UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Protecting places for nature, people, and peace : a critial socio-legal review of transboundary conservation… Hsiao, Elaine C. 2018

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2018_november_hsiao_elaine.pdf [ 17.9MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0372793.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0372793-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0372793-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0372793-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0372793-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0372793-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0372793-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0372793-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0372793.ris

Full Text

 	PROTECTING	PLACES	FOR	NATURE,	PEOPLE,	AND	PEACE:	A	CRITICAL	SOCIO-LEGAL	REVIEW	OF	TRANSBOUNDARY	CONSERVATION	AREAS		by		ELAINE	C.	HSIAO		B.A.,	University	of	California,	Los	Angeles,	2004	J.D.,	Pace	Law	School,	2009	LL.M.	Pace	Law	School,	2010		A	THESIS	SUBMITTED	IN	PARTIAL	FULFILLMENT	OF	THE	REQUIREMENTS	FOR	THE	DEGREE	OF	DOCTOR	OF	PHILOSOPHY	in	THE	FACULTY	OF	GRADUATE	AND	POSTDOCTORAL	STUDIES	(Resources,	Environment	and	Sustainability)		THE	UNIVERSITY	OF	BRITISH	COLUMBIA	(Vancouver)		October	2018	©	Elaine	C.	Hsiao,	2018	 ii  The	following	individuals	certify	that	they	have	read,	and	recommend	to	the	Faculty	of	Graduate	and	Postdoctoral	Studies	for	acceptance,	the	dissertation	entitled:		Protecting	Places	for	Nature,	People	and	Peace:	A	Critical	Socio-Legal	Review	of	Transboundary	Conservation	Areas		submitted	by	Elaine	C.	Hsiao	in	partial	fulfillment	of	the	requirements	for		the	degree	of	Doctor	of	Philosophy		in	Resources,	Environment	&	Sustainability			Examining	Committee:		Philippe	Le	Billon,	UBC	Geography	Supervisor		Terre	Satterfield,	UBC	Institute	of	Resources,	Environment	&	Sustainability	Supervisory	Committee	Member		Benjamin	Richardson,	University	of	Tasmania	Supervisory	Committee	Member		Janette	Bulkan	University	Examiner		Sarah	Gergel	University	Examiner		Sara	Seck	External	Examiner	 		 iii  Abstract			Transboundary	Conservation	Areas	(TBCAs),	such	as	‘Parks	for	Peace’	which	have	an	explicit	peace	objective,	have	been	heralded	for	their	potential	to	simultaneously	contribute	towards	biodiversity	conservation	 and	 peace.	 	 In	 a	 world	 affected	 by	 frequent	 armed	 conflicts	 and	 widespread	environmental	degradation,	the	ecological	peacebuilding	potential	of	TBCAs	should	inspire	hope.		However,	 TBCA	 literature	 is	 unclear	 as	 to	 whether	 TBCAs	 with	 or	 without	 an	 explicit	 peace	objective	contribute	positively	to	peace.		Political	ecologists	describe	them	as	externally-imposed,	heavy-handed	or	even	coercive,	neoliberal	constructs,	and	even	long-time	proponents	caution	that	they	can	contribute	to	conflicts	if	not	undertaken	appropriately.		This	dissertation	proposes	that	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace	have	not	generated	the	peace	dividends	envisioned	because	they	are	not	appropriately	designed	for	peace,	conflict-sensitivity,	or	conflict	resilience.				The	dissertation’s	 analytical	 framework	 combines	a	political	 ecology	approach	with	 socio-legal	analysis	and	peace	studies	perspectives.		Empirically,	the	dissertation	examines	56	transboundary	agreements	 representing	 32	 TBCAs,	 responses	 to	 a	 survey	 of	 88	 TBCA	 practitioners,	 and	 field	research	conducted	in	two	case	studies	from	the	Great	Rift	Valley	in	East	Africa	–	(1)	the	Greater	Virunga	 Landscape	 (GVL),	 and	 (2)	 the	 Kidepo	 Landscape.	 	 Findings	 indicate	 that	 TBCAs	 can	contribute	 to	 peace	 if	 they	 are	 properly	 designed	 and	 negotiated	 at	 the	 appropriate	 level	 for	desired	functionality	(i.e.,	operational	integration	on	the	ground	may	be	better	achieved	through	localized	agreements,	whereas	regional	political	integration	requires	higher-level	agreement),	that	 iv  sustained	support	to	activities	on	the	ground	is	essential	in	conflict	or	post-conflict	settings,	and	that	 bottom-up	 agreements	 can	 provide	 greater	 conflict	 resilience.	 	 TBCA	 agreements	 must	provide	 clear	 mandates	 supporting	 peace	 and	 conflict	 resolution	 through	 cross-border	institutional	frameworks	and	on-going	activities.		Most	importantly,	they	must	be	conflict-sensitive	for	TBCAs	seeking	to	transform	violence	and	conflict,	and	conflict-sensitivity	must	refer	to	all	three	categories	of	international,	social	and	ecological	peace.		 	 v  Lay	Summary			Environment	 and	 peace	 scholars	 assert	 that	 areas	 of	 nature	 conservation	 connected	 across	international	borders	can	promote	peace,	but	we	have	never	really	known	whether	this	is	true.		This	 dissertation	 explores	 whether	 transboundary	 conservation	 areas	 (TBCAs)	 are	 actually	protecting	places	(areas	for	nature	conservation),	peoples	(especially	those	living	in	and	around	them)	and	peace	(harmony	between	States,	peoples	and	the	rest	of	nature).		It	specifically	seeks	to	know	how	law	plays	a	role	in	this	process.		This	is	the	first	study	to	systematically	review	TBCA	agreements	and	to	survey	TBCA	practitioners	about	their	perspectives	and	experiences	regarding	cross-border	 cooperation,	 as	 well	 as	 the	 effectiveness	 of	 TBCA	 agreements	 regarding	 conflict	prevention	and	resolution.		Research	findings	conclude	that	TBCAs	can	contribute	more	to	peace	if	 transboundary	 agreements	 create	 governance	 institutions	 that	 are	 well-suited	 to	 deal	 with	conflicts,	 support	 on-going	 activities	 at	 the	 local-level,	 and	 provide	 clear	mandates	 addressing	international	 peace	 (between	 States),	 social	 peace	 (between	 peoples)	 and	 ecological	 peace	(between	humans	and	the	rest	of	nature).	 	 vi  Preface			The	work	presented	in	this	dissertation	is	written	as	a	collection	of	six	papers	(Chapters	1-6,	with	an	additional	concluding	chapter)	intended	for	publication	in	refereed	or	peer-reviewed	academic	journals.		This	has	resulted	in	some	repetition	of	background,	problem	statements	and	case	studies,	including	fieldwork	and	methodology.				A	version	of	Chapter	5	has	been	accepted	for	publication	in	a	peer-reviewed	online	journal	(IUCN	AEL	E-Journal).		The	other	chapters	will	also	be	prepared	as	independent	articles	and	submitted	to	different	peer-reviewed	journals.		I	was	the	sole	author	of	each	chapter.		With	advice	from	my	supervisory	committee,	I	was	responsible	for	all	areas	of	research	conception,	theoretical	framing,	data	collection,	analysis	and	drafting	of	all	manuscripts.		Survey	design	 in	Chapter	4	 included	 input	 from	committee	members,	Philippe	Le	Billon,	Terre	Satterfield	 and	 Benjamin	 Richardson,	 and	 from	 members	 of	 the	 IUCN	 World	 Commission	 on	Protected	Areas	(WCPA)	Transboundary	Conservation	Specialist	Group	(TBC	SG):	Maja	Vasilijevic,	Kevan	Zunckel,	and	Michelle	Lim.				The	survey	and	legal	review	in	Chapter	4	and	all	field	research	towards	the	two	case	studies	in	Chapters	3,	5	and	6	were	approved	by	UBC’s	Behavioural	Research	Ethics	Board	under	Project	Title,	“Protecting	Place,	People	 and	Peace:	A	Critical	 Socio-Legal	Review	of	Transboundary	Parks	 for	 vii  Peace”	(Certificate	Number	H15-01152).				Field	 research	 in	Kenya,	Rwanda	 and	Uganda	was	 approved	by	 the	 respective	 institutions:	 (1)	Kenya	Wildlife	 Service	 (KWS/BRM/5001)	 and	National	 Commission	 for	 Science,	 Technology	&	Innovation	(NACOSTI/P/16/66380/11349);	(2)	Rwanda	Development	Board	(research	contracts	dated	 12	 March	 2018,	 30	 March	 2017	 and	 9	 February	 2017),	 University	 of	 Rwanda	 (DVC-AAR.690/2016,	DVC-AAR.290/2017)	and	Ministry	of	Education	(MINEDUC/S&T/411/2017,	No.	0151/12.00/2017,	No.	0152/12.00/2017);	and	(3)	Uganda	Wildlife	Authority	(COD/96/02)	and	Uganda	National	Council	for	Science	and	Technology	(SS35ES).	 	 viii  Table	of	Contents					Abstract	.............................................................................................................................................................	iii Lay	Summary	....................................................................................................................................................	v Preface	................................................................................................................................................................	vi Table	of	Contents	.........................................................................................................................................	viii List	of	Tables	..................................................................................................................................................	xiv List	of	Figures	..................................................................................................................................................	xv Lists	of	Abbreviations	.................................................................................................................................	xvi Acknowledgements	....................................................................................................................................	xxii Dedication	....................................................................................................................................................	xxiv 1 CHAPTER	1:	INTRODUCTION	..............................................................................................................	1  Introducing	Parks	for	Peace	.........................................................................................................................	1  The	challenge	of	integrating	peace	............................................................................................................	2 1.2.1 Peace	in	a	world	of	conflicts	...................................................................................................................	2 1.2.2 Designing	TBCAs	for	peace	.....................................................................................................................	4  Understanding	Transboundary	Conservation	Areas	(TBCAs):	what	little	we	know	...........	5 1.3.1 Defining	TBCAs	............................................................................................................................................	5 1.3.2 Quantifying	TBCAs	.....................................................................................................................................	8  The	development	of	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace	..............................................................................	10 1.4.1 The	IUCN	story	of	TBCAs	.......................................................................................................................	10 1.4.2 Beyond	colonial	TBCAs	..........................................................................................................................	12  The	problem	statement:	seeking	peace,	creating	conflict	.............................................................	15 1.5.1 TBCAs	creating	conflict	..........................................................................................................................	15 1.5.2 Peace	as	a	pre-requisite	.........................................................................................................................	17 1.5.3 Peace	as	an	external	process	...............................................................................................................	19  Transforming	law	to	transform	conflict:	critical	legal	studies	in	TBCAs	................................	20 1.6.1 Why	law?	......................................................................................................................................................	20 1.6.2 Drawing	from	critical	legal	studies	...................................................................................................	22 1.6.3 Why	TBCAs?	................................................................................................................................................	24  ix  1.6.4 Uniting	the	disciplines	for	peace	and	conflict	transformation	..............................................	26  Just	conservation	for	just	peace	................................................................................................................	27  Overview	of	dissertation	..............................................................................................................................	28 2 CHAPTER	2:		WHAT	DOES	PEACE	MEAN	FOR	TBCAS?:	UNDERSTANDING	INTERNATIONAL	PEACE,	SOCIAL	PEACE,	AND	ECOLOGICAL	PEACE	............................................	32  Introducing	peace	for	parks	.......................................................................................................................	32  A	movement	in	need	of	transition	...........................................................................................................	34  Integrated	peaces:	fundamentals	.............................................................................................................	37 2.3.1 International	peace	..................................................................................................................................	42 2.3.1.1 Early	conflict	studies:	symptoms	and	remedies	for	war	between	States ............. 42 2.3.1.2 Challenges	of	international	peace	for	TBCAs .......................................................... 44 2.3.2 Social	peace	.................................................................................................................................................	48 2.3.2.1 Early	peace	studies:	Johan	Galtung	and	conflict	levels .......................................... 48 2.3.2.2 Challenges	of	social	peace	for	TBCAs ....................................................................... 50 2.3.2.3 Improving	social	peace	for	TBCAs ........................................................................... 52 2.3.3 Ecological	peace	........................................................................................................................................	55 2.3.3.1 The	environmental	branch	of	peace,	conflict,	and	security	studies ...................... 55 2.3.3.2 Challenges	of	ecological	peace	for	TBCAs ............................................................... 58  Connecting	peaces	..........................................................................................................................................	61  International	law	and	the	three	categories	of	peace	.......................................................................	65 2.5.1 Just	peace	.....................................................................................................................................................	66 2.5.2 International	law	and	international	peace	....................................................................................	67 2.5.3 International	law	and	social	peace	...................................................................................................	69 2.5.4 International	law	and	ecological	peace	...........................................................................................	71 2.5.5 Regional	laws	and	institutions	............................................................................................................	73  Pushing	the	boundaries	of	peace	in	parks	...........................................................................................	75 3 CHAPTER	3:	A	FRAMEWORK	FOR	MAPPING	SOCIO-LEGAL	LANDSCAPES:	CRITICAL	LEGAL	STUDIES	FOR	PEACE	IN	TBCAs	...................................................................................................	77  Introducing	a	framework	of	analysis	.....................................................................................................	77  Proposing	a	framework	................................................................................................................................	78 3.2.1 Methods	from	political	ecology:	framing	and	situating	a	TBCA	...........................................	81 3.2.2 Conflict	mapping:	Using	the	framework	of	integrated	peaces	..............................................	84  x  3.2.3 Legal	mapping:	lex	scripta,	lex	lata	and	lex	ferenda	...................................................................	88 3.2.3.1 Lex	scripta:	capturing	peace	and	conflict	management	in	written	agreements .. 89 3.2.3.2 Lex	lata:	implementation,	enforcement	and	evolving	practices	of	living	law ...... 91 3.2.3.3 Lex	ferenda:	legal	criticism	for	peace ...................................................................... 94  Case	study:	transforming	conflict	in	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	......................................	96 3.3.1 Collaboration	in	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	.......................................................................	97 3.3.2 Conflict	mapping	in	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	................................................................	98 3.3.3 Legal	mapping	in	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	..................................................................	105 3.3.4 Legal	criticism	in	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	..................................................................	110  Analysis:	guidelines	for	criticism	..........................................................................................................	113 3.4.1 Recommendations	for	criticism	......................................................................................................	114  Conclusion	.......................................................................................................................................................	118 4 CHAPTER	4:		DESIGNING	TBCAS	FOR	PEACE:	A	REVIEW	OF	TRANSBOUNDARY	AGREEMENTS	AND	SURVEY	OF	PRACTITIONERS	............................................................................	121  Introducing	transboundary	legal	agreements	.................................................................................	121 4.1.1 Questions	and	assumptions	..............................................................................................................	122  How	are	TBCAs	transforming	conflicts	and	building	peace	around	the	world?	...............	124 4.2.1 Methodology:	legal	review	of	TBCA	agreements	.....................................................................	126 4.2.2 Methodology:	practitioners’	survey	on	‘TBCAs,	Law	and	Peace’	......................................	129  Findings:	understanding	TBCA	legal	agreements	..........................................................................	135 4.3.1 Locating	peace,	conflict,	and	conflict	resolution	in	transboundary	agreements	.......	138 4.3.1.1 Peace	in	TBCA	agreements ..................................................................................... 139 4.3.1.2 Conflict	in	TBCA	agreements .................................................................................. 139 4.3.1.3 Conflict	resolution	in	TBCA	agreements ............................................................... 141 4.3.1.4 Sub-categories	of	peace,	conflict,	and	conflict	resolution .................................... 143 4.3.1.5 Peace,	conflict,	and	conflict	resolution	by	region ................................................. 145 4.3.2       International	peace,	social	peace,	and	ecological	peace	in	transboundary	agreements	.........................................................................................................................................................................................	148 4.3.2.1 International,	social,	and	ecological	peace	by	region ........................................... 151 4.3.2.2 Peace	and	conflict	by	section	of	TBCA	agreement ................................................ 153 4.3.2.3 Preferencing	approaches	to	international,	social,	and	ecological	peace ............ 154 4.3.3 A	survey	of	TBCA	practitioners	on	TBCAs,	law,	and	peace	..................................................	158  xi  4.3.3.1 TBCA	practitioners	on	bases	of	cooperation ......................................................... 161 4.3.3.2 TBCA	practitioners	on	effectiveness	of	TBCA	agreements .................................. 164 4.3.3.3 TBCA	practitioners	on	peace	and	conflict	resolution ........................................... 169 4.3.3.4 TBCA	practitioners	on	the	TBCA	agreements ....................................................... 174  Analysis	of	TBCA	legal	review	and	survey	........................................................................................	177  Conclusion:	from	limited	beginnings	to	further	peace	research	.............................................	185 5 CHAPTER	5:		NOMOSCAPING	PEACE	IN	TIMES	OF	CONFLICT:	A	CASE	STUDY	OF	THE	GREATER	VIRUNGA	TRANSBOUNDARY	COLLABORATION	(GVTC)	AND	CONFLICT	RESOLUTION	................................................................................................................................................	188 5.1 Introducing	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	....................................................................................	188  Violence	in	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	.....................................................................................	189  Transboundary	conservation	in	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	...........................................	194  Law	and	peace	in	the	Albertine	Rift	.....................................................................................................	196 5.4.1 GVTC	and	international	peace	..........................................................................................................	198 5.4.2 GVTC	and	social	peace	.........................................................................................................................	199 5.4.3 GVTC	and	ecological	peace	................................................................................................................	203  Contemporary	conflict	resolution	in	the	Albertine	Rift	..............................................................	205 5.5.1 Transformative	transboundary	institutions	..............................................................................	205 5.5.2 Transboundary	activities:	engaging	for	peace	..........................................................................	207 5.5.3 Traditional	or	alternative	mechanisms	for	peace	...................................................................	209  Conclusions	.....................................................................................................................................................	211 6 CHAPTER	6:	CONNECTING	TRANSBOUNDARY	LANDSCAPES:	CONSERVATION	AND	PEACE	IN	THE	GVL	AND	KIDEPO	LANDSCAPE	...................................................................................	216 6.1 Introducing	TBCAs	and	violent	conflict	..............................................................................................	216 6.2 TBCAs	and	the	ever-elusive	peace	........................................................................................................	218 6.2.1 Parks	for	Peace	(and	conflict?)	........................................................................................................	219 6.2.2 Stories	of	transboundary	collaboration	in	the	Great	Rift	Valley	.......................................	222 6.2.2.1 Ecological	connectivity ........................................................................................... 223 6.2.2.2 Socio-political	connectivity .................................................................................... 224 6.2.2.3 Notes	on	methodology	for	field	research .............................................................. 226 6.3 The	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	............................................................................................................	228 6.3.1 General	description	of	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	bioregion	...................................	228 6.3.2 Issues	of	peace	and	conflict	in	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	........................................	229  xii  6.3.3 History	of	transboundary	collaboration	in	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	...............	231 6.3.4 How	peace	is	incorporated	in	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	legal	framework	......	233 6.4 Landscapes	for	Peace	with	South	Sudan:	Kidepo	Landscape	...................................................	237 6.4.1 General	description	of	the	Kidepo	Landscape	bioregion	.....................................................	237 6.4.2 Issues	of	conflict	and	peace	in	the	Kidepo	Landscape	...........................................................	240 6.4.3 History	of	transboundary	collaboration	in	the	Kidepo	Landscape	..................................	243 6.4.4 How	peace	is	incorporated	in	the	Kidepo	Landscape	legal	framework	.........................	246 6.5 Designing	transboundary	collaboration	for	conflict-resilience	...............................................	252 6.5.1 Bottom-up	vs.	top-down	approaches	to	TBCA	design	...........................................................	253 6.5.2 Naming	peace	explicitly	......................................................................................................................	257 6.5.3 A	community-based	approach	.........................................................................................................	261 6.6 Conclusion	.......................................................................................................................................................	262 7. CHAPTER	7:	CONCLUSIONS	FOR	AN	EMPIRICAL	EVOLUTION	OF	TBCA	LAW	.................	265 7.1 In	Summary	....................................................................................................................................................	265 7.2 Research	findings	and	contributions	...................................................................................................	268 7.2.1 Research	hypotheses	............................................................................................................................	269 7.2.2 Chapter	findings	.....................................................................................................................................	271 7.2.2.1 Take-aways	from	Chapter	1 ................................................................................... 271 7.2.2.2 Take-aways	from	Chapter	2 ................................................................................... 273 7.2.2.3 Take-aways	from	Chapter	3 ................................................................................... 274 7.2.2.4 Take-aways	from	Chapter	4 ................................................................................... 276 7.2.2.5 Take-aways	from	Chapter	5 ................................................................................... 279 7.2.2.6 Take-aways	from	Chapter	6 ................................................................................... 281 7.2.3 Connecting	conclusions	......................................................................................................................	282 7.3 Specific	recommendations	for	TBCA	legal	design	.........................................................................	287 7.4 Limitations	of	research	and	follow-up	................................................................................................	293 7.5 Signposts	for	future	directions	...............................................................................................................	299 7.5.1 Developing	a	knowledge	platform	for	TBCA	legal	agreements	.........................................	300 7.5.2 Indigenous	and	community-based	TBCAs	..................................................................................	303 7.5.3 Applying	the	framework	to	TBCAs	and	the	Sustainable	Development	Goals	.............	305 BIBLIOGRAPHY	............................................................................................................................................	307 APPENDICES	.................................................................................................................................................	346  xiii  Appendix	I:		List	of	TBCAs	and	last	armed	conflict	.....................................................................................	346 Appendix	II:		Enlarged	maps	from	Table	3-6	Conflict	mapping	in	the	GVL	......................................	352 Map	of	GVL	and	international	conflict	...........................................................................................................	352 Map	of	GVL	and	social	conflict	...........................................................................................................................	353 Map	of	GVL	and	ecological	conflict	..................................................................................................................	354 Appendix	III:		List	of	transboundary	agreements	by	TBCA	and	region	.............................................	355 Appendix	IV:		List	of	TBCAs	identified	by	survey	respondents	.............................................................	364 Appendix	V:		TBCAs	identified	in	2007	Global	List,	legal	review	and	survey	..................................	368 Appendix	VI:		Interview	schedules	.....................................................................................................................	377 Appendix	VII:		Consent	form	for	interviews	..................................................................................................	383 Contact	letter	for	interviews	(English)	..........................................................................................................	383 Consent	form	for	interviews	(English	version)	.........................................................................................	385 Appendix	VIII:	Consent	form	and	legal	survey	on	TBCAs,	law	and	peace	(English	version)	....	389  xiv  List	of	Tables		 Table	1-1:	IUCN	transboundary	conservation	terminology ................................................................ 6 Table	2-1	Conflict	terminology ............................................................................................................. 40 Table	3-1	Questions	in	conflict	mapping ............................................................................................. 85 Table	3-2	Conflict	mapping	in	a	TBCA ................................................................................................. 86 Table	3-3	Mapping	written	law	in	a	TBCA .......................................................................................... 90 Table	3-4	Mapping	living	law	in	a	TBCA .............................................................................................. 93 Table	3-5	Formal	legal	agreements	in	the	GVL ................................................................................... 98 Table	3-6	Conflict	mapping	in	the	GVL ................................................................................................ 99 Table	3-7	Framework	applied	to	the	GVL ......................................................................................... 106 Table	4-1	Number	of	TBCA	agreements	by	region ........................................................................... 128 Table	4-2	Characteristics	of	TBCA	survey	respondents ................................................................... 131 Table	4-3	TBCAs	and	agreements	by	region ..................................................................................... 137 Table	4-4	Term	search	for	peace,	conflict	and	conflict	resolution	(other	terminology) ............... 138 Table	4-5	Peace,	conflict	and	conflict	resolution	in	TBCA	agreements .......................................... 141 Table	4-6	Peace,	Conflict,	and	Conflict	Resolution	by	Region	(#	of	Agreements/%	of	TBCAs) .... 146 Table	4-7	International	peace,	social	peace,	and	ecological	peace	references ............................... 149 Table	4-8	International	peace,	social	peace	and	ecological	peace	in	TBCA	agreements ............... 152 Table	4-9	Peace	and	conflict	mentions	by	section	of	TBCA	agreement .......................................... 153 Table	4-10	International,	social	and	ecological	peace	(#	of	mentions/TBCAs) ............................. 156 Table	4-11	Number	of	TBCAs	identified	in	2007	List,	legal	review,	and	survey ........................... 160 Table	4-12	Do	the	legal	instruments	in	the	TBCA(s)	that	you	were/are	engaged	in	provide… ... 165 Table	4-13	Number	of	TBCA	agreements	that	included	identified	elements	of	success ............... 167 Table	6-1	International,	social	and	ecological	conflicts	in	the	GVL ................................................. 231 Table	6-2	Protected	areas	in	Landscapes	for	Peace ......................................................................... 238 Table	6-3	International,	social	and	ecological	conflicts	in	the	Kidepo	Landscape ......................... 243 Table	6-4	Mapping	law	and	peace	in	the	GVL	and	Kidepo	Valley ................................................... 258 Table	7-1	Peace	indicators	-	existing	or	potential	datasets ............................................................. 302 	 xv  List	of	Figures				Figure	2-1	Overview	of	the	field	of	peace	and	conflict	studies .......................................................... 39 Figure	2-2	Modeling	conflict:	the	“hourglass	model”	and	“cycle	of	conflict” .................................... 40 Figure	3-1	Pillars	of	positive	peace .................................................................................................... 113 Figure	4-1	Map	of	survey	responses	by	country	(in	blue) ............................................................... 132 Figure	4-2	Map	of	TBCAs	around	the	world ...................................................................................... 135 Figure	4-3	Survey	responses	regarding	changes	in	the	basis	of	cooperation	over	time ............... 162 Figure	4-4	Survey	responses	to	statement	on	environmental	peacebuilding ............................... 170 Figure	4-5	Percentage	of	TBCAs	that	experienced	violent	conflict	(survey	responses) ............... 172 Figure	4-6	Nature	of	broader	violent	conflict	experienced	by	TBCAs	(survey	responses) .......... 173 Figure	4-7	Aspects	of	the	legal	instruments	that	are/were	most	effective	in	preventing	or	resolving	conflicts,	and	in	supporting	peace .................................................................. 175 Figure	4-8	Whether	legal	instruments	can	make	a	positive	difference	for	TBCA	peace	efforts ... 177 Figure	5-1	Map	of	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	(GVL) ...................................................................... 191 Figure	5-2		GVTC	governance	structure ............................................................................................ 197 Figure	6-1	Map	of	GVL	and	Landscapes	for	Peace ............................................................................ 219 		 	 xvi  Lists	of	Abbreviations			ACLED	 	 Armed	Conflict	Location	&	Event	Data	Project	ACSR	 	 	 Annual	Conservation	Status	Report	(of	GVTC)	ADF-NALU	 	 Allied	Democratic	Forces	–	National	Army	for	the	Liberation	of	Uganda	ARCOS	 	 Albertine	Rift	Conservation	Society	ASEAN	 	 Association	of	South	East	Asian	Nations	AU	 	 	 African	Union	AWF	 	 	 African	Wildlife	Foundation	CAN	 	 	 Andean	Community	of	Nations	CBD	 	 	 Convention	on	Biological	Diversity	CBO	 	 	 Community-Based	Organizations	CCAD	 	 	 Central	American	Commission	on	Environment	and	Development	CCR	 	 	 Contemporary	Conflict	Resolution	CEO	 	 	 Chief	Executive	Officer	CEPGL		 	 Communauté	Economique	des	Pays	des	Grands	Lacs	CI	 	 	 Conservation	International	CLG	 	 	 Critical	Legal	Geography	CLS	 	 	 Critical	Legal	Studies	CSO	 	 	 Civil	Society	Organization	DFGFI	 	 	 Dian	Fossey	Gorilla	Foundation	International	 xvii  DMZ	 	 	 Demilitarized	Zone	DRC	 	 	 Democratic	Republic	of	the	Congo	EAC	 	 	 East	African	Community	ECCAS		 	 Economic	Community	of	Central	African	States	ECOWAS	 	 Economic	Community	of	West	African	States	EIA	 	 	 Environmental	Impact	Assessment	EJVM	 	 	 Extended	Joint	Verification	Mechanism	(of	ICGLR)	EU	 	 	 European	Union	EUROPARC	 	 Federation	of	Nature	and	National	Parks	of	Europe	FARDC	 	 Forces	Armées	de	la	République	Démocratique	du	Congo	FDLR	 	 	 Forces	Démocratiques	de	Libération	du	Rwanda	FFI	 	 	 Flora	and	Fauna	International	FPIC	 	 	 Free,	Prior	and	Informed	Consent	GEO	 	 	 Global	Environmental	Outlook	GREG	 	 	 Georeferencing	of	Ethnic	Groups	GVL	 	 	 Greater	Virunga	Landscape	GVTC	 	 	 Greater	Virunga	Transboundary	Collaboration	GVTC-ES	 	 Greater	Virunga	Transboundary	Collaboration	–	Executive	Secretariat	ICC	 	 	 International	Criminal	Court	ICCA	 	 	 Indigenous	Peoples	and	Local	Communities	Conserved	Areas	and	Territories	ICCN	 	 	 Institut	Congolais	pour	la	Conservation	de	la	Nature	ICDP	 	 	 Integrated	Conservation	and	Development	Project	 xviii  ICGLR	 	 	 International	Conference	on	the	Great	Lakes	Region	ICJ	 	 	 International	Court	of	Justice	ICRC	 	 	 International	Committee	of	the	Red	Cross	IDP(s)		 	 Internally	Displaced	People	IES	 	 	 Institute	for	Environment	and	Peace	IGAD	 	 	 Intergovernmental	Authority	on	Development	IGCP	 	 	 International	Gorilla	Conservation	Programme	IHL	 	 	 International	Humanitarian	Law	INTERPOL	 	 International	Criminal	Police	Organization	IP	 	 	 Indigenous	People	IPCC	 	 	 Intergovernmental	Panel	on	Climate	Change	ITFC	 	 	 Institute	for	Tropical	Forest	Conservation	IUCN	 	 	 International	Union	for	the	Conservation	of	Nature	KCCA	 	 	 Karenga	Community	Conservation	Area	KWS	 	 	 Kenya	Wildlife	Service	LC	 	 	 Local	Community	LRA	 	 	 Lord’s	Resistance	Army	M23	 	 	 March	23	Movement	(a.k.a	Congolese	Revolutionary	Army)	MEA	 	 	 Multilateral	Environmental	Agreements	MID	 	 	 Militarized	Interstate	Dispute	MGP	 	 	 Mountain	Gorilla	Project	MoA/MoU	 	 Memorandum	of	Agreement/Understanding	 xix  MONUSCO	 	 UN	Organization	Stabilization	Mission	in	the	DRC	(formerly	MONUC)		NCIP	 	 	 Northern	Corridor	Integration	Projects	NGO	 	 	 Non-Governmental	Organization	NICHE		 	 Netherlands	Initiative	for	Capacity	Development	in	Higher	Education	NP	 	 	 National	Park	NRM	 	 	 National	Resistance	Movement	(of	Uganda)	OAS	 	 	 Organization	of	American	States	ODECA	 	 Organization	of	Central	American	States	ORTPN	 	 Office	Rwandais	de	Tourisme	et	des	Parcs	Nationaux	OSAN	 	 	 Union	of	South	American	Nations	PA	 	 	 Protected	Area	PAA	 	 	 Protected	Area	Authority	PBDI	 	 	 Peace	and	Biodiversity	Initiative	PLC	 	 	 Parti	de	Libération	Congolais	PPF	 	 	 Peace	Parks	Foundation	PRIO	 	 	 Peace	Research	Institute	Oslo	RDB	 	 	 Rwanda	Development	Board	RDF	 	 	 Rwandan	Defence	Forces	RTC	 	 	 Regional	Technical	Committee	(of	GVTC)	SADC	 	 	 Southern	African	Development	Community	SDG	 	 	 Sustainable	Development	Goal	SICAP	 	 	 Central	American	System	of	Protected	Areas	 xx  SNS	 	 	 Sacred	Natural	Site	SPLA	 	 	 Sudan	People’s	Liberation	Army	SSC	 	 	 Species	Survival	Commission	(of	IUCN)	TBC	SG	 	 Transboundary	Conservation	Specialist	Group	(of	IUCN	WCPA)	TBCA	 	 	 Transboundary	Conservation	Area	TBCL/S	 	 Transboundary	Conservation	Landscape	and/or	Seascape	TBICCA	 	Transboundary	Areas	and	Territories	Conserved	by	Indigenous	Peoples	and	Local	Communities	TBMCA	 	 Transboundary	Migration	Conservation	Area	TBPA	 	 	 Transboundary	Protected	Area	TFCA	 	 	 Transfrontier	Conservation	Area	TSP	 	 	 Transboundary	Strategic	Plan	(of	GVL)	UCDP-GED	 	 Uppsala	Conflict	Data	Program	–	Georeferenced	Event	Dataset	UN	 	 	 United	Nations	UNCED	 	 United	Nations	Conference	on	Environment	and	Development	UNDP	 	 	 United	Nations	Development	Programme	UNECE	 	 United	Nations	Economic	Commission	for	Europe	UNEP	 	 	 United	Nations	Environment	Programme	(now	UN	Environment)	UNEP-WCMC	 	 UNEP	–	World	Conservation	Monitoring	Centre	UNESCO	 	 United	Nations	Educational,	Scientific,	and	Cultural	Organization	UNGA	 	 	 United	Nations	General	Assembly	UNHCHR	 	 United	Nations	High	Commission	on	Human	Rights	 xxi  UNHRC	 	 United	Nations	Human	Rights	Council	UNODC	 	 United	Nations	Office	of	Drugs	and	Crime	UR	 	 	 University	of	Rwanda	US	CIA		 	 United	States	Central	Intelligence	Agency	USAID		 	 United	States	Agency	for	International	Development	UPDF	 	 	 Uganda	People’s	Defence	Force	URA	 	 	 Uganda	Revenue	Authority	UWA	 	 	 Uganda	Wildlife	Authority	WCC	 	 	 World	Conservation	Congress	WCPA	 	 	 World	Commission	on	Protected	Areas	(of	IUCN)	WCS	 	 	 Wildlife	Conservation	Society	WDPA		 	 World	Database	of	Protected	Areas	WHS	 	 	 World	Heritage	Site	WWF	 	 	 World	Wildlife	Fund			 	 xxii  Acknowledgements			First	 and	 foremost,	 I	 give	 thanks	 to	my	 ancestors	 for	 their	 inspiration,	wisdom,	 guidance	 and	sustenance	throughout	the	production	of	this	dissertation.			I	would	like	to	appreciate	especially	my	 parents,	 Shen	Nien-Tsu	 and	Hsiao	 Ching	 Chih,	 for	 their	 support,	 financially	 and	 in	morale,	shelter	and	good	food,	particularly	towards	the	latter	period	of	reclusive	writing.					I	 express	 my	 humblest	 gratitude	 to	 my	 committee	 members,	 Philippe	 Le	 Billon,	 Benjamin	Richardson	and	Terre	Satterfield.		I	have	appreciated	their	feedback,	unique	perspectives,	and	the	way	they	have	always	given	me	freedom	to	pursue	my	extracurricular	endeavors.		I	would	also	like	to	mention	Natasha	Affolder	for	her	grace	and	guidance	in	the	first	year,	and	Nick	Robinson	for	his	long-standing	and	patient	mentorship	–	it	is	an	honor	to	be	one	of	his	many	admiring	students.		This	PhD	could	not	have	been	undertaken	without	the	financial	support	of	UBC	through	a	Four	Year	 Fellowship,	 Law	 Graduate	 Fellowship,	 James	 Robert	 Thompson	 Fellowship,	 Ibn	 Battuta	Award	for	Field	Research,	Go	Global	Self-Directed	Research	Grant	and	the	IRES	Writing	Grant.			Most	of	all,	my	 field	 research	 in	East	Africa	could	not	have	been	possible	without	an	extensive	network	 of	 allies	 and	 environmental	 protectors	 to	 whom	 I	 apologize	 for	 not	 all	 naming	 here	individually.		I	must	give	my	gratitude	to	Emmanuel	Kasimbazi	–	the	Kasimbazis	are	my	home	away	from	home.		I	give	my	appreciation	to	UWA,	RDB,	KWS	and	ICCN	for	facilitating	my	field	research,	 xxiii  not	 only	 through	 research	 permits,	 but	 in	 providing	 countless	 hours	 of	 interviews,	 occasional	accommodations,	transport,	food,	advice,	translation,	and	long-time	friendships	throughout	these	beloved	landscapes.		I	am	similarly	indebted	to	colleagues	from	the	IUCN,	GVTC,	IGCP,	ITFC,	WCS,	UR,	Gorilla	Doctors,	ARCOS,	DFGFI,	UPDF,	FARDC,	RDF,	URA	and	numerous	village	leaders	for	the	knowledge	and	time	they	shared.		Many	thanks	to	friends	who	welcomed	me	in	their	homes	as	I	bounced	 from	 one	 research	 site	 to	 another,	 or	 hotels	 and	 campgrounds	 that	 became	 frequent	residences	–	Rosanne	Cicanes,	Charles	Karangwa,	Christina	Ellis,	Jordi	and	Evelien	Van	Oort,	Red	Rocks	Campground	and	Albertine	Tourist	Resort.		Andrew	Reid	and	Eliode	Yalire,	for	your	patient	dedication	to	transcription	and	all	other	miracles,	I	bow	to	you.		Lutale	Obeid,	webale	nyo	for	my	car	and	Lydia	Nandudu,	for	taking	care	of	it	all	these	months	I’ve	been	away,	not	to	mention	the	generous	‘student	rates’	I	was	getting	at	Nkuringo	Bwindi	Gorilla	Lodge	and	Papyrus	Guest	House.			Tlazokamati	to	my	sisters,	wombyn,	lobas	de	la	luna,	and	all	of	my	dear	ones	who	have	loved	me	and	encouraged	me,	inspired	me	or	challenged	me	throughout	this	journey.		For	everyone	whose	names	are	not	written	here,	they	are	written	in	my	heart.		Inlakesh.		 	 xxiv  Dedication			To	my	grandmothers,	who	passed	before	I	could	complete	this	PhD,	and	for	all	who	stand	on	the	thin	green	line	in	honor	of	all	Grandmothers	and	our	Mother,	this	Earth	–	may	they	guide	us	always	as	we	return	to	peace,	love	and	beauty.					 1  1 CHAPTER	1:	INTRODUCTION				 Introducing	Parks	for	Peace				In	 2001,	 upon	 the	 release	 of	 elephants	 from	 South	 Africa	 into	 Mozambique	 to	 celebrate	 the	establishment	of	the	Greater	Limpopo	Transfrontier	Park,	President	Nelson	Mandela	boldly	stated:		 ‘I	know	of	no	political	movement,	no	philosophy,	no	 ideology,	which	does	not	agree	with	the	peace	parks	concept	as	we	see	it	going	into	fruition	today.		It	is	a	concept	that	can	be	embraced	by	all.		In	a	world	beset	by	conflicts	and	division,	peace	is	one	of	the	cornerstones	of	the	future.		Peace	parks	are	a	building	block	in	this	process,	not	only	in	our	region,	but	potentially	in	the	entire	world’	(Ramutsindela,	2007,	p.	6).			In	 concept,	 Parks	 for	 Peace,	 which	 have	 been	 defined	 by	 the	 International	 Union	 for	 the	Conservation	of	Nature	(IUCN)	as	 transboundary	conservation	areas	(TBCAs)	dedicated	“to	 the	promotion,	celebration	and/or	commemoration	of	peace	and	cooperation,”	are	as	embraceable	as	President	Mandela	declared,	but	in	practice,	they	have	been	sources	of	tension	and	sites	of	conflict	(Neumann,	2004;	Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	p.	xi;	2003,	p.	5).		This	contradiction	invites	one	to	query	whether	TBCAs	are	actually	working	for	peace	and	if	not,	why?				 2   The	challenge	of	integrating	peace			1.2.1 Peace	in	a	world	of	conflicts			The	2017	Global	Peace	 Index	 indicates	 that	 the	world	 is	 less	peaceful	 than	 it	was	10	years	ago	(Institute	for	Economics	and	Peace,	2017,	p.	30).		At	least	in	the	short	term,	no	positive	change	is	predicted	 (Dupuy	 et	 al.,	 2017,	 p.	 4).	 	Of	 146	major	 armed	 conflicts	 (>1,000	 casualties	 in	 total)	between	 1950-2000	 assessed	 by	 Hanson	 et	 al.,	 81%	 took	 place	 entirely	 or	 partly	 within	 a	biodiversity	hotspot	(Hanson	et	al.,	2009,	pp.	1–3).		While	armed	conflicts	are	largely	intra-state	conflicts,	they	are	increasingly	internationalized	(involving	external	actors)	and	the	presence	of	porous	borders	and	relations	with	neighboring	countries	can	affect	the	complexity	and	longevity	of	 violence	 (Dupuy	 et	 al.,	 2017;	 Institute	 for	Economics	 and	Peace,	 2017,	 pp.	 4,	 35–36,	 39,	 81;	Stockholm	 International	 Peace	 Research	 Institute,	 2016,	 p.	 5).	 	 Clearly,	 in	 many	 places	 the	boundaries	of	protected	areas	(PAs)	drawn	to	keep	negative	human	activities	out	of	wildlife	habitat	are	 not	 able	 to	 fend	 off	 the	 violences	 of	 armed	 conflict,	 let	 alone	 the	 less	 visible	 cultural	 and	structural	violences	related	to	separation	or	exploitation		(E.g.,	Fimbel	&	Fimbel,	1997).				In	this	context,	transboundary	conservation	areas	(TBCAs),	especially	‘Parks	for	Peace,’	have	been	promoted	for	their	peacebuilding	potential	in	addition	to	commonly	claimed	benefits	of	PAs,	such	 3  as	protection	of	endangered	species	and	ecosystem	services,	health	and	well-being,	or	economic	development	 through	 ecotourism	 (S.	 Ali,	 2007;	 Sandwith,	 Shine,	 Hamilton,	 &	 Sheppard,	 2001;	Westing,	1993).		If	cross-border	cooperation	through	TBCAs	can	indeed	ameliorate	the	negative	impacts	 of	 violence	 and	 augment	 positive	 dividends	 towards	 peace,	 then	 TBCAs	 have	 great	relevance	in	efforts	towards	a	more	peaceful	world.		Riding	on	the	expected/presumed	benefits	of	TBCAs,	the	way	forward	for	organizations	like	the	IUCN,	Conservation	International	(CI),	and	the	Peace	Parks	Foundation	(PPF)	was	obvious	–	TBCAs	could	bring	States	and	their	people	together	to	conserve	nature	and	peace	and	as	the	world’s	environmental	leaders,	they	would	lead	the	charge	in	 establishing	TBCAs	 all	 around	 the	world.	 	 According	 to	 the	 IUCN,	 Transboundary	 Protected	Areas	(TBPAs),	a	subset	of	TBCAs,	grew	from	70	border	parks	in	1988	to	227	in	2007	(Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	p.	5).				New	 TBCAs	 continue	 to	 be	 created	 despite	 countervailing	 voices	 of	 criticism	 for	 the	 social	injustices	 triggered	or	 aggravated	by	 their	 establishment,	 and	meager	 evidence	 that	 they	have	contributed	minimally	to	peace	and	conflict	resolution	(Barquet,	Lujala,	&	Rød,	2014;	Ide,	2018;	Waisová,	2015;	Büscher,	2013;	See	e.g.,	Darnell,	2008;	Massé	&	Lunstrum,	2015;	Duffy,	2001,	2005).		Hence,	the	question	is	increasingly	being	asked	as	to	whether	or	not	transboundary	conservation	can	contribute	to	peace	through	cross-border	PA	management	and	the	answer	remains	ambiguous.		Ali	notes	that	“the	power	of	such	efforts	in	transforming	the	debate	on	environmental	conservation	to	larger	political	reconciliation	has	eluded	scholars	despite	a	few	examples	of	the	direct	use	of	environmental	 conservation	 in	 resolving	 regional	 disputes	 such	 as	 the	 Cordillera	 del	 Condor	border	dispute	between	Ecuador	and	Peru”	(S.	H.	Ali,	2011,	p.	32).			 4  1.2.2 Designing	TBCAs	for	peace			Furthermore,	 the	 question	 of	whether	TBCAs	have	 been	 appropriately	 designed	 for	 peace	 and	conflict	 resolution	 is	 even	 less	 queried.	 	 In	 this	 dissertation,	 design	 refers	 to	 the	 legal	 and	governance	framework	which	stipulates	why	a	TBCA	is	being	created,	how	it	shall	be	constituted	and	governed,	as	well	as	who	is	responsible	for	what	activities	within	the	territory	in	order	to	achieve	its	goals	or	principles,	and	any	other	aspect	of	its	constitution.		A	TBCA’s	design	can	be	formalized	in	transboundary	 legal	 agreements,	 setting	 up	 multilateral	 institutional	 structures,	 providing	mandates	 and	 clarity	 around	 a	 TBCAs	 objectives	 and	mechanisms	 of	 implementation.	 	 It	 also	contemplates	the	level	or	scale	of	cooperation	(e.g.,	 local-level	vs.	high-level),	which	determines	who	 is	 collaborating	 (i.e.,	 local-level	 cooperation	 may	 be	 between	 rangers,	 while	 high-level	cooperation	may	be	between	ministries).		There	has	not	been	any	research	on	the	legal	design	of	TBCAs	 and	 how	 they	 address	 peace	 and	 conflict	 resolution,	 though	 Schoon	 and	Waisova	 have	looked	at	resilience	in	terms	of	enduring	cooperation.		Schoon	argues	that	bottom-up	vs.	top-down	institutions	create	path	dependencies	that	can	affect	the	robustness	and	effectiveness	of	transboundary	collaboration	(Schoon,	2013).		Case	studies	of	the	Kgalagadi	Transfrontier	Park	and	Great	Limpopo	Transfrontier	Park	 illustrate	 that	 the	 top-down	institutional	design	of	the	Great	Limpopo	resulted	in	more	effective	high-level	or	political	collaboration,	 while	 the	 bottom-up	 approach	 in	 the	 Kgalagadi	 supported	 more	 effective	operational	 collaboration,	 which	 ultimately	 contributed	 to	 greater	 institutional	 robustness	 or	 5  longer-lasting/resilient	transboundary	conservation	(Schoon,	2013,	p.	426).		Waisova’s	research	offers	a	few	case-based	insights	into	institutional	design	in	relation	to	conflict	(i.e.,	during	conflict,	post-conflict).	 	 Importantly,	 she	notes	 that	 transboundary	collaboration	can	be	 initiated	during	conflict	 if	 the	 conflict	 is	non-violent,	 but	 it	 is	 susceptible	 to	 collapse	 if	 conflict	 intensifies	or	 to	remain	 weak	 if	 the	 conflicts	 are	 political	 (Waisová,	 2015).	 	 Where	 collaboration	 is	 weak	 or	hindered	by	on-going	conflict,	the	presence	of	non-political	actors	may	be	less	sensitive	to	conflict	intensity	and	can	help	to	sustain	transboundary	communications	and	meetings	(Waisová,	2015,	p.	118).		These	two	studies	imply	that	a	more	bottom-up	operational	and	non-political	approach	to	TBCA	design	may	be	more	appropriate	in	terms	of	peace	and	conflict	resilience.		Needless	to	say,	much	more	could	be	understood	about	TBCAs	and	how	they	can	serve	the	pursuit	of	peace.			 Understanding	Transboundary	Conservation	Areas	(TBCAs):	what	little	we	know				1.3.1 Defining	TBCAs			It	 should	 be	 noted	 that	 there	 is	 no	 commonly	 agreed	 definition	 for	 TBCAs	 and	 in	 practice,	proponents	 of	 transboundary	 conservation	 have	 used	 their	 own	 definitions.	 	 The	 IUCN	World	Commission	on	Protected	Areas	Transboundary	Specialist	Group	(WCPA	TBC	SG)	has	championed	“TBPAs	for	Peace	and	Cooperation”	or	“Parks	for	Peace”	since	the	late	1980s,	facilitating	a	series	 6  of	international	meetings	on	the	concept,	ultimately	producing	a	set	of	Best	Practice	Guidelines	on	‘Transboundary	Protected	Areas	for	Peace	and	Co-Operation’	in	2001	(Sandwith	et	al.,	2001,	pp.	1–4).	 	The	2001	Guidelines	attempted	to	provide	a	clear	definition	of	both	TBPAs	and	Parks	for	Peace.	 These	definitions	were	 revised	 in	 the	2015	Best	Practice	Guidelines	 on	 ‘Transboundary	Conservation:	A	Systematic	and	Integrated	Approach’	(Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	pp.	6–14).		The	2015	Guidelines	were	updated	to	align	with	a	new	2008	definition	of	PA	and	a	broader	understanding	of	 TBCAs	 through	 three	 typologies:	 TBPAs,	 Transboundary	 Conservation	 Landscape	 and/or	Seascape	(TBCL/S),	and	Transboundary	Migration	Conservation	Areas	(TBMCA).		Any	one	of	these	TBCAs	can	be	designated	as	a	Park	for	Peace.	 Table	1-1:	IUCN	transboundary	conservation	terminology	Protected	Area	(PA)	 A	clearly	defined	geographical	space,	recognized,	dedicated	and	managed,	through	legal	or	other	effective	means,	to	achieve	the	long-term	 conservation	 of	 nature	 with	 associated	 ecosystem	services	and	cultural	values.	Transboundary	 Protected	Area	(TBPA)	 A	 clearly	 defined	 geographical	 space	 that	 includes	 protected	areas	 that	 are	 ecologically	 connected	 across	 one	 or	 more	international	boundaries	and	involves	some	form	of	cooperation.	Transboundary	Conservation	 Landscape	and/or	Seascape	(TBCL/S)	 An	 ecologically	 connected	 area	 that	 includes	 both	 protected	areas	 and	 multiple	 resource	 use	 areas	 across	 one	 or	 more	international	boundaries	and	involves	some	form	of	cooperation.	Transboundary	 Migration	Conservation	 Areas	(TBMCA)	 Wildlife	habitats	in	two	or	more	countries	that	are	necessary	to	sustain	populations	of	migratory	species	and	involve	some	form	of	cooperation.	Park	for	Peace	 Special	designation	that	may	be	applied	to	any	of	the	three	types	of	 Transboundary	 Conservation	Areas,	 and	 is	 dedicated	 to	 the	promotion,	 celebration	 and/or	 commemoration	 of	 peace	 and	cooperation.	Other	Related	Terminology	 Transfrontier	Conservation	Area	(TFCA),	Transboundary	Parks,	Transfrontier	 Parks,	 Cross-Border	 Parks,	 Transfrontier	Conservation	and	Development	Area	(TFCDA),	Peace	Parks	Source:		(Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	pp.	6–14)	 7  	True	to	the	title	of	the	2015	Guidelines	(Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015),	these	definitions	and	typologies	in	Table	1-1	provide	 a	more	 systematic	 approach	 to	understanding	TBCAs.	 	However,	 alternative	definitions	and	conceptualizations	continue	to	exist.			Early	on,	Gerardo	Budowski	defined	Peace	Parks	as	“protected	areas	where	there	is	a	significant	conflictive	past”	(Sandwith	&	Besançon,	2010,	p.	3),	without	requiring	them	to	be	transboundary	as	that	would	limit	the	possibilities	of	their	application	(e.g.,	islands	or	places	of	historical	conflict	not	adjacent	to	borders)	(Budowski,	2004,	p.	30).		The	Convention	on	Biological	Diversity	(CBD)	Peace	 and	 Biodiversity	 Initiative	 (PBDI)	 refers	 to	 Peace	 Parks	 as	 “areas	 where	 the	 agreed	management	objectives	explicitly	recognize	both	a	protected	area	and	a	no	conflict	zone”	(CBD	Secretariat,	nd,	p.	2).		These	areas	are	to	be	identified	and	established	by	“cooperating	jurisdictions,”	which	does	not	necessitate	inter-State	partnership.				Transfrontier	conservation	areas	(TFCAs)	promoted	or	established	by	the	PPF	in	Southern	Africa,	however,	 follow	 a	 definition	 enshrined	 in	 the	 South	 African	 Development	 Community	 (SADC)	Protocol	on	Wildlife	Conservation	and	Law	Enforcement:	“the	area	or	the	component	of	a	 large	ecological	region	that	straddles	the	boundaries	of	 two	or	more	countries,	encompassing	one	or	more	protected	areas,	as	well	as	multiple	resource	use	areas”	(SADC,	1999,	p.	3	(Art.	1)).		The	value	of	adopting	a	transboundary	definition	of	Parks	for	Peace	in	this	dissertation	is	that	it	facilitates	a	focus	on	cross-border	agreements	between	States	and	incorporates	international	peace.			 8  1.3.2 Quantifying	TBCAs			There	is	no	definitive	count	of	how	many	Parks	for	Peace	or	even	TBCAs	there	are	in	the	world	–	Gerardo	Budowski	had	 commented	 in	2003	 that	 there	were	169	peace	parks	 in	113	 countries	(Budowski,	2004,	p.	30).		This	is	partly	due	to	divergent	definitions	of	Parks	for	Peace	and	partly	due	to	a	failure	to	invest	time	and	resources	into	compiling	an	authoritative	count.		The	IUCN	has	never	published	a	tally	of	territories	it	defines	as	Parks	for	Peace.		In	2007,	they	collaborated	with	the	United	Nations	Environment	Program	World	Conservation	Monitoring	Centre	(UNEP-WCMC)	to	 provide	 a	 list	 of	 227	 TBPAs,	 just	 one	 sub-type	 of	 all	 TBCAs.	 	 The	 2007	 Global	 List	 of	Transboundary	 Protected	 Areas	 (hereinafter	 2007	 Global	 List)	 is	 unfortunately,	 wrought	with	errors	and	could	not	be	considered	a	definitive	count	of	TBPAs	or	in	that	regard,	an	authority	on	how	many	TBCAs	there	are.				The	2007	Global	List	is	problematic	for	a	number	of	reasons.		First	of	all,	the	definitions	of	TBCAs	and	TBPAs	have	changed	since	then	(Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	pp.	3,	6,	8–14).		The	2007	Global	List	seems	to	equate	the	two,	 lumping	many	TBCL/TBCSs,	as	well	as	TBMCAs	(e.g.,	Greater	Virunga	Landscape,	a	TBCL)	under	the	banner	of	TBPA.		A	closer	look	into	many	of	the	listed	TBPAs	reveals	that	a	number	of	PAs	listed	as	part	of	the	TBPA	no	longer	exist	in	the	World	Database	on	Protected	Areas	 (WDPA)	 and	 are	 not	 in	 fact	 recognized	 as	 part	 of	 the	 cross-border	 collaboration	 (e.g.,	Flathead	Valley	is	not	a	part	of	Waterton-Glacier	International	Peace	Park	although	it	directly	abuts	the	TBCA	and	is	listed	in	the	2007	Global	List	as	one	of	the	PAs	included).		In	some	cases,	contacting	 9  PA	 authorities	 (PAAs)	 in	 the	 TBPA	 confirmed	 that	 they	 were	 not	 aware	 of	 such	 a	 TBPA	 or	cooperation	between	respective	PAAs.		This	essentially	means	that:	(1)	there	is	no	effective	or	even	intended	transboundary	cooperation,	(2)	the	TBPA	is	not	a	known	entity,	and/or	(3)	the	PAs	are	merely	 adjacent	 or	 near	 each	 other	 and	 an	 international	 border	 (e.g.,	 Ellesmere/Greenland	Transboundary	Complex).		It	also	explains	why	there	is	an	overestimated	3,043	PAs	forming	only	227	 TBPAs	 according	 to	 the	 2007	 Global	 List	 –	 an	 average	 of	 13.4	 PAs	 per	 TBCA	 (Lysenko,	Besançon,	&	Savy,	2007).		There	are	also	a	number	of	known	TBCAs	missing	from	the	2007	Global	List	 (e.g.,	 Kibira-Nyungwe,	 Binational	 Lac	 Télé-Lac	 Tumba,	 |Ai-|Ais/Richtersveld	 Transfrontier	Park,	Dinaric	Arc,	etc.),	despite	having	transboundary	agreements	that	pre-date	2007.				Updating	the	2007	Global	List	is	not	a	simple	task.		It	would	involve	using	the	WDPA	to	identify	all	of	 the	 transboundary	PA	dyads	 as	Barquet	 et	 al.	 did	 in	 their	 research	 and	 then	narrowing	 the	11,000+	dyads	down	to	include	only	the	areas	that	constitute	part	of	a	transboundary	cooperative	framework	(See	Barquet	et	al.,	2014).		This	necessitates	an	assessment	of	levels	of	cooperation	as	Dbicz	presumably	did	in	2003	and	a	confirmation	of	actual	territorial	boundaries	for	each	TBCA	(Lysenko	et	al.,	2007;	Zbicz,	2003).		Such	a	study	falls	outside	of	the	ambit	of	this	dissertation	but	continues	 to	 be	 a	 much-needed	 contribution	 to	 TBCA	 research,	 especially	 towards	 improving	systematic	evaluations	of	TBCAs	in	practice.		The	lack	of	uniformity	in	defining	and	conceptualizing	TBCAs	is	also	paralleled	in	the	seemingly	ad-hoc	practice	in	establishing	and	implementing	them	around	the	world.		The	inability	to	quantify	TBCAs	 and	 Parks	 for	 Peace	 reflects	 a	 general	 trend	 in	 the	 absence	 of	more	 quantitative	 TBCA	 10  research	or	studies	that	demonstrate	patterns	in	TBCA	practice.		This	dissertation	fills	a	small	gap	in	TBCA	and	Parks	for	Peace	research	by	providing	a	socio-legal	review	of	TBCAs	and	survey	of	TBCA	practitioners	 that	helps	 to	 identify	 a	number	of	 known	TBCAs	and	emergent	patterns	of	practice.					 The	development	of	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace			1.4.1 The	IUCN	story	of	TBCAs			Generally,	the	story	of	PAs	traces	to	early	Renaissance	European	hunting	grounds	(Eagles,	McCool,	Haynes,	 &	 Phillips,	 2002,	 p.	 5).	 	 It	 recognizes	 Yellowstone	 as	 the	 first	 National	 Park	 (NP),	established	by	the	United	States	in	1872	(Eagles	et	al.,	2002,	p.	5;	Lockwood,	Worboys,	&	Kothari,	2006,	p.	46;	Yui,	2014,	p.	2).	 	The	WCPA	also	 traces	 the	history	of	TBCAs	 to	Europe	and	North	America	 (Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	p.	xi).	 	An	18th	 century	Treaty	of	Alliance	between	 the	King	of	France	and	Prince-Bishop	of	Basel	considered	management	of	environmental	crimes	important	for	good	relations	and	peace	between	the	two	bordering	States	and	proposed	legal	harmonization	of	forest,	hunting	and	fishing	offenses	(Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	p.	4).		The	1925	Annex	to	the	Krakow	Protocol	 signed	 by	 the	 governments	 of	 Poland	 and	 the	 former	 Czechoslovakia,	 included	designation	 of	 a	 bilateral	 nature	 park	 in	 the	 Pieniny	 Mountains	 as	 part	 of	 a	 border	 dispute	 11  resolution	(Mittermeier	et	al.,	2005,	p.	28;	Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	p.	4).		In	1932,	Canada	and	the	United	States	inaugurated	their	own	TBCA,	Waterton-Glacier	International	Peace	Park,	allegedly	the	 world’s	 first	 Park	 for	 Peace	 (Sandwith	 et	 al.,	 2001,	 p.	 1).	 	 This	 designation	 focused	 on	celebrating	existing	peace	and	did	not	purport	to	pursue	conflict	resolution	and	peacebuilding.				The	development	of	PAs,	TBCAs,	and	Parks	for	Peace	is	globally	promoted	by	WCPA	members	and	those	who	support	the	IUCN	as	an	authority	in	conservation	knowledge	(Brockington,	Duffy,	&	Igoe,	2008,	 pp.	 19–24;	Mittermeier	 et	 al.,	 2005,	 p.	 28).	 	 They	 have	 been	 active	 in	 exporting	 NPs	 or	“America’s	Best	Idea”	and	other	PAs,	including	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace,	all	around	the	world	(Brockington	et	al.,	2008;	Duncan,	2009;	Murphy,	2017,	p.	68;	Sandwith	et	al.,	2001,	p.	1;	Yui,	2014).		In	 fact,	when	South	Africa	emerged	 from	a	 long	period	of	violence,	apartheid,	and	war	with	 its	neighbors,	it	set	on	its	agenda	peace	and	conservation	through	TFCAs.		This	narrative	of	PAs,	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace	is	exciting,	admirable	and	full	of	benefits	for	places,	peoples	and	peace,	but	PAs,	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace	have	more	than	one	interpretation	and	an	omission	of	these	critical	narratives	would	preference	 the	problematic	 “fortress	conservation”	PA/TBCA	over	alternative	approaches.				The	history	of	the	Greater	Virunga	Landscape	(GVL)	is	one	example	of	how	a	TBCA’s	story	can	be	told	in	different	lights.		In	the	IUCN	2015	Best	Practice	Guidelines	on	transboundary	conservation,	the	1925	designation	of	Albert	NP	to	protect	mountain	gorillas	in	Ruanda-Urundi	and	the	Congo	is	noted	as	an	aside	and	not	as	the	world’s	first	TBCA	(Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	p.	4).		This	African	PA	may	not	have	qualified	as	the	first	official	TBCA	because	its	creation	is	credited	to	the	territory’s	 12  single	 colonial	 occupier	 (the	Belgian),	 dismissing	 the	 presence	 of	 diverse	 kingdoms	 and	 tribes	within	the	colonial	PA.		Only	later	on	as	a	collaboration	between	nation-states	did	it	become	a	well-recognized	TBCA.		While	its	on-going	progress	as	a	political	and	inter-institutional	collaboration	is	admirable,	it	has	yet	to	dismantle	the	fortress.		Many	of	the	GVL’s	current-day	conflicts	trace	back	to	historical	injustices,	including	the	common	repertoire	of	disenfranchisement,	criminalization,	and	 fences	 that	 constitute	 the	 model	 of	 “fortress	 conservation”	 further	 entrenched	 by	 its	independent	post-colonial	governments	(Kule	Bitswande,	2017;	Zephyrin,	2001,	p.	51).		It	is	this	other	perspective	on	PAs	and	TBCAs	that	challenges	aspirations	for	peace.			1.4.2 Beyond	colonial	TBCAs			Non-North	Atlantic	(Europe	and	North	America)	PAs	predate	those	highlighted	by	the	IUCN	by	at	least	2,000	years.	 	As	 far	back	as	 the	4th	and	3rd	century	BC,	elephants	were	protected	 in	 India	(although	domesticated)	and	in	3rd	century	BC	China,	imperial	hunting	reserves	were	created	in	mountain	areas	(Xu	&	Melick,	2007,	p.	319).		Babylon,	Assyria	and	Persia	also	established	hunting	reserves	(Brockington	et	al.,	2008,	p.	20).		Numerous	indigenous	or	traditional	societies	have	been	designating	 natural	 areas	 (Indigenous	 Peoples	 and	 Local	 Communities	 Conserved	 Areas	 and	Territories	or	ICCAs)	to	protect	hydrological	resources,	sacred	sites,	and	ceremonial	grounds,	and	regulating	the	use	of	wildlife	in	order	to	sustain	natural	resources	for	food,	material,	ceremony,	or	medicine	(Borrini-Feyerabend	et	al.,	2012;	Brockington	et	al.,	2008,	p.	20).		It	is	unknown	how	long	 13  these	 unwritten	 practices	 have	 been	 around.	 	 Some	 informal	 PAs	 have	 become	 part	 of	 State-designated	PAs	or	are	recognized	as	an	alternative	to	State-legislated	and	State-run	PAs	in	an	effort	to	broaden	PA	 coverage	 to	 reach	 conservation	 targets	 (e.g.,	 Convention	on	Biological	Diversity	Aichi	Target	11	 stating	 that	by	2020,	 at	 least	17%	of	 terrestrial	 and	 inland	water,	 and	10%	of	coastal	and	marine	areas,	should	be	conserved	through	PA	systems)	(CBD	Secretariat,	2012;	Jonas,	Barbuto,	Jonas,	&	Kothari,	2014;	Muhumuza,	2012).			It	 could	be	 that	 the	 first	unofficial	TBCAs	were	created	once	 international	borders	began	 to	be	drawn,	 splitting	 ICCAs	 into	 neighboring	 States	 (e.g.,	 Rwenzori	 Mountains	 of	 the	 Democratic	Republic	of	the	Congo	–	DRC	and	Uganda).		Traditional	societies	or	tribes	may	have	had	agreements	about	 the	 territories	 they	 inhabited.	 	 In	East	Africa,	 there	was	a	practice	witnessed	by	colonial	missionaries	during	the	peace	settlement	of	the	Uguha	wars	in	the	late	18th	and	early	19th	centuries.		The	long	warring	parties	“threw	down	their	spears,	took	up	their	hoes	to	mark	out	boundaries	&	came	to	terms	of	peace”	(Reid,	2007,	p.	181).	 	Boundary	making	signified	mutual	recognition	of	territorial	sovereignty	and	was	integral	to	conflict	resolution;	the	hoes	symbolized	the	cultivation	of	peace	around	the	newly	set	borders.		These	may	not	have	been	formal	TBCAs,	but	they	provide	an	example	of	traditional	cultures	creating	transboundary	zones	of	peace.	 	Sacred	Natural	Sites	may	have	been	the	world’s	first	Parks	for	Peace;	again,	dating	back	to	a	time	unknown.		For	example,	in	the	Karamoja	region	where	the	Kidepo	Valley	case	study	is	located,	sacred	groves	are	recognized	by	 different	 tribes	 as	 sanctuaries	 from	 violence	 where	 weapons	 have	 to	 be	 left	 behind	 (or	destroyed	in	ceremony)	and	peace	agreements	with	enemies	are	respected	(Anonymous,	2017k).				 14  The	 story	 of	 PAs,	 TBCAs	 and	 Parks	 for	 Peace	 becomes	 much	 longer	 and	 more	 diverse	 when	considering	cases	that	do	not	at	 first	glance	fit	 the	IUCN	definitions	or	are	not	known	by	North	Atlantic	societies	and	were	not	established	by	comparable	protocol.		Tracing	an	inclusive	history	of	 the	 development	 of	 PAs,	 TBCAs	 or	 Parks	 for	 Peace	 would	 likely	 involve	 a	 transboundary	collaborative	effort	of	unprecedented	scale,	reaching	millennia	back	in	time,	but	it	could	provide	a	repository	 of	 long-existing	 alternative	 approaches	 to	 the	 violences	 of	 fortress	 model	 TBCAs.		Unfortunately,	 such	 a	 history	 has	 never	 been	 collected	 or	 documented.	 	 Therefore,	 the	 TBCAs	identified	 in	 this	 study	 and	 virtually	 all	 TBCA	 literature,	 focus	 on	 a	 model	 of	 transboundary	conservation	that	generally	derives	from	colonial	models	of	nature	protection.				Including	alternative	TBCAs	may	alter	the	dominant	definitions	of	TBCAs	and	any	existing	attempts	at	 quantifying	 them.	 	 This	 dissertation	 does	 not	 undertake	 to	 rectify	 the	 narrative	 of	 TBCA	development	historically,	nor	 is	 it	 able	 to	 incorporate	alternative	models	of	TBCAs	 in	 the	 legal	review	and	case	studies.		It	does	observe	that	these	historical	injustices	are	not	addressed	in	TBCA	agreements	(see	Chapter	4),	that	unrecognized	alternative	traditional	peace	and	conflict	resolution	processes	exist	even	in	fortress	model	TBCAs	(see	Chapters	5	and	6),	and	that	this	may	be	part	of	the	 solution	 in	 designing	 TBCAs	 as	 vehicles	 for	 peace	 and	 conflict	 resolution.	 	 Therefore,	 the	framework	of	analysis	applied	in	this	dissertation	and	the	various	research	findings	are	intended	to	shine	some	light	in	the	direction	of	conflict	transformation	for	and	through	TBCAs.			 15   	The	problem	statement:	seeking	peace,	creating	conflict			1.5.1 TBCAs	creating	conflict			The	government-driven	vs.	community-based	development	of	TBCAs	debate	is	symptomatic	of	a	deeper	injustice	related	to	the	preferential	promotion	of	one	version	(fortress	conservation)	over	the	many	other	alternatives	that	exist	(Brockington	et	al.,	2008,	pp.	19–24;	Shoreman-Ouimet	&	Kopnina,	2015;	2012,	pp.	29–36).		Despite	all	the	bravado	around	“America’s	Best	Idea”	and	the	“concept	that	can	be	embraced	by	all,”	PAs,	TBCAs,	and	Parks	for	Peace	are	increasingly	criticized	for	social	injustices	and	on-going	violences	(Brockington	et	al.,	2008,	pp.	19–24;	2012,	pp.	29–36).		These	 are	 the	 subaltern	 stories	 that	 have	 emerged	 from	 the	 fringes	 of	 conservation	 through	political	ecology.		Mainly	these	stories	reveal:	(1)	colonial	or	imperial	origins	and	influences,	(2)	conservation	as	a	capitalist	political	enterprise,	(3)	 impacts	on	marginalized	peoples,	especially	Indigenous	Peoples	and	rural	or	low-income	communities,	and	(4)	coercive	practices	or	human	rights	abuses	 (W.	M.	Adams	&	Mulligan,	2003;	2008,	p.	 x;	Duffy,	2001;	Grandia,	2007;	Heynen,	McCarthy,	Prudham,	&	Robbins,	2007;	Neumann,	2004,	p.	813;	Peluso,	1993).				For	example,	 in	 the	 case	 study	of	 the	GVL,	 the	Twa	people	 tell	 a	 story	of	dispossession,	 forced	displacement,	exploitation	and	ostracization	(Dowie,	2009;	Zephyrin,	2001).		The	forests	that	now	form	parts	of	the	PAs	within	the	GVL	(Bwindi	Impenetrable	NP,	Mgahinga	Gorilla	NP,	Virunga	NP	 16  and	even	Rwenzori	Mountains	NP)	are	their	ancestral	domain,	but	they	were	forced	to	relocate	and	to	find	other	ways	to	access	livelihood	and	biocultural	resources	when	the	post-colonial	PAAs	re-adjusted	the	PA	boundaries	and	began	implementing	park	management.				 “By	way	of	background,	as	of	21	April	1925,	Batwa	Pygmies	in	DR	Congo	were	forced	to	leave	their	ancestral	forest	in	what	is	now	Virunga	National	Park	when	the	 forest	 was	 unilaterally	 converted	 into	 a	 protected	 area.	 Similar	 forced	evictions	occurred	in	Rwanda	in	the	1920s	when	the	Volcanoes	National	Park	was	established	on	Twa	land,	and	the	Twa’s	traditional	activities	–	including	hunting,	fishing	and	animal	trapping	–	were	completely	banned	in	these	areas	in	1974.	In	Uganda,	Twa	land	was	unilaterally	converted	into	forest	reserves	 in	the	1930s	and	later	upgraded	to	the	Bwindi	Impenetrable	National	Park	and	the	Mgahinga	Gorilla	National	Park	 in	1991.	 In	all	 three	 countries,	 the	Batwa/Pygmies	were	never	consulted	nor	did	they	receive	adequate	or	any	compensation	for	the	taking	of	 their	 lands.”	 (Centre	 d’Accompagnement	 des	 Autochtones	 Pygmées	 et	Minoritaires	 Vulnérables	 &	 United	 Organisation	 for	 Batwa	 Development	 in	Uganda,	2008,	p.	2)			Later,	when	the	transboundary	collaboration	and	governance	systems	came	into	being,	the	Batwa	or	Twa	people	found	they	were	still	disenfranchised	from	the	processes	and	petitioned	through	a	‘Joint	 Declaration	 of	 Indigenous	 Organisations	 and	 Indigenous	 Support	 Organisations	 of	 the	Central	Albertine	Rift	Transboundary	Biosphere	Initiative’	for	recognition	of	their	rights	and	for	full	 consultation	 in	 the	development	 of	 the	TBCA	 (Centre	d’Accompagnement	des	Autochtones	Pygmées	et	Minoritaires	Vulnérables	&	United	Organisation	for	Batwa	Development	 in	Uganda,	2008).	 	It	was	not	transboundary	conservation	that	they	were	against,	 it	was	exclusion	from	its	processes	that	they	found	disempowering	(Kidd,	2011).	 	As	the	TBCA	legal	review	in	Chapter	4	reveals,	 historical	 social	 injustices	 are	 really	 not	 addressed	 in	 cross-border	 collaborative	agreements	 and	 as	 the	 case	 studies	 in	 Chapters	 5	 and	 6	 illustrate,	 this	 failure	 can	 limit	 17  peacebuilding	and	conflict	resolution	through	transboundary	conservation.			1.5.2 Peace	as	a	pre-requisite			Criticisms	of	PAs,	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace	challenge	theories	of	environmental	peacebuilding,	which	propose	that	cooperation	over	shared	natural	resources	will	strengthen	relations	between	parties	and	across	boundaries	(Conca	&	Dabelko,	2002).	 	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace	have	been	recommended	to	resolve	even	the	most	divisive	border	disputes	(e.g.,	de-militarized	zone	or	DMZ	between	North	and	South	Korea	or	the	Golan	Heights	between	Israel	and	Palestine).		In	theory	and	in	many	 instances,	 transboundary	environmental	 cooperation	 is	a	non-violent	process	 that	can	support	 conflict	 prevention	 (e.g.,	 reducing	 environmental	 insecurity),	 peacekeeping	 (e.g.,	deployment	 of	 ‘green	 helmets’	 or	 rangers	 protecting	 civilians	 and	wildlife),	 peacemaking	 (e.g.,	integrating	 Parks	 for	 Peace	 or	 regenerative	 natural	 resource	 use	 and	 benefit-sharing	 in	 peace	agreements)	 and	 peacebuilding	 (e.g.,	 sustaining	 collaborative	 natural	 resource	 governance)	(Matthew,	 Brown,	 &	 Jensen,	 2009;	 2011,	 p.	 10).	 	 However,	 transboundary	 environmental	cooperation	is	not	the	only	pathway	to	ecological	peacebuilding.		Some	environmental	dimensions	of	conflicts	can	be	addressed	unilaterally	(e.g.,	wildlife	trade	bans,	sanctions)	and	with	the	political	economies	of	resource	conflicts	so	globalized	today,	peace	and	conflict	interventions	may	need	to	come	from	faraway	governments,	not	just	from	neighboring	States	(Le	Billon,	2012).		Therefore,	it	is	worthwhile	to	consider	whether	TBCAs	are	meaningful	vehicles	to	environmental	peacebuilding.	 18  	There	 is	 little	 non-anecdotal	 evidence	 that	 transboundary	 environmental	 cooperation	 begets	peace.		In	perhaps	the	only	study	to	systematically	evaluate	TBCAs	and	peace	by	Barquet	et	al.,	PA	dyads	 straddling	 international	 borders	 are	 analyzed	 in	 relation	 to	 instances	 of	 Militarized	Interstate	 Disputes	 (MIDs)	 (Barquet	 et	 al.,	 2014).	 	 The	 study	 finds	 that	 TBCAs	 tend	 to	 be	established	between	States	 that	have	experienced	MIDs	where	 there	were	no	casualties,	which	coheres	with	Waisová’s	assessment	based	on	three	case	studies	that	environmental	cooperation	only	begins	when	 there	 are	no	 violent	 clashes	between	parties	 (Barquet	 et	 al.,	 2014;	Waisová,	2015).	 	Generally,	Barquet	et	al.,	 are	unable	 to	conclude	 that	TBCAs	have	significant	 impact	on	peace	in	terms	of	reducing	future	MIDs	(Barquet	et	al.,	2014,	p.	8).		Regionally,	in	Africa,	the	Middle	East	and	Asia,	the	presence	of	TBCAs	over	the	long	term	correlates	with	fewer	MIDs,	while	in	Latin	America,	TBCAs	seem	to	coincide	with	increased	MIDs	(Barquet,	2015,	p.	9).		Hanks,	the	first	Chief	Executive	Officer	or	CEO	of	the	PPF	would	agree	that	transboundary	conservation	and	peace	take	time	and	that	TBCAs	are	not	a	quick-fix	solution	(Barquet,	2015,	p.	9;	Hanks,	2017).		Overall,	it	is	not	apparent	that	environmental	cooperation	leads	to	peace.		Barquet	et	al.’s	results	from	Latin	America	concur	with	anecdotal	experiences	from	various	TBCAs	around	the	world	where	it	appears	environmental	cooperation	initiatives,	like	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace,	may	even	contribute	to	conflicts,	injustice	and	violence	(Barquet	et	al.,	2014;	Brosius	&	Russell,	 2003;	 Büscher,	 2010;	 Grandia,	 2007;	 Kidd,	 2011;	 Sandwith	 &	 Besançon,	 2010).	 	 In	Southern	Africa,	transboundary	conservation	has	been	an	active	component	of	regional	integration	and	a	remarkable	achievement	of	high-level	cooperation	 following	many	years	of	poor	or	even	 19  antagonistic	 relations	 during	 apartheid,	 but	 various	 scholars	 shadow	 the	 accomplishments	 by	highlighting	social	injustices	and	conflicts	that	arise	in	and	around	TBCAs	(See	e.g.,	Büscher,	2013;	Büscher	&	Ramutsindela,	2015;	Spierenburg	&	Wels,	2006).		This	counter-narrative	is	a	common	thread	throughout	the	literature	on	conservation	and	PAs	broadly	(2004).					1.5.3 Peace	as	an	external	process			If	the	theory	of	environmental	cooperation	is	as	straightforward	as	it	purports,	there	should	be	little	 to	 no	 difference	 between	 a	 TBCA	 and	 a	 Park	 for	 Peace.	 	 The	 process	 of	 cross-border	collaboration	in	all	TBCAs	should	inevitably	contribute	to	peacebuilding	and	therefore,	all	TBCAs	could	be	considered	Parks	for	Peace	even	if	not	so	named.		If	a	difference	in	peace	outcomes	exists	(in	other	words,	a	TBCA	does	not	contribute	to	peace	while	Parks	for	Peace	do	positively	contribute	to	peace),	it	could	be	said	that	transboundary	natural	resources	governance	does	not	inherently	or	automatically	 contribute	 to	 peace.	 	 Peace	 is	 therefore	 an	 external	 process	 in	 addition	 to	transboundary	conservation	and	it	needs	to	be	made	explicit	in	order	to	be	achieved.		This	seems	to	be	the	commentary	of	TBCA	proponents	themselves	(S.	Ali,	2007;	Sandwith	&	Besançon,	2010).				Systematic	studies	of	TBCAs	are	rare	and	do	not	speak	comprehensively	to	measured	effectiveness	in	terms	of	intended	objectives	or	the	various	potential	benefits	claimed	by	TBCA	proponents	(E.g.,	Barquet,	Lujala,	&	Rød,	2014;	E.g.,	McCallum,	Vasilijević,	&	Cuthill,	2015;	Zbicz	&	Green,	1997).		 20  There	 has	 been	 no	 global	 study	 of	 whether	 TBCAs	 are	 improving	 biodiversity	 conservation,	enhancing	the	availability	or	sharing	of	human	and	material	resources,	or	truly	improving	relations	between	 States	 and	 cross-border	 counterparts.	 	Monitoring	 and	 evaluation	 of	 TBCAs	 generally	occurs	at	site-level	(and	perhaps	only	within	individual	PAs),	utilizes	different	methodologies,	and	may	not	be	publicly	available	(See	Bocchino,	2017,	p.	2).		Most	likely,	they	are	also	not	assessing	TBCAs	for	international	peace	(between	States),	social	peace	(between	people/s),	and	ecological	peace	(between	humans	and	the	rest	of	nature).		These	concepts	are	further	defined	in	Chapter	2.					 Transforming	law	to	transform	conflict:	critical	legal	studies	in	TBCAs			1.6.1 Why	law?			Ramsbotham	et	al.	identify	international	law,	institutions,	and	cosmopolitan	democracy	as	critical	to	the	pursuit	of	contemporary	conflict	resolution	and	deep	social	transformation	–	all	of	which	have	to	do	with	law	(Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011).		In	fact,	law	is	everywhere	and	touches	upon	every	aspect	of	our	lives	and	physical	surroundings.		Blomley	et	al.	observe	that	“law	as	an	instrument	of	change,	domination	or	resistance,	and	as	a	means	through	which	justice	might	be	given	practical	realization,	 has,	 in	 innumerable	 ways,	 shaped	 –	 however	 provisionally	 –	 the	 basic	 terms	 and	experience	of	 social	 life.”	 (Blomley,	Nicholas,	Delaney,	&	Ford,	Richard	T.,	 2001,	p.	 xv).	 	 Law	 is	 21  inseparable	from	its	socio-political	context,	being	both	shaped	by	it	and	shaper	of	it	(Tushnet,	1991,	pp.	1517–1518;	R.	M.	Unger,	1983).		This	is	what	makes	law	one	of	the	most	powerful	institutions	in	human	society.	 	 Law	 “not	only	acts	willfully	within	and	controls	other	actions	 in	 settings	or	domains	but	 also	 constructs	 and	orchestrates	 those	 settings	 and	 specifies	 the	distribution	 and	direction	of	energy	flows	within	them.		In	short,	this	is	the	power	to	shape	environments	for	human	action	 and	 interaction”	 (2005,	 p.	 28	 (citing	 Eric	 Wolf	 in	 “Pathways	 of	 Power:	 Building	 an	Anthropology	 of	 the	 Modern	World”)).	 	 This	 is	 the	 power	 by	 which	 laws	 create	 markets	 and	regulate	them,	or	the	way	it	creates	TBCAs	and	determines	their	rules	and	systems.			Law	gives	meaning	to	space	and	is	part	of	the	process	of	placemaking.		Space	itself	is	not	value-neutral,	it	is	also	actively	produced,	resulting	in	the	concept	of	place	(Lefebvre,	1991).		Sometimes	this	 process	 of	 place-making	 for	 PAs	 occurs	 through	 a	 rationalizing	 socio-political	 process	 of	meaning	making;	e.g.,	this	place	is	the	last	remaining	habitat	of	critically	endangered	species	and	therefore	it	should	be	recognized	as	a	protected	area	(Massey,	1994,	p.	4).		This	meaning	is	then	formalized	through	law’s	own	legitimizing	socio-political	process	(lawmaking),	which	allows	the	socio-political	 interpretation	 to	 be	 accepted,	 implemented	 and	 enforced	within	 the	 designated	space	(See	Spierenburg	&	Wels,	2006).		This	can	also	be	described	as	the	process	of	nomosphering	(the	iterative	creation	and	performance	of	legal	meaning	and	rulemaking	through	spacemaking)	or	the	production	of	nomospheres	(normative	universes)	(Blomley,	Nicholas	et	al.,	2001;	D.	Delaney,	2010).	 	In	nomosphering,	“the	(socio-)spatial	and	the	(socio-)legal	are	constituted	through	each	other”	(D.	Delaney,	2010,	p.	23).		This	is	further	explored	in	Chapters	3	and	5.		 22  Law	is	so	powerful	that	it	is	often	used	to	advance	the	interests	of	political	elites	as	an	instrument	of	 structural	 violence	 and	potentially	 even	 cultural	 violence	 –	 as	 is	 certainly	 the	 case	with	 the	neoliberal	economic	culture	which	is	at	the	root	of	so	much	of	the	world’s	ecological	violence	(See	Dezalay	&	Bryant	G.	Garth,	2002;	De	Sousa	Santos	&	Rodríguez-Garavito,	2005).	 	In	these	cases,	conflict	formation	may	arise,	driven	by	a	need	for	(socio-)legal	change.		 “All	attempts	 to	 institute	horizons,	 to	establish	boundaries,	 to	secure	 the	 identify	of	places,	can…be	seen	to	be	attempts	to	stabilize	the	meaning	of	particular	envelopes	of	space-time…such	attempts	 at	 the	 stabilization	of	meaning	are	 constantly	 the	 site	of	social	contest,	battles	over	the	power	to	label	space-time,	to	impose	the	meaning	to	be	attributed	to	a	space,	for	however	long	or	short	a	span	of	time.”	(Massey,	1994,	p.	5)			Therefore,	one	of	the	ways	to	address	this	is	through	a	process	of	re-making	the	socio-spatial	and	the	socio-legal.				1.6.2 Drawing	from	critical	legal	studies			Transforming	the	law	for	greater	justice,	or	in	this	case	greater	peace,	requires	a	critical	review	of	existing	 laws.	 	 Law	and	Society	 scholars	 emphasize	 the	need	 to	understand	 the	 context	within	which	 lawmaking	 happens	 to	 uncover	 oppressive	 or	 violent	 forces	 of	 law,	 and	 to	 transform	institutions	 and	 systems	 to	 emancipate	 law	and	 society	 for	 justice	 (Tushnet,	 1991).	 	Blomley’s	 23  proposed	methodology	 is	 to	 reveal	 “splices”	 or	 “dominant	 forms	 of	 spatio-legal	 relations”	 (N.	Blomley,	2003,	pp.	17–34).	 	 In	other	words,	 identify	sites	at	which	different	modes	of	 legal	and	social	power	operate,	distinguishing	between	dominant	and	counter-hegemonic	legal	paradigm,	and	identify	the	institutional	and	legal	transformations	that	need	to	happen	in	order	to	promote	the	deep	social	transformation	that	Contemporary	Conflict	Resolution	(CCR)	is	describing	(Butler,	2009,	p.	315).				Unger’s	approach	is	to	compare	or	contrast	“living	law”	(lex	lata)	or	“law	as	it	is”	to	“law	as	it	is	written”	 (lex	scripta),	as	well	as	compare	and	contrast	 “law	as	 it	 is”	 to	“law	as	 it	 should	be”	 (lex	ferenda)	(R.	Unger,	1996).		This	is	what	he	describes	as	mapping	and	criticism,	whereby	mapping	is	a	detailed	description	of	“the	legally	defined	institutional	microstructure	of	society	in	relation	to	its	legally	articulated	ideals,”	while	criticism	is	an	exploration	of	“the	interplay	between	detailed	institutional	arrangements	of	society	as	represented	in	law,	and	the	professed	ideals	or	programs	these	arrangements	frustrate	and	make	real.”		The	contribution	of	legal	scholars,	therefore,	is	in	the	critical	analysis	of	existing	laws	and	their	implementation,	and	where	they	fall	short	of	what	they	should	be.		This	is	demonstrated	through	the	framework	described	in	Chapter	3.		In	terms	of	critical	legal	review	for	peace,	the	role	of	scholars	is	to	identify	the	pathways	through	which	existing	laws	are	contributing	to	violence	and/or	conflicts	and	how	they	can	be	reformed	for	peace.		For	Sarat	and	Kearns,	law	is	inherently	violent:	“law	is	a	creature	of	both	literal	violence,	and	of	 imaginings	and	threats	of	 force,	disorder,	and	pain”	and	yet	 it	“denies	the	violence	of	 its	origins…by	proclaiming	the	force	it	deploys	to	be	‘legitimate’”	(Sarat	&	Kearns,	1995,	pp.	1,	4).		In	 24  a	worse	scenario,	Hay	argues	that	the	violence	of	law	as	an	arm	of	violence	by	the	State,	can	inspire	greater	violence	between	people	 (Hay,	1995,	p.	151).	 	Therefore,	opportunities	 for	non-violent	legal	transformation	need	to	be	identified	and	utilized.		These	may	come	through	non-violent	social	and/or	political	action	resulting	in	legislative	reform	through	mechanisms	of	formal	or	dominant	lawmaking	systems	(e.g.,	parliament)	or	through	the	exercise	of	legal	pluralism	(i.e.,	alternative	or	dominated	legal	systems)	(See	e.g.,	De	Sousa	Santos,	1977;	Dezalay	&	Bryant	G.	Garth,	2002).		This	dissertation	provides	a	critical	legal	review	of	TBCAs	for	indicators	of	peace	and	conflict	resolution	so	that	 future	TBCA	“lawmakers”	can	 incorporate	the	 lessons	 learned	and	recommendations	as	they	continue	to	evolve	TBCA	law	towards	positive	peace.			1.6.3 Why	TBCAs?			The	project	of	transforming	law	in	order	to	transform	conflict	is	very	applicable	to	TBCAs	and	could	bring	them	into	greater	congruence	with	international,	social,	and	ecological	peace.		Conventional	TBCAs	are	clearly	delineated	socio-legal-spatial	zones	often	represented	by	the	dominant	system	of	 legal	 authority	 (State-based	 park	 management	 system	 with	 “fences-and-fines”-based	 law	enforcement),	 but	 alternative	 systems	 of	 legal	 practice	 can	 persist	 (e.g.,	 seasonal	 invasion	 by	nomadic	peoples	into	park	lands	for	livelihood-essential	access	to	water	and	grazing)	and	either	be	deemed	officially	sanctioned	or	officially	punished	 for	 trespass.	 	Laws	and	regulations	draw	lines	that	exclude	or	even	expel	local	populations,	differentiating	who	is	authorized	to	do	certain	 25  activities	within	the	territory	and	who	is	not	(e.g.,	high-paying	tourists	can	trophy	hunt	while	local	poachers	 are	 shot	 on	 sight	 for	 hunting	 bushmeat)	 (Spierenburg	&	Wels,	 2006).	 	Mapping	 and	criticism	of	pluralistic	modes	of	law-making	in	a	TBCA	could	help	to	harmonize	tensions	between	idyllic	theories	and	objectives	of	the	TBCA	and	their	more	problematic	tensions	on-the-ground.			Transboundary	 cooperation	 inevitably	 involves	 agreements	 and	 norms.	 	 Even	 informally,	collaborating	parties	must	determine	who	to	involve,	for	what	purposes	and	how	to	work	together.		A	formal	legal	framework	typically	defines	at	the	very	least	the	territory,	objectives	and	terms	of	collaboration	(e.g.,	 institutions/partners,	activities,	etc.).	 	If	“law	is	to	space	as	mind	is	to	body,”	then	the	legal	framework	is	the	“mind”	of	the	TBCA,	the	organizing	system	by	which	its	objectives	are	 identified	 and	manifested	 (D.	Delaney,	 2010,	 p.	 13).	 	 Examining	 a	 TBCA’s	 legal	 framework	allows	us	to	determine	whether	it	is	being	appropriately	designed	for	peace	and	whether	different	designs	might	be	more	conducive	to	positive	peace.			The	process	of	compiling	a	TBCA	legal	framework	is	essential	to	transforming	violence.		It	can	give	voice	 to	 both	 official	 or	 codified	 and	 unofficial	 or	 uncodified	 customary	 practices,	 norms	 and	principles	that	reveal	landscapes	of	legal	pluralism.		Legal	pluralism	speaks	to	the	cohabitation	of	multiple	legal	orders	or	systems	in	a	place	(De	Sousa	Santos,	2002,	p.	89).		These	simultaneously	existing	legal	systems	can	be	“cross-cutting,	intersecting,	aligning	with	one	another,	or	existing	in	relations	 of	 paradox	 or	 antagonism…because	 the	 social	 relations	 of	 space	 are	 experienced	differently,	and	variously	interpreted,	by	those	holding	different	positions	as	part	of	it”	(Massey,	1994,	p.	3).	 	E.g.,	PAAs	and	local	communities	experience	PA	designations	uniquely.	 	 Increasing	 26  understanding	 of	 local	 systems,	 knowledge	 and	 customary	 law	 is	 relevant	 to	 the	 mission	 of	decentralizing	 and	 decolonizing	 law	 (De	 Sousa	 Santos,	 1977;	 De	 Sousa	 Santos	 &	 Rodríguez-Garavito,	2005;	Kleinhans	&	Macdonald,	1997).				1.6.4 Uniting	the	disciplines	for	peace	and	conflict	transformation			In	pursuit	of	transforming	law,	Critical	Legal	Studies	(CLS)	would	benefit	from	deep	integration	with	CCR,	including	its	environmental	security	and	peace	subset,	and	with	political	ecology.		There	are	 numerous	 existing	 connections	 between	 the	 disciplines,	 including	 overlapping	 objectives	(notably,	 social	 transformation	 and	 justice),	 theories	 and	 interdisciplinary	 methodologies.		Political	ecology	studies	have	been	the	most	critical	of	TBCAs,	demonstrating	law	as	an	instrument	of	violence	in	PAs	(Duffy,	2005;	Massé	&	Lunstrum,	2015;	E.g.,	Spierenburg	&	Wels,	2006,	pp.	303–304).	 	 If	ecological	peacebuilding	 is	 to	 transcend	these	criticisms	of	structural	violence,	 it	must	evolve	itself	beyond	generic	theories	of	partnership	for	peace	and	consider	the	scale	and	diversity	of	conflicts	and	violence	in	socio-ecological	landscapes	to	propose	more	nuanced	interventions	for	positive	peace.			Whenever	ecological	conditions	can	trigger	conflict	or	 insecurity,	 it	simultaneously	provides	an	entry-point	 for	strategies	of	prevention,	peacekeeping,	peacemaking,	and	peacebuilding.	 	When	these	 interventions	 are	 about	 “addressing	 structural	 issues	 and	 the	 long-term	 relationships	 27  between	conflictants,”	referring	more	to	the	agenda	of	social	change	that	both	political	ecology	and	CLS	 are	 also	 about,	 that	 is	where	we	 find	CCR	 (Ramsbotham	et	 al.,	 2011).	 	 The	 critical	 lens	 of	political	ecology	needs	the	pragmatic	approach	of	CLS	to	move	beyond	critique	and	into	the	realm	of	solutions.		When	critical	socio-legal	studies	are	performed	in	a	TBCA,	it	builds	on	the	work	of	political	ecology	by	identifying	the	legal	mechanisms	for	conflict	and	violence	in	the	landscape,	as	well	as	the	ones	for	conflict	transformation	and	peacebuilding	(CCR).		This	can	thereby	contribute	to	the	advancement	of	environmental	peacebuilding,	not	only	in	theory	but	more	importantly,	in	practice.	 	 Transforming	 law	 in	 order	 to	 transform	 conflicts	 in	 TBCAs	 requires	 not	 only	 the	integration	of	international,	social,	and	ecological	peace,	but	also	a	uniting	of	the	disciplines.			 	Just	conservation	for	just	peace			Conservation	 is	 not	 a	 neutral	 process,	 and	 neither	 is	 law.	 	 TBCAs	 are	 a	 by-product	 of	 socio-ecological	processes	and	connectivity.		History	tells	the	stories	of	the	rise	and	fall	of	cultures	and	nations,	 which	 altered	 relations	 between	 peoples	 and	 their	 environments.	 	 Only	 when	 places	became	divided,	did	the	concept	of	transboundary	become	relevant.		Perhaps	similarly,	it	could	be	contemplated	that	PAs	became	relevant	when	people	and	the	rest	of	nature	became	divided.		Thus,	TBCAs	 begin	with	 separation,	 then	 efforts	 to	 repair	 and	 reunite	 follow.	 	Without	 cross-border	cooperation	they	are	just	adjacent	PAs.		Initial	cooperation	may	come	from	external	actors	bringing	new	ideas,	it	may	come	from	within	but	looking	at	outside	examples,	or	it	may	derive	from	pre- 28  existing	unity,	for	example	where	a	community,	or	people	have	been	divided	by	borders	and	they	must	find	ways	to	overcome	separation.	 	It	may	be	funded	by	outsiders	and	influenced	by	their	objectives.		These	all	affect	the	ways	in	which	a	TBCA	is	formalized.			TBCA	laws	are	ultimately	a	by-product	of	socio-political	and	political	economic	factors,	which	in	turn,	affect	the	way	in	which	peace	is	cultivated	in	a	landscape	through	lawmaking.		Some	parties	do	not	end	up	at	the	table	(e.g.,	illicit	actors	who	are	significant	forces	within	a	landscape	and	may	become	peace	disrupters),	while	some	external	forces	may	have	significant	control	(e.g.,	donors	funding	transboundary	programs	according	to	their	own	values,	beliefs,	and	strategic	objectives).		State-driven	collaborations	may	leave	out	non-governmental	peace	partners	and	mechanisms	(e.g.,	indigenous/traditional	systems),	while	emphasizing	the	role	of	traditional	national	security	(e.g.,	military),	which	can	lead	to	the	implementation	of	more	coercive	means	to	peace.		This	practice	has	long	been	legitimized	as	“just	war,”	but	what	could	be	more	transformative	for	TBCAs	is	“just	conservation”	and	 “just	peace”	 (Allan	&	Keller,	2006).	 	This	 raises	 further	questions	as	 to	how	TBCAs	have	been	incorporating	just	peace	into	their	design	and	processes.					 Overview	of	dissertation			To	summarize,	this	dissertation	asks	the	broad	question	of	whether	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace	are	‘working’	in	terms	of	all	three	categories	of	peace.		It	argues	that	TBCAs	are	not	providing	the	peace	 29  dividends	 anticipated	 because	 they	 are	 not	 adequately	 addressing	 international,	 social	 and	ecological	peace.		In	other	words,	TBCAs	are	not	sufficiently	cultivating	peace	or	facilitating	conflict	resolution	between	States,	between	people(s),	and	between	humans	and	the	rest	of	nature,	and	thereby	are	not	proving	effective	 towards	positive	peace.	 	There	 is	 some	evidence	 that	TBCAs,	including	Parks	for	Peace,	rely	on	pre-existing	international	peace	for	formalization	(Barquet	et	al.,	2014;	Hanks,	2017;	Waisová,	2015;	E.g.,	Alcalde,	Ponce,	&	Curonisy,	2005,	p.	63)	and	that	they	are	primarily	designed	for	ecological	peace	(i.e.,	ecological	connectivity	and	environmental	security)	(See	Lubbe,	2008;	Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	p.	22;	See	Uwingeli,	2017),	while	potentially	sacrificing	social	peace	(Büscher	&	Ramutsindela,	2015;	Chapin,	2004;	Duffy,	2001;	Massé	&	Lunstrum,	2015;	West,	Igoe,	&	Brockington,	2006).		Political	ecologists	have	helped	to	raise	the	critiques,	but	this	has	yet	 to	 trigger	a	peace	renaissance	 for	TBCAs.	 	Such	 transformation	requires	 that	TBCAs	be	evaluated	for	peace	and	CCR,	not	just	for	cooperation.		Peace	must	shift	from	a	symbolic	aspiration	to	an	active	process	within	transboundary	land	and	seascapes.				The	following	chapters	of	this	dissertation	examine	these	hypotheses	and	assertions	in	different	ways.		Chapter	2	sets	the	foundation	for	this	dissertation’s	understanding	of	positive	peace,	based	on	international	peace,	social	peace,	and	ecological	peace.		With	these	concepts	of	peace,	it	becomes	clearer	 that	 TBCAs	 are	 not	 achieving	 peace	 in	 all	 three	 categories	 and	 thereby,	 are	 at	 best,	structures	of	negative	peace.		This	chapter	further	develops	the	problem	statement	around	TBCAs	and	how	transboundary	conservation	is	challenged	in	all	three	categories	of	peace.					 30  Chapter	3	provides	a	framework	of	analysis	combining	the	disciplines	of	CLS,	political	ecology	and	CCR.		This	framework	can	be	used	to	assess	the	legal	framework	of	a	TBCA	for	all	three	categories	of	 peace	 and	various	 stages	of	 conflict	 transformation.	 	 It	 utilizes	 “chains	of	 explanation”	 from	political	ecology,	conflict	mapping	from	CCR,	and	Unger’s	mapping	and	criticism	from	CLS.		CCR	also	provides	the	basis	for	criticism	by	setting	out	lex	ferenda	or	“law	as	it	should	be”	according	to	positive	peace.		The	GVL	provides	an	example	of	the	framework	in	application.				Chapter	4	looks	to	the	practice	of	transboundary	conservation	through	a	systematic	review	of	56	TBCA	agreements	(i.e.,	law	as	it	is	written,	or	lex	scripta)	based	on	indicators	of	international	peace,	social	 peace,	 and	 ecological	 peace,	 and	 through	 the	analysis	 of	 survey	 responses	 from	88	TBCA	practitioners	(i.e.,	living	law,	or	lex	lata	customary	practices	on-the-ground),	providing	reflections	on	whether	TBCAs	contribute	 to	conflict	 transformation	and	peace,	how,	and	 in	what	ways	 the	TBCA	agreements	do	or	can	facilitate	these	processes.		Taking	into	consideration	the	key	elements	of	success	for	cross-border	cooperation	as	identified	by	TBCA	practitioners	in	the	survey	on	TBCA	agreements,	the	56	TBCA	agreements	in	the	legal	review	are	assessed	for	key	elements	such	as	clarity	 of	 objectives,	 specificity	 of	 transboundary	 activities,	 establishment	 of	 transboundary	institutions,	funding,	etc.				Chapter	5	continues	with	the	case	study	of	the	GVL,	elaborating	on	the	history	of	its	transboundary	collaboration	 and	 legal	 framework,	 while	 also	 looking	 at	 conflict	 management	 through	 its	institutional	 mechanisms.	 	 This	 helps	 to	 demonstrate	 the	 importance	 of	 strengthening	transboundary	governance	to	directly	support	conflict	resolution	on-the-ground.		It	also	highlights	 31  a	 few	 alternative	 or	 traditional	 mechanisms	 for	 peace	 and	 conflict	 resolution	 that	 could	 be	incorporated	to	strengthen	ecological	peacebuilding	in	the	GVL.				Chapter	6	adds	to	the	case	study	of	the	GVL	by	comparing	it	to	the	Kidepo	Landscape	on	a	different	set	of	international	borders	of	Uganda	–	between	South	Sudan	and	Uganda,	near	the	Kenyan	border.		Contrasting	 the	different	 institutional	approaches,	 levels	of	 cooperation,	and	conflicts	 that	 they	face,	this	research	helps	to	highlight	the	value	of	on-going	engagement	at	the	local	level,	and	the	need	 to	 address	 peace	 and	 conflict	 resolution	 explicitly	 in	 all	 aspects	 of	 transboundary	conservation.	 	 This	 chapter	 emphasizes	 conflict-resilience	 and	 conflict-sensitivity	 for	transboundary	conservation	and	TBCAs	in	areas	of	violent	conflict.		Finally,	Chapter	7	reflects	overall	on	 the	conclusions	of	each	chapter	and	connects	 the	 findings	toward	 a	 series	 of	 recommendations	 that	 can	 be	 useful	 in	 improving	 the	 design	 and	implementation	of	TBCAs	for	peace.		This	includes	an	explanation	of	the	limitations	of	this	research,	recommendations,	and	some	foresight	on	future	research	directions.	 	 32  2 CHAPTER	2:		WHAT	DOES	PEACE	MEAN	FOR	TBCAS?:	UNDERSTANDING	INTERNATIONAL	PEACE,	SOCIAL	PEACE,	AND	ECOLOGICAL	PEACE					 Introducing	peace	for	parks				Hundreds	of	years	ago,	possibly	as	far	back	as	the	11th	to	16th	century	A.D.,	the	Great	Peacemaker	and	Hiawatha	 united	 the	 Five	Nations	 of	Mohawks,	Oneidas,	 Onondagas,	 Cayugas	 and	 Senecas	under	the	Iroquois	Confederacy,	describing	a	Vision	for	the	Great	Peace	Confederacy	as	a	union	of	people	of	many	nations	ruled	by	one	government	of	their	nations	“in	justice,	in	peace,	in	beauty,	in	respect,	and	compassion”	(De	Costa,	1873;	Issitt,	2006;	Saraydarian,	1984,	p.	57).		Their	vision	was	that	this	Great	Peace	would	bring	in	other	nations	under	its	protection.		Haiwatha	declared	that:			 “After	this	unity,	each	nation	will	protect	the	other	nations.	Each	nation	will	be	a	refuge	for	 others	 in	 emergency.	 Each	 nation	will	make	 other	 nations’	 survival	 possible.	 In	unity	we	will	survive.	In	unity	we	will	prosper.”	(Saraydarian,	1984,	p.	56)			Today	the	United	Nations	(UN)	is	headquartered	on	the	land	of	the	Iroquois	Confederacy	where	the	Great	Law	of	Peace	is	kept.	The	UN	continues	to	promote	a	Culture	of	Peace	that	includes	justice,	peace,	beauty,	respect	and	compassion.	The	UN	Declaration	on	a	Culture	of	Peace	defines	a	Culture	of	Peace	as	“a	set	of	values,	attitudes,	traditions	and	modes	of	behavior	and	ways	of	life	based	on,”	inter	alia	(UNGA,	1999,	p.	Art.	1):	 33  		§ Respect	for	life	and	non-violence,	§ Full	respect	for	all	human	rights	and	fundamental	freedoms,	§ Peaceful	settlement	of	conflicts,	§ Sustainable	development	for	present	and	future	generations,	§ Principles	 of	 cooperation,	 pluralism,	 cultural	 diversity,	 dialogue	 and	understanding	at	all	levels	of	society	and	among	nations				In	 the	wake	 of	 the	 1987	 UN	World	 Commission	 on	 Environment	 and	 Development,	 the	 Earth	Charter	 was	 drafted	 to	 call	 for	 a	 “sustainable	 global	 society	 founded	 on	 respect	 for	 nature,	universal	human	rights,	economic	justice,	and	a	culture	of	peace”	(Earth	Charter	Commission,	2000,	p.	pmbl.).	 In	order	 to	cultivate	a	Culture	of	Peace,	 the	 Israel/Palestine	Center	 for	Research	and	Information	recognizes	that	it	is:			 “an	on-going	process,	it	is	necessary	to	continue	to	challenge	each	other,	both	looking	at	the	other	side’s	society	and	looking	inward	at	our	own	society...to	deal	with	some	of	the	more	difficult	questions	involved	in	what	it	takes	to	create	a	culture	of	peace	at	a	time	when	peace	does	not	yet	exist,	when	the	streets	are	filled	with	violence,	when	the	challenge	of	the	conflict	still	exists,	when	we	are	still,	perhaps	not	officially	but	in	reality,	enemies”	(Baskin	&	al	Qaq,	1999,	p.	3).			As	 the	 Israeli/Palestine	 Center	 for	 Research	 and	 Information	 rightfully	 notes,	 peace	 requires	change	 within	 an	 individual,	 within	 a	 community,	 and	 across	 communities.	 As	 stated	 in	 the	Constitution	of	 the	United	Nations	Educational,	Scientific,	 and	Cultural	Organization	 (UNESCO),	“since	wars	begin	in	the	minds	of	men,	it	is	in	the	minds	of	men	that	the	defences	of	peace	must	be	 34  constructed”	(Constitution	of	the	United	Nations	Educational,	Scientific,	and	Cultural	Organization,	1945,	 p.	 pmbl.).	 UNESCO	 seeks	 this	 change	 through	 communication,	 cooperation,	 and	 cultural	exchange	 (Constitution	of	 the	United	Nations	Educational,	 Scientific,	 and	Cultural	Organization,	1945,	 p.	 Art.	 1(2)).	 The	 UN	 can	 be	 thought	 of	 as	 an	 organ	 of	 international	 peace,	 while	 the	Israeli/Palestine	Center	for	Research	and	Information	speaks	more	to	social	peace	and	the	Earth	Charter	to	ecological	peace.	However,	as	argued	below,	all	three	categories	of	peace	are	integrated	and	interdependent.			 A	movement	in	need	of	transition			Despite	the	many	downsides	of	bordered	PAs	(see	Chapter	1),	TBCAs	have	proliferated	around	the	world.		With	Dr.	Anton	Rupert,	President	Mandela,	and	other	political	elites	spearheading	the	PPF,	18	TBCAs,	which	are	known	as	TFCAs	in	southern	Africa,	have	been	in	development	post-apartheid	throughout	SADC	(Hanks	&	Myburgh,	2015).	 	 In	Europe,	 the	Federation	of	Nature	and	National	Parks	of	Europe	(EUROPARC)	hosts	a	transboundary	PA	network,	TransParcNet,	that	represents	10	TBCAs;	 the	Green	Belt	 Initiative	 is	 transforming	 the	 former	 ‘Iron	Curtain’	 into	an	ecological	network;	 and	 the	 Balkans	 are	 reconnecting	 through	 TBCAs	 (EUROPARC	 Federation,	 2017;	European	Green	Belt	Association,	2017).		Latin	America	also	features	connectivity	initiatives,	such	as	the	Mesoamerican	Biological	Corridor	which	houses	a	number	of	prominent	TBCAs,	including	Parque	 Internacional	La	Amistad	which	straddles	 two	States	 that	have	dissolved	 their	national	 35  armies,	and	the	world’s	first	TBCA	created	through	a	peace	agreement	between	Ecuador	and	Peru	(S.	H.	Ali,	2018;	Barquet,	2015).		According	to	the	WCMC,	in	2007	there	were	3,043	PAs	constituting	227	 TBCAs	 worldwide	 (Lysenko	 et	 al.,	 2007).	1 		 This	 number	 does	 not	 include	 the	 numerous	transboundary	 ICCAs	 (TBICCAs)	 that	 likely	 significantly	 outnumber	 State-to-State	 TBCA	collaborations.		The	TBCA	movement	seems	to	thrive	on	while	the	clamor	for	Parks	for	Peace	has	quieted.				Parks	for	Peace	were	especially	promoted	in	the	1990s	as	a	win-win	collaboration	for	nature	and	people	(Sandwith	et	al.,	2001;	Vasilijević	et	al.,	2015,	p.	xi;	Westing,	1993).		When	PPF	first	began	its	 mission	 to	 develop	 TFCAs	 throughout	 SADC,	 it	 used	 the	 terms	 TFCAs	 and	 Peace	 Parks	interchangeably	 (Hanks,	2017).	 	 Continuously	 challenged	by	PA-community	 conflicts	or	 lack	of	social	peace	 in	TFCAs,	PPF	has	distanced	 itself	 from	 this	practice	and	has	 clarified	 that	SADC’s	TBCAs	are	TFCAs	and	not	any	of	the	other	confusingly	interchanged	nomers	(e.g.,	Peace	Parks	or	Transboundary	Natural	Resource	Management	Areas)	(Hanks	&	Myburgh,	2015,	pp.	160,	163).		It	seems	peace	may	be	elusive	 for	TBCAs,	even	 in	Parks	 for	Peace.	 	As	 this	chapter	argues,	 this	 is	especially	true	if	we	consider	peace	through	the	lens	of	positive	peace	(Galtung,	1969),	and	apply	it	to	international	peace,	social	peace,	and	ecological	peace.		As	set	out	in	Chapter	1,	TBCA	scholarship	seems	to	agree	that	transboundary	conservation	does	not	contribute	to	peace	as	the	early	literature	on	environmental	peacebuilding	might	have	hoped	                                               1 As	noted	in	Chapter	1,	there	are	a	number	of	identifiable	errors	with	these	numbers.		They	are	cited	here	for	the	purposes	of	demonstrating	a	growing	trend	in	the	establishment	of	TBCAs.		  36  (Barquet	et	al.,	2014;	Sandwith	&	Besançon,	2010,	p.	232;	Wolmer,	2003,	p.	6).		The	Greater	Virunga	Transboundary	 Collaboration	 (GVTC)	 between	 the	 DRC,	 Rwanda,	 and	 Uganda	 has	 repeatedly	codified	its	aspirations	for	regional	peace	and	conflict	resolution	in	transboundary	Memorandums	of	Understanding	(MoUs)	and	Declarations,	but	cognizant	of	on-going	violence	in	the	region,	it	does	not	consider	the	GVL	to	be	a	Park	for	Peace	(Ruzigandekwe,	2017).		John	Hanks,	first	CEO	of	PPF,	concurred	that	“peace	comes	first”	and	that	it	would	be	impossible	to	get	TFCAs	up-and-running	between	 States	 that	 are	 still	 experiencing	 real	 conflict	 (Hanks,	 2017).	 	 This	 challenges	 the	environmental	 peacemaking	 theory	 of	 Conca	 &	 Dabelko	 amongst	 others,	 which	 argues	 that	transboundary	 natural	 resources	 management	 can	 serve	 as	 a	 ‘neutral’	 issue	 that	 can	 bring	conflicting	 parties	 to	 the	 table	 for	 wider	 dialogue	 (Waisová,	 2015,	 p.	 106).	 	 Environmental	cooperation	may	not	be	so	neutral	if	it	is	so	easily	derailed	by	‘higher	politics’	(Waisová,	2015,	p.	110).				Although	the	evidence	for	TBCAs	and	peace	is	bleak,	one	cannot	help	but	question:	is	it	that	Parks	for	Peace	or	TBCAs	cannot	be	effective	mechanisms	for	international,	social,	and	ecological	peace?		Or	is	it	that	they	have	not	yet	been	properly	designed	to	do	so?								 37   Integrated	peaces:	fundamentals				In	this	dissertation,	peace	is	understood	through	the	categories	of	international	peace,	social	peace,	and	ecological	peace,	and	the	concepts	of	positive	peace	vs.	negative	peace.	 	Positive	peace	and	negative	peace	derive	from	Johan	Galtung’s	theories	of	peace	and	conflict.		Galtung	describes	peace	not	 as	 the	 absence	 of	 conflict,	 but	 as	 the	 absence	 of	 violence	 and	 therefore,	 non-violent	transformation	of	conflict	(Galtung,	1996,	p.	9).		Violence	can	be	direct	(personal,	physical)	violence	or	indirect	(structural)	violence		(Galtung,	1969,	p.	171,	1990,	p.	291).		Indirect	violence	is	called	structural	violence	because	it	originates	from	social	structures	between	people,	between	groups	of	people	(societies),	and	between	groups	of	societies;	e.g.,	immigrant	children	die	from	poverty	attributable	to	labor	restrictions	(Galtung,	1996,	p.	2;	Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	p.	11).		Underlying	direct	and	indirect	violence	is	cultural	violence,	which	is	used	to	justify	all	other	violence.		Hence,	the	importance	of	strengthening	cultures	of	peace.		Negative	peace	is	the	absence	of	direct	violence,	while	positive	peace	 is	 the	 absence	or	overcoming	of	direct	 violence,	 as	well	 as	 structural	 and	cultural	violence	(Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	p.	11).		Legitimacy	and	justice	are	integral	to	positive	peace;	 hence,	 the	 importance	 of	 law	 in	 a	 culture	 of	 positive	 peace	 (Galtung,	 1996,	 pp.	 31–34;	Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011).		This	dissertation	utilizes	Galtung’s	fundamental	concepts	of	peace	in	all	three	categories	of	peace.				As	peace	 is	most	often	understood	 through	 its	 counterparts,	 conflict	 and	violence,	 and	 conflict	resolution	is	fundamental	to	peace,	it	is	still	useful	to	define	conflict.		Conflict,	according	to	Johan	 38  Galtung,	 is	 the	 full	 articulation	 of:	 (1)	 contradiction	 –	 disagreement	 in	 values	 or	 interests;	 (2)	attitudes/assumptions	–	cognitions	and	emotions	towards	each	other,	including	themselves;	and	(3)	behavior	–	actions,	which	can	be	destructive	or	constructive,	even	simultaneously	(Galtung,	1996,	 pp.	 71–72).	 	 Peace	 is	 not	 necessarily	 the	 absence	 of	 conflict;	 it	 is	 a	 response	 to	 conflict	formation	and	ranges	from	conflict	settlement	(negative	peace)	to	conflict	transformation	(positive	peace)	 (see	Figure	2-1	below)	 (Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	p.	10).	 	CCR	sees	 “conflict	 formations	arising	out	of	social	change,	leading	to	a	process	of	violent	or	non-violent	conflict	transformation,	and	resulting	in	further	social	change	in	which	hitherto	suppressed	or	marginalized	individuals	or	groups	 come	 to	 articulate	 their	 interests	 and	 challenge	 existing	 norms	 and	 power	 structures”	(Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	p.	25).		Conflict	resolution	seeks	to	“transform	(actually	or	potentially)	violent	conflict	into	peaceful	(non-violent)	processes	of	social	and	political	change”	(Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	p.	32).		This	search	for	social	change	and	transformation	of	norms	or	power	structures	could	also	be	seen	as	pursuit	of	justice.		At	each	stage	of	conflict,	there	is	transformative	potential	for	greater	justice	and	hence,	greater	peace.			 	 39  Figure	2-1	Overview	of	the	field	of	peace	and	conflict	studies			Conflict	escalation	and	de-escalation	is	sometimes	portrayed	as	an	hourglass	model	or	a	wave-like	cycle	of	conflict	(Figure	2-2)	(Lund,	2011;	Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	p.	14).	 	This	does	not	mean	that	 the	 stages	 of	 conflict	 are	 linear	 and	move	 up	 and	 down	 the	 hourglass	 or	 conflict	 cycle	 in	sequence;	in	fact,	in	CCR	it	is	recommended	that	during	de-escalation	all	of	the	conflict	resolution	tasks	are	initiated	simultaneously	and	nested	(Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	p.	14).					 	Conflict analysis/Assessmentof Conflict:ContextRelationshipDynamicsPeacekeeping:§Security§ Military Disengagement §Reduction of violence§Humanitarian assistancePeacemaking:§Negotiations§Mediation§Dialogue§Problem Solving WorkshopsPeacebuilding:§Development§Human Rights§Democratization§Civil Society§ReconstructionConflict Management Conflict Resolution Conflict TransformationConflict Prevention:Early warning;Peacemaintenance;Prevention ofnegative conflictNegative Peace Positive PeaceDeveloped by Dr. Amr Abdalla and the students of the course on Navigating Cultures for Peacebuilding. Eastern Mennonite University, Summer 2005.Overview of the field of Peace and Conflict StudiesViolent Conflict:Physical,Emotional,Structural,Etc. 40  Figure	2-2	Modeling	conflict:	the	“hourglass	model”	and	“cycle	of	conflict”			Table	2-1	below	provides	definitions	 for	each	of	 the	peace	and	conflict	 terms	appearing	 in	 the	hourglass	above	as	outlined	in	‘Contemporary	Conflict	Resolution:	The	Prevention,	Management	and	Transformation	of	Deadly	Conflicts’	(Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	pp.	30–32).		Table	2-1	Conflict	terminology	TERM	 DEFINITION	Conflict	 Pursuit	of	incompatible	goals	by	different	groups	Armed	conflict	 Conflict	where	parties	on	both	sides	resort	to	the	use	of	force	Violent	conflict	 Similar	 to	 armed	 conflict,	 but	 includes	 one-sided	 violence	 (direct,	physical	violence)	Conflict	settlement	 Reaching	of	an	agreement	between	the	parties	 to	settle	a	political	conflict,	so	forestalling	or	ending	an	armed	conflict	Conflict	containment	 Peacekeeping	 and	 war	 limitation	 (geographical	 constraint,	mitigation	 and	 alleviation	 of	 intensity,	 and	 termination	 at	 the	earliest	opportunity)	Conflict	management	 Settlement	 and	 containment	 of	 violent	 conflict;	 Positive	 conflict	handling	Conflict	resolution	 Deep-rooted	 sources	 of	 conflict	 are	 addressed	 and	 transformed;	Behavior	is	no	longer	violent,	attitudes	are	no	longer	hostile	and	the	structure	of	the	conflict	has	changed	DifferenceContradictionPolarizationViolenceWARCeasefireAgreementNormalizationReconciliationConflict transformationConflict settlementConflict containmentConflict settlementConflict transformationCultural peacebuildingStructural peacebuildingPeacemakingPeacekeepingWar limitationPeacekeepingPeacemakingStructural peacebuildingCultural peacebuildlingFigure 1.3 The hourglass model: conflict containment, conflict settlement and conflict transformation (O. Ramsbotham, T. Woodhouse & H. Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution, 2011). 41  Conflict	transformation	 Deepest	 levels	 of	 cultural	 and	 structural	 peacebuilding;	 Deep	transformation	 in	 the	 institutions	 and	 discourses	 that	 reproduce	violence,	 as	 well	 as	 in	 the	 conflict	 parties	 themselves	 and	 their	relationships	Contemporary	 conflict	resolution	Where	 conflict	 transformation	 becomes	 manifest	 across	 global	cultures,	linking	the	personal,	societal,	global	and	ecological	spheres	Negotiation	 Process	whereby	parties	seek	to	settle	or	resolve	their	conflicts	Mediation	 Involves	the	intervention	of	a	3rd	party;	voluntary	process	in	which	parties	retain	control	over	the	outcome	Conciliation	 or	facilitation	Intermediary	 efforts	 to	 encourage	 parties	 to	 move	 towards	negotiations	Problem-solving	 Parties	invited	to	reconceptualize	the	conflict	with	a	view	to	finding	creative	win-win	outcomes	Reconciliation	 Longer-term	process	of	overcoming	hostility	and	mistrust	between	divided	peoples	Peacemaking	 Moving	 towards	 settlement	 of	 armed	 conflict,	 where	 parties	 are	induced	 to	 reach	 agreement	 voluntarily;	 Aims	 to	 change	 the	attitudes	of	the	main	protagonists	Peacekeeping	 Interposition	of	 international	armed	 forces	 to	 separate	 the	armed	forces	 of	 belligerents;	 can	 include	 monitoring	 and	 policing	 and	supporting	 humanitarian	 interventions;	 Lowers	 the	 level	 of	destructive	behavior	Peace-enforcement	 Imposition	of	a	settlement	by	a	powerful	3rd	party	Peacebuilding	 Addresses	 structural	 issues	 and	 long-term	 relationships	 between	conflicts;	underpins	peacemaking	and	peacekeeping	by	seeking	 to	overcome	the	contradictions	which	lie	at	the	root	of	the	conflict	Source:	(Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	pp.	31–32)				This	study	seeks	to	understand	how	TBCA	legal	agreements	have	addressed	conflict	management,	resolution,	and	transformation	in	terms	of	international	peace,	social	peace,	and	ecological	peace.		The	sections	(2.2.1	–	2.2.3)	below	explain	what	is	understood	by	each	of	these	three	categories	of	peace	and	how	they	interrelate.			 42  2.3.1 International	peace			2.3.1.1 Early	conflict	studies:	symptoms	and	remedies	for	war	between	States				International	peace	refers	to	conflict,	peace,	and	security	between	States.	 	 International	conflict	describes	 a	 level	 of	 conflict	 (inter-state	 vs.	 intra-state	 or	 individual/group/State),	 but	 it	 also	reflects	 the	nature	of	 conflict	 (e.g.,	 two	governments	directly	 in	 conflict	 vs.	 one	 government	 in	conflict	with	a	sub-national	group,	even	if	the	sub-national	group	is	being	supported	by	another	government).	 	 The	 European	 peace	 education	 and	 research	 agenda	 of	 the	 early	 1900s	 saw	international	 peace	 as	 a	 subset	 of	 international	 relations	 and	 international	 security	 primarily	occupied	with	external	threats	to	a	State	(Barash	&	Webel,	2014,	pp.	23–24;	Commission	on	Human	Security,	2003,	p.	3).		Its	method	to	understanding	peace	was	through	the	study	of	international	dynamics	(Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	p.	37).				Formal	peace	studies	programs	established	in	1930-31	in	France	and	Germany	amidst	widespread	international	violence	underpinned	by	extreme	cultural	violence	and	elusive	peace	emphasized	the	 need	 to	 understand	 the	 causes	 of	war	 as	 part	 of	 a	 strategy	 to	 cure	 the	 disease	 of	war	 by	understanding	 its	 symptoms	 (social,	 political	 or	 economic	 factors)	 and	 in	 order	 to	 propose	 its	remedies	(mechanisms	or	conditions	for	peace)	(Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	pp.	37–38).		Thus,	the	 43  focus	 has	 been	 on	 conflict	 which	 can	 be	 quantified	 (e.g.,	 armed	 conflicts	 are	 defined	 as	 those	producing	 25+	 deaths	 a	 year),	 categorized	 (e.g.,	 international,	 civil,	 protracted,	 major,	 etc.),	mapped	(e.g.,	Peace	Research	Institute	Oslo	–	PRIO	–	dataset	of	conflict	sites),	and	analyzed	for	emerging	patterns	or	hotspots	(See	Dittrich	Hallberg,	2012;	Uppsala	Conflict	Data	Program,	2017).		Current	measures	of	violent	conflict	include	interstate	war	and	MIDs,	indicating	continued	value	in	understanding	 the	 state	of	 international	peace.	 	Even	 internationalized	 internal	 conflicts	are	measured	as	on	the	rise	with	2016	being	the	deadliest	in	the	last	decade	(Institute	for	Economics	and	Peace,	2017,	p.	49).			A	focus	on	interstate	war,	MIDs,	or	even	internationalized	internal	armed	conflicts	reflects	only	negative	international	peace	–	direct	violence	between	States.		It	prioritizes	“threat	power”	over	“integrative	power”	or	“exchange	power”	(Ramsbotham	et	al.,	2011,	pp.	269–270).	 	A	transition	towards	 positive	 international	 peace	 would	 have	 to	 look	 at	 cultural	 and	 structural	 relations,	legitimacy,	and	justice	between	States	as	well.		In	this	process,	Galtung	references	four	discourses	of	 power	 –	 cultural,	 economic,	military	 and	political	 (Galtung,	 1996).	 	 In	 positive	 international	peace,	 non-violent	 exercises	 of	 these	 four	 powers	 must	 prevail.	 	 Some	 indicators	 could	 be:	abundance	of	 cultural	 exchange	 (e.g.,	 study/work	abroad,	 tourism)	 and	mutual	understanding;	trade	 relations	 and	 economic	 harmonization;	 participation	 in	 regional	 institutions	 (e.g.,	Association	of	South	East	Asian	Nations	–	ASEAN,	African	Union	–	AU,	European	Union	–	EU,	UN),	currencies	and	 legal	harmonization;	demilitarization	and	 joint	alternative	security	cooperation;	level	of	diplomatic	relations	and	movement	of	people	between	States	(for	employment,	habitation,	or	tourism);	etc.		Positive	international	peace	is	not	just	about	disarmament	and	the	end	of	warfare,	 44  it	is	about	international	cooperation	and	global	well-being.			2.3.1.2 Challenges	of	international	peace	for	TBCAs			Allegedly,	 TBCAs	 provide	 a	 collaborative	 opportunity	 for	 adjacent	 States	 to	 promote	 greater	positive	 international	peace.	 	Protagonists	of	TBCAs	and	Parks	for	Peace	suggest	that	they	help	create	 a	 “habit	 of	 cooperation”	 in	 areas	 of	 mutual	 interest	 that	 can	 spread	 to	 other	 areas	 of	potential	contest	(Barquet	et	al.,	2014,	p.	3;	Conca	&	Dabelko,	2002).	 	This	can	serve	to	resolve	border	disputes	or	conflicts	in	borderlands,	including	reconciling	divided	States	(e.g.,	North	and	South	 Korea)	 (Barquet	 et	 al.,	 2014,	 pp.	 2–3).	 	 Ide’s	 review	 of	 empirical	 studies	 linking	environmental	 cooperation	and	peace	concludes	 that	 “environmental	 cooperation	can	 facilitate	the	absence	of	violent	conflict	and	symbolic	rapprochement.		Such	a	link	is	most	likely	to	be	driven	by	common	institutions	and	the	build-up	of	trust	and	understanding	but	highly	dependent	on	a	number	of	contextual	factors”	(Ide,	2018,	p.	3).				Ideally	TBCAs	can	foment	positive	peace	indicators,	such	as	cross-border	economies	and	livelihood	systems,	social	and	cultural	exchange,	long-term	bioregional	planning	and	integrated	security	that	promote	 interdependence,	and	arguably,	more	peaceful	relations	(Barquet	et	al.,	2014,	pp.	2–3;	Conca	 &	 Dabelko,	 2002;	 Oneal,	 Oneal,	Maoz,	 &	 Russett,	 1996).	 	Whether	 or	 not	 this	 is	 true	 is	important	as	conflict	occurs	more	often	between	neighboring	States	and	the	liberal	peace	theory	 45  of	economic	 interdependence	 is	highly	 contested	 (Biebari,	1996;	Brochmann,	Rød,	&	Gleditsch,	2012).			Unfortunately,	as	noted	in	Chapter	1,	evidence	that	TBCAs	contribute	to	peace	is	scarce.		Although	the	Barquet	et	al.	study	provided	weak	evidence	that	the	establishment	of	TBCAs	prevents	future	conflicts,	the	overall	effect	of	TBCAs	on	MIDs	was	not	statistically	significant	(Ide,	2018,	p.	7).			In	Africa,	Asia,	and	the	Middle	East,	there	was	some	long-term	(i.e.,	10	years	or	more)	correlation	to	fewer	MIDs	(Barquet	et	al.,	2014,	p.	8).		The	significance	of	this	coincidence	may	be	attributable	to	the	pre-existing	level	of	cross-border	integration	that	is	required	to	establish	a	TBCA	and	to	on-going	good	relations	that	enable	the	continuity	of	transboundary	conservation	activities,	rather	than	the	assumption	that	the	transboundary	collaboration	is	driving	peace	between	the	States.		In	other	words,	again,	TBCAs	require	peace	and	cooperative	relations.				The	significance	of	the	Barquet	et	al.	findings	may	also	be	heavily	skewed.		The	study	is	problematic	in	that	they	identify	11,141	TBCAs	that	are	not	all	TBCAs	in	the	strict	sense	according	to	the	IUCN	definition.		There	is	no	evidence	that	they	exhibit	the	critical	element	of	cross-border	collaboration;	meaning	that	nearly	11,000	of	them	are	likely	merely	border-adjacent	PAs.		The	number	of	TBCAs	included	 in	 Barquet	 et	 al.’s	 study	 is	 probably	 heavily	 overstated	 (10,914	 more	 than	 the	 227	identified	by	the	UNEP-WCMC)	and	thereby,	the	weak	correlation	they	did	find	towards	greater	long-term	peace	in	Africa,	Asia	and	the	Middle	East	is	likely	also	overstated.		Many	of	the	TBCAs	identified	 in	 the	 study	 do	 not	 represent	 instances	 in	 which	 formerly	 antagonistic	 States	 have	cooperated	 to	 coordinate	 transboundary	 governance	 of	 adjacent	 PAs.	 	 They	 could	 just	 be	 46  illustrative	of	States	expanding	domestic	PAs	which	happen	to	be	near	international	borders	(less-occupied	remote	territories)	and	may	even	be	a	strategic	maneuver.		The	establishment	of	PAs	in	borderlands	 provides	 opportunity	 to	 strengthen	 government	 presence	 and	 infrastructure,	including	 security,	 and	 establishes	 a	 buffer	 to	 strengthen	 national	 defense	 and	 withdraw	vulnerable	populations	from	areas	that	could	come	under	attack		(Duffy,	2001;	Wolmer,	2003,	p.	7;	Ybarra,	2012).			Lack	 of	 progress	 in	 a	 number	 of	 long-standing	 TBCA	 proposals	 (e.g.,	 K2-Siachen,	 North-South	Korea	DMZ,	Israel-Palestine)	indicate	that	TBCAs	are	rarely	useful	to	resolve	international	conflicts	and	 generally	 require	 international	 peace	 as	 a	 pre-requisite	 (Waisová,	 2015;	 See	 Ide,	 2018).		Appendix	I	provides	a	list	of	the	TBCAs	covered	in	this	research	with	both	the	dates	of	their	first	transboundary	legal	agreement	and	last	known	inter-state	war,	according	to	the	Correlates	of	War	dataset	and	UPCD’s	conflict	data.		Where	both	dates	are	available,	it	is	clear	that	all	of	the	TBCA	legal	agreements	followed	many	years	after	the	last	inter-state	war	where	the	countries	involved	were	on	opposing	sides	(Sarkees	&	Wayman,	2010).				As	Wolmer	noted	at	 the	2003	World	Parks	Congress	 in	Durban,	 “It	 seems	wistful	 thinking	 that	TBCAs	are	likely	to	be	anything	other	than	a	very	low	priority	for	governments	in	actual	conflict	situations”	(Wolmer,	2003,	p.	6).		Even	Barquet	et	al.	note	that	“states	that	have	been	involved	in	fatal	MIDs	are	not	more	likely	to	establish	TBPAs.		This	may	be	because	environmental	cooperation	tends	to	be	initiated	when	conflicts	are	not	intense”	(Barquet	et	al.,	2014,	p.	8).		Annex	I’s	simple	comparison	 of	 dates	 does	 not	 include	 the	 spectrum	 of	 conflicts	 that	 arise	 between	 States.		 47  Therefore,	 it	 does	 not	 definitively	 conclude	 that	 TBCAs	 are	 only	 established	 in	 times	 of	 peace	between	States,	but	it	does	imply	that	as	other	scholars	have	noted,	they	do	not	occur	when	there	is	significant	violent	conflict	between	the	parties.		In	 some	 instances,	 the	process	of	 establishing	 a	TBCA	may	even	 raise	 tensions	over	 territorial	issues	and	destabilize	negative	peace	between	States	(e.g.,	Pamir	Peace	Park)	(Wolmer,	2003,	p.	5).		Some	 TBCA	 practitioners	 have	 noted	 that	 the	 TBCA	meetings,	which	 are	 typically	 intended	 to	harmonize	environmental	governance	in	the	land/sea-scape,	can	be	co-opted	by	higher	political	conflicts,	thereby	stalling	environmental	co