Description
‘Zonation’ is a practice frequently suggested and used for conflict management, especially in the context of large-scale human rights abuses. Research on this topic spans into military intervention, political geography, and foreign policy decision-making. What is often ignored, however, is how similar different such ‘zones’ are, whether naval zones, safe havens/safe areas, no-fly zones or buffer zones. Based on case studies from Bosnia, Libya and Syria, I suggest that these tools share crucial characteristics: for one, they are all used to control clearly demarcated theaters (“zones”) in conflict regions. However, I argue that zonation addresses the interests of conflict managers (including political and military decision-makers) in ordering and governing seemingly chaotic or “unruly” environments from afar with sufficiently flexible and cheap means, rather than those of to-be-protected populations. Although the resulting imposition of zones does have concrete consequences – e.g. walls, fences, checkpoints, different rules of engagement, and so forth -, order resulting from zonation is often simulated and superficial rather than effectual. This is because it neglects the realities of conflictual dynamics, hierarchies of control and even geography on the ground. Finally, I map out ways in which conceptualizing zonation can contribute to better decision-making about conflict management.
