I’m Deniz Ataman, an MA student in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Kent, UK. As part of my internship, I helped organise the Conflict Research Society (CRS) Conference in September 2025. In this post, I share my experiences from the conference and insights from interviews with both a peace practitioner and an academic for the Global Souths Hub.

In Canterbury, history feels alive. The stone-paved streets, weathered wooden shop signs, and the towering Canterbury Cathedral all evoke a vivid sense of time’s continuum. When I first arrived at the University of Kent in late September 2024 to begin my MA in Peace and Conflict Studies, I looked out from the hilltop campus toward the city. Standing there, I couldn’t help but reflect on the vast sweep of human history and how events from centuries ago continue to shape the world, and even my own experience, today.

Searching for Legitimacy Inside the Practice – The Academia Gap

This, in my opinion, was the key lesson from the three-day Conflict Research Society’s (CRS) 62th Annual Conference, held in September 2025 exploring the theme of Legitimacy in Conflict and Peace. Legitimacy is central to today’s major conflicts, including in Sudan, Gaza, and Ukraine. It shapes whether conflicts escalate or move toward resolution, influencing peace processes, governance, and post-conflict recovery. As an intern in the organisation of it, I witnessed the rhythm of the dynamic conference programme, and the spirit being created with each discussion that was taking place. And the lesson, for me, was that legitimacy in peacekeeping can only be actualised through real world impact.

The first event of the Conference, CRS’s public roundtable, was a conversation on the legitimacy of peacekeeping in today’s uncertain times. It sparked a very interesting discussion that would linger throughout the conference. Some participants felt that the international humanitarian law framework that we have been operating within, is now effectively dead. They suggested it has been eroded by acts of exceptionalism and by politicians sidelining supposedly authoritative institutions — reducing the framework to little more than a “lip-service” concept. Others, however, contended that maintaining a shared framework remains essential. It is necessary for us to identify the cracks in the system like detecting the holes on the hull of the ship, and even to decide ‘where’ to go from where we are. To abandon it entirely, they warned, would be to give up.

While academic discussions were taking place; the reality that the legitimacy of ‘peacekeeping’ and ‘conflict resolution’ ultimately rests on our ability to bring about meaningful change, was brought sharply into focus during the final moments of the public roundtable session. It came from a strong spirited woman. She explained that she was a relief and development practitioner based in Lebanon. She went on to challenge ‘academic structures’, and to confront some uncomfortable realities of conflict zones — from politicians not keeping their promises to peacekeepers acting on differing agendas.

At that moment I thought to myself: This conference can help. I could learn about the realities of conflict zones, and have a chance to connect with people that have an impact on conflict politics.

With ‘legitimacy’ as the overarching theme, every discussion seemed to circle back to the question: ‘how do we convey this into reality?’. During the first ‘Keynote’, Professor Ismene Gizelis (University of Essex) answered precisely this question. Ismene focused on how the varying dynamics of each different conflict, such as the management of the conflict, development efforts and degree of violence that has occurred; determines and dictates how the peace should be built for that particular situation. The second Keynote however, took the academia-practice gap further.

When the Going gets Tough, Sometimes we Have to Draw a Line… Literally

The Conflict Research Society (CRS) awarded its Book of the Year, to Adam Lichtenheld our second keynote speaker, for his book, Guilt by Location: Forced Displacement and Population Sorting in Civil Wars. Adam is an Assistant Professor in Peace Studies, Conflict Resolution, and International Relations at the Institute of Security and Global Affairs at Leiden. The book investigates both the causes and consequences of displacement. Lichtenheld researched how military organisations, whether state military or armed groups, use forced displacement to distinguish civilians from combatants, friends from enemies, and the loyal from the disloyal.

One of the most striking takeaways was the contrast between academic discovery and military practice. Lichtenheld’s work was drawn from years of research, detecting, observing, and assembling evidence into an award winning book. But what he and other similarly experienced scholars were discussing was essentially describing what organised state armies, see as routine and simply ordinary standard practice. One academic even recalled a time when he consulted a military official about forced displacement, the official was almost surprised about the inquiry. For state armies – alongside paramilitary groups or militias – the use of forced displacement was simply part of standard military activity. This contrast was a reminder of just how far academic research can sometimes be removed from the lived realities of conflict.

The Perspectives of a Practitioner and an Academic 

At the end of the conference, I spoke to the practitioner from Lebanon, Claude Samaha and a young PhD candidate from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Malaika Newsome-Magadza. Claude Samaha was the strong spirited woman who spoke up earlier during the rountable. I asked them about their background, their thoughts on the conference, and their views on the roundtable discussion on the current state of international humanitarian law.

Claude Samaha holds a PhD degree in Social Anthropology, and is the Research Manager in Basmeh – Zeitooneh, a Refugee Lead Organisation, which is spread across Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iraq. 

For Claude, the relatively small size of the conference and its organisational structure made socialising easier: “After two days, I had a feeling I knew almost everyone, and every panel was full, you could always find a paper you were interested in”. 

By comparison, Malaika Newsome-Magadza was a young academic, whose work focuses on Zimbabwe, decolonisation and conflict. She had presented her work (The Mission: Establishing the Legitimacy for Armed Resistance within Religious Schools, in 1970s Rhodesia, Zimbabwe) covering the mechanisms of radicalisation of children in religious schools, as part of the panel “Historicising Legitimacy”. 

Both of them noted how participants from different fields provided a valuable channel for communication through the workshop sessions. Malaika reflected on this through her experience at the African Adaptation workshop: “It was a bit confusing, because you had so many people working on different things in Africa. That was why I went to some of the panels to find out more. For example, I attended one on food. I don’t work on that topic, but the way that different researchers on different topics came together felt amazing”. 

Claude offered a slightly different perspective: “These conferences are very academic, right — you are mostly talking to other academics. I couldn’t find many practitioners here. It would be valuable to expose the students and PhD’s to real practice. Research and fieldwork in academia — you miss a lot of the practical perspective. What is really important is bringing the academic and the practice sides together”. 

This gave me the perfect opportunity to ask about her speech during the public roundtable, and about peacekeeping results in the field. Claude answered that as a practitioner, you sometimes see that peacekeeping operations create the very problems that they are meant to solve, simply because they do not understand the context. “While these organisations do engage with communities and seek input, the responses can occasionally feel more aligned with external expectations than with genuine local needs. They mostly just tell the people what they want to hear, as they usually have their own agenda. The programmes should be designed inside the country and they should take into consideration what’s happening within the country.”

Claude went on to explain that donors and INGO’s often do not understand or try to ignore the RLO’s (Refugee Led Organisations): “There are a lot of compliance and regulatory requirements for RLO’s making it difficult for us to access funding. As practitioners, we end up wasting valuable time trying to meet these requirements instead of focusing on work. What makes RLO’s different is that they are initiated, and directed by refugees themselves—hence the term “Refugee-Led Organisations”.

Holding on or Letting go: Rethinking the Normative Framework of Peacekeeping

This provided a convenient segue to my next question, about the situation of international humanitarian law: during the conference discussions, some argued that it is now defunct and inoperable, and the normative framework of peacekeeping has collapsed, while others believe a common shared framework is essential and fundamental. 

Claude took a pragmatic view: “Antonio Gotheres said something similar, that the UN needs to be reset. We need structural reform, improvements and greater efficiency to make the UN fit for today’s challenges. We must also find new ways of serving people. I think he said this as part of the UN80 initiative, and I truly believe that he is right. We need to remember, the UN system was not created for the Global South, but for the West, and originally for the people of Europe.”

She further added: “I understand the need for a global governance structure, but so far the system has failed. We must find new ways of working. The UN should have stronger mechanisms to enforce its decisions. As long as veto powers can block action, the system is pulled in too many directions and cannot function effectively.”

Malaika put a lot of thought into her answer: “Ascribing responsibility and power to an existing system is a way of both recognising its flaws and reinforcing its importance. But it is equally important to recognise that the principles behind the system still matter. The fact that we still continue to speak about the principles of that system is a measure of its worth, if nothing else.

“For me, the real danger is losing hope. International accountability is dead when we say it is. The moment we declare the system defunt, we allow the goalposts shift. We need to preserve the normative frameworks, so we can focus our attention on addressing its flaws and looking for solutions. If we give up entirely, the practitioners and states will stop holding each other accountable, forcing us to rebuild from scratch. Academia, in particular, must become more proactive, less theoretical and learn from activists by defending and redirecting the very system that we work within.”

Slow Sailing Into Future – With Fresh Winds

For my last question, I asked them both about next year’s conference. Malaika said she would like to come even without knowing what the theme is: “Seeing presenters I wouldn’t normally associate with this topic made me think, maybe I should also try to engage with other fields.”

Claude added something that really compliments the academics’ point: “I have met a lot of interesting people. I was exposed to new theories, concepts, and words. I come from a practitioner background, so it is really interesting to see how academics express the same issues we are working on with academic words and how they link to theories and methods. I believe that if we really work together we can merge the academic and the practitioner side. If this happened it would have a huge impact.”

For me, the conference felt like an extended lecture series delivered by numerous academics, due to the excellent programming and interlinking and interweaving conversations that took place. Each discussion was grounded in years of research and multiple books and articles. What I took away was that the legitimacy of the peacekeeping and conflict resolution field depends on how closely it connects with real life.

I left the conference with new insights, a renewed appreciation for how challenging it is to organise such events, and a refreshed motivation to stay involved. I’m already looking forward to next year’s conference— who knows, maybe next time I’ll be on a panel myself.

*The people in the CRS public roundtable picture above include: Miranda Hurst, UK Director, Policy and Advocacy, Mercy Corps Teresa Dumasy, Director, Research, Advisory and Policy Department, Conciliation Resources Govinda Clayton, Mediation Support Manager (and ceasefire expert), Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Chair : Larry Attree, Senior Adviser, Principles for Peace, and Academic Outreach, Rethinking Security.