Governing reconciliation: Metagovernance, alignment, and sustainable peace in Northern Ireland
Open accessAbstract
Peace can endure institutionally while remaining socially and politically fragile. This article asks what forms of alignment post-agreement governance in Northern Ireland has produced, around which policy objects, and why these have remained insufficiently connected around reconciliation as a durable and actionable objective. Drawing on archival and documentary research and thirty-one semi-structured interviews with governmental, political, European Union and civil-society actors, it examines reconciliation not as an assumed outcome of a peace settlement, but as a policy object that must be defined, institutionalised and connected across governance domains. Bringing technocratic peacebuilding into dialogue with metagovernance, the article conceptualises metagovernance as the strategic organisation of alignment around policy objects and distinguishes alignment from coordination. It identifies three empirical configurations. The constitutional settlement generated procedural alignment around political stability, institutional continuity and the management of disagreement. EU-supported programmes produced programmatic alignment around participation, funding and project delivery. Civil-society practice generated relational alignment around coexistence, cooperation and social repair. These forms of alignment have sustained political interaction, organised resources and enabled locally grounded reconciliation, but they remain differentiated by object, scale, depth and duration. The central problem is therefore not an absence of alignment, but that these partial achievements have not developed cumulatively around reconciliation as a shared, cross-domain orientation. The article shows that technocratic peacebuilding is both productive and strategically selective: it can generate significant governance capacities while privileging some policy objects over others. Sustainable peace consequently depends not only on institutional survival, but also on whether the arrangements that maintain stability are connected to processes of social repair and relational transformation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
S., N. L. (2017) · doi:10.1177/1609406917733847 · Cited by 14,051 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Lagana, G.
- ORCID
- Lagana, Giada
- Venue
- Peace and Sustainability
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2026-12
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 100053
- ISSN
- 2950-6425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7220466979
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Peace and Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- The Leverhulme Trust (ECF-2023-451)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Peacebuilding and International Security
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Irish and British Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › European Union Policy and Governance
- Keywords
- reconciliation, meta-governance, alignment, sustainable peace, Northern Ireland, social repair, civil society, constitutional settlement, political stability, institutional continuity, coexistence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review