However, their application is not without

challenges, particularly in contexts of power asymmetry, structural injustice, and actors operating in bad faith.

By integrating considerations of these limitations alongside concrete examples from international relations, this

study argues that neglecting a holistic ethical approach will perpetuate global cycles of antagonism, a condition

that can indeed be avoided through a commitment to dialogue grounded in empathy, justice, and mutual respect.

Keywords: Civilizational dialogue, Intercultural conflict, Al-Nursi ethics, Global fragmentation, Forgiveness

diplomacy

INTRODUCTION

Despite the unprecedented advancements in global connectivity and the proliferation of multilateral forums,

human societies appear increasingly fractured, often reverting to deep-seated antagonisms rather than

meaningful engagement. A cursory glance at persistent humanitarian crises in conflict zones or the rise of

aggressive nationalist posturing reveals that our collective efforts toward mutual understanding remain sporadic

and superficially applied. The notion of an inevitable “clash of civilizations” a paradigm amplified in the wake

of geopolitical upheavals such as the post-9/11 landscape continues to exert a powerful influence on

policymakers and publics alike, often overshadowing the more nuanced and demanding prospect of authentic

dialogue (Ibrahim, 2007; Quý, 2007).

Even when the discourse shifts toward a “dialogue of civilizations,” it is frequently deployed as a reactive

instrument a diplomatic palliative invoked only when conflicts become too costly or visible. This intermittent,

crisis-driven approach undermines the potential for sustained and principled engagement, revealing a troubling

preference for narrow national or ideological interests over collective well-being (Abdullahi, 2018; Oelsner &

Vion, 2021). The absence of a globally embraced ethos that elevates shared humanity above tribal or

civilizational loyalties remains a critical impediment to meaningful coexistence.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue

Page 489

www.rsisinternational.org

This paper addresses this persistent deficit by critically examining the ethical foundations underlying persistent

deficit by critically examining the ethical foundations underlying competing paradigms of civilizational

interaction. Rather than merely tracing historical or theoretical lineages, we interrogate the moral costs of

framing international relations through a zero-sum logic of power and domination. In response, we turn to the

understudied yet profoundly relevant contributions of Badi‘ al-Zaman Sa‘id al-Nursi (Al-Nursi, 2019), whose

concept of “constructive discussion” (hiwar muqni‘) offers a robust ethical and practical framework for

engagement. Al-Nursi’s emphasis on universal brotherhood, forgiveness, and moderation transcends idealistic

aspiration, providing tangible principles for dialogue even and especially in contexts marked by asymmetry,

historical grievance, or structural conflict.

Importantly, this study does not treat Al-Nursi’s framework as universally applicable without qualification. We

acknowledge real-world complexities such as power imbalances, the presence of non-ethical actors, and legacies

of structural violence that may challenge or constrain dialogical praxis. Through selected references to

contemporary diplomatic initiatives, reconciliation processes, and instances of so-called “dialogue” that have

devolved into performative exchange (Enroth, 2020; Yordan, 2009), this introduction sets the stage for a

balanced examination of both the potential and the limitations of an ethically grounded approach to civilizational

engagement.

Ultimately, this paper argues that the continued marginalization of such ethical frameworks perpetuates a cycle

of global fragmentation a fate that is neither inevitable nor necessary. By integrating conceptual rigor with

conscious attention to real-world dynamics, we seek to contribute to a more sustained, reflective, and ethically

accountable practice of dialogue in an increasingly fractured world.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The academic discourse on civilizational interaction has long been dominated by the paradigm of inevitable

conflict, a perspective most prominently articulated in Huntington’s (2018) provocative thesis. This worldview

is deeply embedded in Western political thought, where figures such as Machiavelli (2018), Voltaire (2019), and

Morgenthau (2020) have variously emphasized power, competition, and dominance as the fundamental drivers

of international relations. This tradition presents a bleak vision of human societies as inherently distinct and

perpetually engaged in a zero-sum struggle for supremacy, a view that has regrettably resonated with historical

narratives of conflict and the primacy of might (Bjelic, 2020).

In response to this conflict-centric outlook, the ideal of a “dialogue of civilizations” has periodically emerged.

Early advocates like Garaudy (2019) envisioned a path toward mutual understanding and shared human

objectives. However, as noted in the supporting literature, global interest in dialogue has often been reactive—

intensifying only in the wake of catastrophic conflicts, such as the post-9/11 era (Ibrahim, 2007; Quý, 2007).

This pattern suggests that dialogue is frequently instrumentalized as a crisis-management tool rather than

embraced as a foundational principle of international order (Enroth, 2020). The practice of major powers, notably

the United States, often illustrates this discrepancy: foreign aid is deployed with strategic conditionalities,

transforming potential cooperation into instruments of leverage rather than genuine partnership (Marten, 2004;

Yordan, 2009).

Amidst this landscape, the ethical framework of Badi‘ al-Zaman Sa‘id al-Nursi (2019) offers a profound and

systematic alternative. His concept of hiwar muqni‘ (constructive discussion) reframes disagreement not as a

threat but as a potential “mercy” an opportunity for collective growth and truth-seeking when guided by sincerity

and mutual benefit (Mohamad Zaidin et al., 2021). For Al-Nursi, conflict obscures understanding and polarizes

communities, whereas dialogue, rooted in humility and intellectual hospitality, serves as a sacred, disciplined

practice toward shared knowledge (Sanadi, 2020; Welker, 2022).

Al-Nursi’s principles universal brotherhood, compassionate empathy (ihsan), forgiveness, and moderation

(wasatiyyah) provide a coherent grammar for engagement in an age of fragmentation. He emphasizes winning

hearts over arguments, prioritizing persuasion and empathy over domination (Heyneman, 2020; Lawale &

BoryAdams, 2020). This approach aligns with contemporary scholarly calls for dialogical ethics and conflict

transformation, yet it remains distinct in its integration of spiritual and ethical imperatives.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue

Page 490

www.rsisinternational.org

However, a comprehensive review must also engage with the practical limitations of such normative

frameworks. While Al-Nursi’s ethos provides a compelling vision, its application encounters real-world

constraints, including structural power asymmetries, the presence of non-ethical actors, and contexts of

entrenched violence where dialogue may be co-opted or dismissed. For instance, the conditional and often

strategic deployment of foreign aid (Marten, 2004; Yordan, 2009) exemplifies how power disparities can

undermine the mutual respect essential for constructive discussion. Similarly, instances of performative

diplomacy, where dialogue serves as a stage for asserting dominance rather than fostering understanding (Enroth,

2020) highlight the risks of divorcing ethical principles from political and institutional realities.

Therefore, while Al-Nursi’s contributions offer a vital normative counterpoint to conflict-centric paradigms,

their implementation necessitates complementary engagement with structural and critical perspectives. This

includes examining how dialogical ethics can be operationalized in unequal settings, how education systems can

cultivate wasatiyyah without neglecting power critiques (Ahmed, 2020; Razak, 2019), and how forgiveness and

empathy can be integrated into post-conflict justice without obscuring demands for equity. This review thus sets

the stage for a balanced analysis that honors the transformative potential of Al-Nursi’s thought while consciously

addressing the complex conditions of contemporary global fragmentation.

METHODOLOGY

The fragmented and politically charged nature of contemporary global affairs calls for an approach that

prioritizes conceptual clarity while remaining attentive to real-world complexities. This study employs a

qualitative, document-based research design centered on conceptual analysis and critical textual review. This

methodology is deliberately chosen to excavate the foundational ethical and philosophical assumptions that

underpin paradigms of civilizational engagement, beyond the transient fluctuations of political rhetoric or policy.

Conceptual and Textual Analysis

A curated corpus of foundational texts forms the core of this inquiry. Primary attention is given to the works of

Badi‘ al-Zaman Sa‘id al-Nursi, especially his writings on hiwar muqni‘ (constructive discussion), universal

brotherhood, and forgiveness. These texts are subjected to close reading and hermeneutic analysis to distill their

explicit ethical propositions, implicit assumptions about human nature, and prescribed modes of interaction.

To establish a critical dialogue, Al-Nursi’s framework is systematically juxtaposed with influential texts

representing the conflict-centric tradition in Western political thought, including works by Machiavelli (2018),

Morgenthau (2020), and Huntington (2018). This contrastive analysis allows for a structured comparison of

normative starting points, rather than a mere survey of opinions.

Integration of Case-Oriented Documentary Review

Responding to the need for greater concrete engagement, this study supplements its conceptual analysis with a

focused review of policy documents, diplomatic records, and reports from selected intercivilizational initiatives.

These are not treated as empirical case studies in a strict sense, but as illustrative contexts to examine how the

ethical principles in question are invoked, applied, or negated in practice. Examples include:

1. Documents and evaluations from post-conflict reconciliation processes (e.g., commissions in South

Africa or Rwanda) to explore the praxis of forgiveness and empathy.

2. Policy frameworks governing international development aid (e.g., comparing conditional vs. rightsbased

models) to assess alignments with self-interest versus mutual benefit.

3. Declarations and outcomes from structured intercultural dialogues (e.g., the Alliance of Civilizations

initiative, or religious diplomacy documents) to observe the operationalization or performativity of

dialogue.

Analytical Framework

The analysis is structured around four interconnected conceptual categories derived from the literature:

1. Basis: The foundational view of human nature and intergroup relations (e.g., brotherhood vs. inherent

hostility).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue

Page 491

www.rsisinternational.org

2. Principles: Core ethical guidelines (e.g., forgiveness, moderation, sovereignty).

3. Strategies: Proposed modes of interaction (e.g., constructive discussion, retributive justice, conditional

engagement).

4. Goals: The envisioned outcomes (e.g., mutual understanding, victory, stability).

Each paradigm is analyzed through these categories, with consistent attention to how power asymmetries and

structural constraints might facilitate or impede their real-world application.

Addressing Limitations and Ensuring Rigor

This methodology acknowledges that a document-based conceptual approach cannot capture the full dynamism

of on the ground political encounters. However, it offers unmatched depth in critiquing the normative

architectures that justify action. To mitigate the risk of abstraction:

1. We explicitly consider counter-scenarios where dialogue fails or is instrumentalized, drawing from

critical scholarship (e.g., Enroth, 2020; Yordan, 2009).

2. The selection of supplementary documents is guided by their demonstrated relevance to the ethical

concepts under review, ensuring conceptual coherence.

3. We maintain a self-reflexive stance regarding the limits of normative frameworks when faced with

nonethical actors or deeply entrenched structural violence.

In sum, this methodology enables a principled excavation of ethical foundations while consciously engaging

with the practical arenas in which these principles are tested, contested, and sometimes betrayed. It provides a

robust foundation for arguing that the choice of ethical paradigm is not merely academic, but one that shapes the

very possibility of peace or perpetuation of conflict in a fragmented world.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This study reveals a fundamental divergence between the ethical assumptions and practical pathways offered by

conflict-centric paradigms and those grounded in dialogical ethics, as exemplified by Al-Nursi’s framework. The

analysis is structured around four interconnected themes that emerged from the comparative textual and

documentary review, each highlighting a core tension and its implications for global engagement.

Anthropological and Epistemological Foundations: Brotherhood versus Inherent Hostility

The analysis uncovers a foundational divergence in assumptions about human nature. The conflict paradigm,

from Machiavelli to Huntington, proceeds from the premise that differences in identity and interest naturally

lead to competition and hostility (Huntington, 2018; Morgenthau, 2020). In stark contrast, Al-Nursi (2019) posits

"universal brotherhood" as the ontological basis of human relations. For Al-Nursi, difference is not a threat but

a potential mercy, a source of enrichment for collective understanding when navigated through "constructive

discussion" (Mohamad Zaidin et al., 2021).

This initial assumption dictates the entire subsequent logic of interaction. A view that perceives "the other" as a

threat tends to justify defensive-aggressive policies, as seen in the post-9/11 national security approach

prioritizing pre-emptive strikes (Ibrahim, 2007). Al-Nursi’s framework offers an alternative epistemology:

conflict produces only "heat," not "light" (Sanadi, 2020), making sincere dialogue the only path to shared truth.

However, applying the assumption of universal brotherhood faces real-world challenges in contexts where

nonstate or state actors openly adhere to exclusive and hostile ideologies. Extreme case studies, such as the rise

of transnational militant groups, demonstrate the limits of a dialogical approach when meeting actors who

ideologically reject the very foundation of dialogue.

The Purpose and Practice of Interaction: Pursuing Common Good versus Seeking Victory

The purpose of interaction serves as a clear dividing line. Within Al-Nursi’s framework, the goal of "constructive

discussion" is the common good, operationalized through principles of active listening, open-mindedness, and

the pursuit of joint solutions (Al-Nursi, 2019). Conversely, within the conflict paradigm, interaction is a

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue

Page 492

www.rsisinternational.org

continuation of politics by other means, aimed at victory, domination, or unilateral gain, as reflected in

Machiavellian thought (2018) and the practice of realpolitik (Morgenthau, 2020).

This divergence in purpose explains why many intercultural dialogue forums fail to yield substantive progress.

They often devolve into stages for "performative diplomacy," where parties deliver fixed monologues without a

genuine willingness to listen or adapt (Enroth, 2020). In contrast, initiatives like the National Reconciliation

Process in post-Arab Spring Tunisia, which involved inclusive dialogue between secular and Islamist groups

illustrate an attempt (however imperfect) to prioritize national survival over partisan victory. This example also

shows that successful dialogue often requires neutral mediation and structures that protect the process from

domination by the more powerful party.

Transcending Historical Baggage: Empathy and Forgiveness versus Stigma and Retribution

The review documents the powerful grip of "historical stigma" in shaping contemporary perceptions and

policies, both in the West and the Islamic world (Bjelic, 2020; Ibrahim, 2007). The U.S. response to 9/11,

dominated by retribution and military intervention, stands as a prime example of how historical wounds can

trigger cycles of vengeance (Yordan, 2009). Al-Nursi offers the concepts of ihsan (compassionate benevolence

and deep empathy) and forgiveness as radical ethical acts to break these cycles. He even discusses the possibility

of forgiveness (sulh) within Islamic legal frameworks, albeit with compensation (diat), as a pathway to broader

social peace (Al-Nursi, 2019; Sanadi, 2020).

This principle of forgiveness is profoundly relevant yet immensely challenging in contexts of transitional justice.

South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission is often cited as an instance where acknowledgment and

forgiveness were opened as a path, though this process has also been criticized for sacrificing procedural justice.

In international relations, the application of forgiveness is scarce. Foreign policy remains dominated by a logic

of retribution and accountability, as seen in economic sanctions that are often collective and prolong civilian

suffering. Al-Nursi’s framework poses a difficult question: can a nation practice ihsan toward another that has

harmed it, not as a sign of weakness, but as a shrewd strategy for longterm peace? Its application requires

visionary leadership and a paradigm shift in statecraft.

Transformative Strategies: Education and Principled Openness versus Power-Based Instrumentalization

The proposed strategies of each paradigm are also diametrically opposed. The conflict paradigm relies on

instruments of power: sanctions, interventions, and conditional foreign aid designed to maintain influence

(Marten, 2004). Al-Nursi, conversely, emphasizes long-term transformative strategies, particularly education

that instills universal humanistic values and principled openness (wasatiyyah) a balance between standing firm

on principles and remaining open to engagement (Ahmed, 2020; Heyneman, 2020).

This contrast is evident in development aid practices. Aid laden with strict political conditionalities often fosters

perceptions of "patronage" and undermines genuine partnership (Yordan, 2009). Conversely, successful

educational programs, such as student exchanges designed to build empathy or curricula teaching

multiperspective history, can serve as long-term investments in peace. However, significant challenges persist:

transformative education can be resisted by ruling regimes that rely on narrow nationalist narratives.

Furthermore, the concept of wasatiyyah (principled openness) offers a valuable middle ground between

isolationism and assimilation, allowing societies to engage critically with other civilizations without losing their

identity. This principle could serve as a vital guide for Muslim minority communities in the West or for nations

navigating the pressures of globalization.

These findings collectively indicate that global fragmentation is not an inevitability but a consequence of

persistent ethical and strategic choices. Al-Nursi’s ethical framework provides a coherent roadmap for

constructive engagement, yet its implementation faces tangible systemic constraints. Genuine dialogue cannot

occur in a vacuum; it requires supportive structures and institutions, a fairer international justice system,

reformed global economic governance, and a commitment to educating future generations in the spirit of

wasatiyyah and empathy. Without parallel efforts to address power asymmetries and legacies of injustice, the

discourse on dialogue risks remaining abstract and ineffective. The choice before the global community is

between deepening familiar cycles of conflict or mustering the courage to embark on the more demanding yet

more promising path of ethical engagement.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue

Page 493

www.rsisinternational.org

CONCLUSION

This comparative examination of the ethical foundations underlying civilizational engagement and conflict

culminates in a clear, urgent verdict. The pervasive “clash of civilizations” paradigm, rooted in a zero-sum logic

of power and historical grievance, is not a neutral diagnosis but a self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates global

fragmentation. In contrast, the dialogical ethics championed by Badi‘ al-Zaman Sa‘id al-Nursi centered on

universal brotherhood, constructive discussion, forgiveness, and principled openness (wasatiyyah) offers a

coherent and sustainable counter-framework for international relations. It reframes dialogue from a reactive

diplomatic tactic into a proactive ethical imperative essential for collective survival.

However, this study also underscores that the realization of such an ethical framework faces formidable,

realworld constraints. The analysis acknowledges that power asymmetries, structural injustices, and the presence

of actors operating in bad faith can co-opt, distort, or outright obstruct genuine dialogue, as seen in instances of

performative diplomacy and conditional aid. Therefore, Al-Nursi’s vision must not be adopted uncritically as an

abstract ideal. Its principles demand translation into robust institutional mechanisms, educational reforms, and

foreign policy practices that consciously address these imbalances. The transformative potential of empathy and

forgiveness, for instance, must be coupled with parallel commitments to equitable justice and the dismantling of

structural violence.

Ultimately, the choice confronting the global community is stark. To remain wedded to conflict-centric models

is to choose a path of perpetual instability, where security is pursued through domination and historical

animosities dictate future hostilities. The alternative, a committed, consistent, and ethically grounded practice

of dialogue presents a far more arduous but necessary route to lasting peace. This paper argues that frameworks

like Al-Nursi’s provide the essential moral and practical compass for this journey.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This article is part of research under the Special Research Grant Scheme (SRGS-FKI) 1.0,

UniSZA/2023/SRGSFKI1.0/02, supported by Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA).

REFERENCES

1. Abdullahi, E. (2018). The politics of peacebuilding: From local to international. Routledge.

2. Ahmed, M. (2020). Education as transformation for transformation. Development, 53(4), 511–517.

3. Al-Nursi, B. S. (2019). Rasa’il al-Nur: The epistles of light (Vol. 1-4). Işık Yayıncılık.

4. Bjelic, D. (2020). Madness as a political factor in the Balkans. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 25(1),

20– 36.

5. Enroth, H. (2020). Beyond unity in plurality: Rethinking the pluralist legacy. Contemporary Political

Theory, 23(4), 458–476.

6. Garaudy, R. (2019). The dialogue of civilisations (A. B. Hussain, Trans.). Islamic Book Trust.

7. Heyneman, S. P. (2020). Education and development: A return to basic principles. Development, 63(4),

518– 521.

8. Huntington, S. P. (2018). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Simon & Schuster.

9. Ibrahim, Y. (2007). 9/11 as a new temporal phase for Islam: The narrative and temporal framing of Islam

in crisis. Contemporary Islam, 1(1), 37–51.

10. Lawale, S., & Bory-Adams, A. (2020). The decade of education for sustainable development: Towards

four pillars of learning. Development, 53(4), 547–550.

11. Machiavelli, N. (2018). The Prince (J. B. Atkinson, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work

published 1532)

12. Marten, K. Z. (2004). Enforcing the peace: Learning from the imperial past. Columbia University Press.

13. Mathews, B. (1926). Young Islam on Trek: A study in the clash of civilizations. Edinburgh House Press.

14. Mohamad Zaidin, M., et al. (2021). Islah pemikiran ke arah penyatuan ummah menurut pandangan

Badiuzzaman Said Nursi. Prosiding Simposium Isu-Isu Sejarah dan Tamadun Islam, 276–285.

15. Morgenthau, H. J. (2020). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (K. W. Thompson

& D. Clinton, Eds.). McGraw-Hill Education. (Original work published 1963)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue

Page 494

www.rsisinternational.org

16. Oelsner, A., & Vion, A. (2021). Friends in the region: A comparative study on friendship building in

regional integration. International Politics, 58(1), 129–151.

17. Quý, H. S. (2007). Understanding the contemporary world. Routledge.

18. Razak, M. R. A. (2019). Pembinaan negara bangsa Malaysia: Peranan pendidikan sejarah dan dasar

pendidikan kebangsaan. Jebat: Malaysian Journal of History, Politics & Strategic Studies, 36, 90–106.

19. Sanadi, I. A. K. (2020). Al-Hiwar wa al-Munazarah fi al-Islam: Ahmad Didat Namudhajan fi al-Asr al-

Hadith. Universiti Umm al-Qura.

20. Voltaire. (2019). Candide, or Optimism (Modern edition). Penguin Classics.

21. Welker, M. (2022). Habermas and Ratzinger on the future of religion. Scottish Journal of Theology, 75(4),

456– 473.

22. Yordan, C. L. (2009). External intervention and local power dynamics in peacebuilding. Journal of

Intervention and Statebuilding, 3(1), 59–76.