Intervening for Peace? Dilemma’s of Liberal Internationalism and Democratic Reconstruction in Afghanistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent Western interventions into war-torn states have evolved into burdensome and impractical ventures which fail to produce the kind of cohesive, democratic states which are supposedly necessary for international security. This paper argues that the existing peacebuilding model can work against stabilization in conflict-torn states, and that top-down methods of state-building such as consociational power sharing and the rapid creation of complex national institutions can create new conflicts for control and entrench centrifugal structures of political power. The Western-led mission to stabilize Afghanistan after October 2001 illustrates these dilemmas. Intervening powers opted to lock in a model of development in which a new Afghan state would mirror the structure and functioning of developed Western states, irrespective of whether this would prove sustainable in the Afghan context. Ultimately, policymakers must reconsider peacebuilding frameworks which prioritize democratic states in the short term, and opt instead for more limited, achievable results consistent with a realistic assessment of the capabilities and needs of the international community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".