The research area Institutions is based on the thesis of de-institutionalization of violence and deals with the ambivalence of international institutions: On the one hand they contain the use of violence but on the other hand also justify its use.
In addition to a historical analysis, this research area conducts empirical research on the role of international organizations. Furthermore, researchers explore how institutional arrangements can best be designed in order to capture new forms of political violence. Since 2026, researchers in this area also focus on studying violence in the context of the evolving international architecture of peace and security.
The most relevant publications from research area Institutions are compiled on the “Highlights” publications page.
The current research focus Violence in the Context of International Peace and Security examines how armed conflicts and political violence are shaped, regulated, and justified within the architecture and practices of international peace and security. Researchers analyze both historical and contemporary dynamics in the institutions, norms, and practices that constrain or enable violence. They also examine how the shifting boundaries between conflict and peace affect the management of political violence. Additionally, they explore how new actors, technologies, and new forms of warfare challenge existing international peace and security policy frameworks. The researchers focus on hybrid warfare, new and dual-use technologies, informal norm-building processes, legal justifications for the use of force, and institutional responses to colonial violence, postwar territorial administration, and competing conceptions of peace. Across these themes, researchers trace how practices of violence, accountability, and peacebuilding are renegotiated in changing political and institutional contexts.
The work package Intervention and Prohibition in the Context of De-Colonization takes a historical approach. Researchers examine how interventions in Latin America after 1800 were justified or prohibited, with a primary focus on the Monroe Doctrine and its interpretations.
The work package Justification of External Intervention as a Process of Problematic Normalization of Violence analyzes the causes and consequences of the “normalization” of violence caused by new interpretations of the UN prohibition on the use of force. Researchers also explore the institutional containment of violence as wall as the exceptions that have enabled the use of violence over the past two decades.
The work package Containment of New Violent Actors examines the interplay between international humanitarian law and human rights. Researchers investigate the extent to which institutional mechanisms for containing political violence are now only partially effective due to the emergence of new violent actors, how boundaries between different types of conflict are blurred, and how to respond to these changes. Additionally, they analyze how international organizations approach and pacify new violent actors in the context of peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities.