The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Saving liberal peacebuilding
Abstract
Liberal peacebuilding has become the target of considerable criticism. Although much of this criticism is warranted, a number of scholars and commentators have come to the opinion that liberal peacebuilding is either fundamentally destructive, or illegitimate, or both. On close analysis, however, many of these critiques appear to be exaggerated or misdirected. At a time when the future of peacebuilding is uncertain, it is important to distinguish between justified and unjustified criticisms, and to promote a more balanced debate on the meaning, shortcomings and prospects of liberal peacebuilding.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cited by
Avatars of Eurocentrism in the critique of the liberal peace
Sabaratnam, M. (2013) · Security Dialogue · doi:10.1177/0967010613485870 · Cited by 391
Leonardsson, H., & Rudd, G. (2015) · Third World Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01436597.2015.1029905 · Cited by 381
Nilsson, M., & Marín, L. G. (2021) · Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding · doi:10.1080/17502977.2021.1921546 · Cited by 19
(2017) · IRL - University of Missouri, St. Louis (University of Missouri–St. Louis) · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- PARIS, R.
- Venue
- Review of International Studies
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 337-365
- ISSN
- 0260-2105 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-9044
- OpenAlex
- W2160658260
- Cited by
- 637
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 78.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Saving liberal peacebuilding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0260210510000057
- The paper
- PARIS, R. (2010). Saving liberal peacebuilding. Review of International Studies. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210510000057
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
