ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the cross-cutting issue in order to arrive at some desiderata and prospects for peacebuilding research. The main argument is that international peacebuilding is inevitably paternalistic since it always involves those actors who need to claim to know better what is good for someone else. The debate about the analytical shortcomings of peacebuilding as well as of its critiques already builds a bridge from theorising peacebuilding to studying peacebuilding practices. Most importantly, there is a debate about the effectiveness, the impact or the success of peacebuilding. This includes two main questions: how to measure these aspects and how to explain them. Over the years, an impressive and rich body of literature has been produced and has stimulated various disputes and critiques. In many respects, the peacebuilding debates mirror the more general contestation about the justification, the practices and the consequences of any kind of intervention from outside into a distinct polity.
