Protracted conflicts and local peacebuilding: living between war and peace

In some parts of the world, wars never really end; they change shape. 13 of the 243 conflicts that have occurred since the end of the Second World War remained active for over 35 years. While this number may appear modest, what stands out is not how many such conflicts exist, but how persistent and resistant to resolution they have proven to be. Peace talks have come and gone, yet violence keeps flaring up..  Think of Georgia–Abkhazia, Cyprus, Western Sahara, or Transnistria: long-running disputes where “peace” often means a tense pause rather than a real resolution.

These conflicts pose a unique challenge for peacebuilding, as time reshapes identities, fuels new grievances, and blurs the line between war and peace. Over time, the conflict becomes part of everyday life, unfolding within unresolved tension. Therefore, they challenge traditional peacebuilding approaches, demanding new, long-term strategies rooted in people’s lived realities.

Peacebuilding when peace is frozen

When institutional peace processes stall or fail, people are left to cope with the daily realities of living within the conflict. Finding peace often starts with fixing the small, everyday problems that conflict creates. Daily life becomes a lens through which to understand politics: the bridge between the local and the global, the personal and the political. Feminist scholars have long reminded us that war doesn’t just happen on battlefields or in boardrooms. It also happens in kitchens, schools, and family routines; reshaping the rhythms of home and the sense of safety that holds communities together. In long-running conflicts, like those in Georgia and Abkhazia, peace is rarely a clear endpoint. It’s an ongoing effort, a way of coping, rebuilding, and reimagining what coexistence can look like when “normal” has been suspended for decades.

Everyday peace in the Georgia-Abkhazia context

The Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, which sparked in the 1990s, forces communities to adapt to a state of low-intensity yet persistent uncertainty. In the Gal/i district, residents emphasised that “peace is when we trust each other”. Despite the conflict, people still work together, share daily spaces, and rely on one another for basic needs. That’s the core of everyday peace, built through relationships and mutual reliance, not just political deals.

Throughout the years, many civil society organisations (CSOs) have stepped in to reduce harm and keep dialogue alive. Their strength lies in trust. While formal diplomacy remains distant, local actors operate within existing relationships, making dialogue more credible and less politicised. Some organisations focus on displaced people and conflict-affected communities, while others work to identify shared needs and evolving priorities among communities divided by the Administrative Border Line. Many prepare people for dialogue by first hosting separate discussions – on the conflict’s roots, key actors, and personal experiences – before bringing groups together.. Other organisations ensure that local needs are represented in peace talks, bolster civic engagement, and promote inclusive participation in dialogue.

These initiatives show that in frozen conflicts, peace often grows from the bottom up. Everyday peace initiatives, especially grassroots and community-driven ones,  become one of the most viable ways to address structural causes of conflict. This is because the local level remains active: people are still facing the conflict, still living it daily. Being engaged in peace and reconciliation activities opens up spaces for empowerment and agency, while serving as a crucial site for social transformation.

Peace as a continuous story

Protracted conflicts challenge traditional understandings of peacebuilding as a linear, goal-oriented process. In these contexts, peace is cultivated within the lived realities of those navigating the uncertainty of everyday life.

Supporting everyday peace initiatives means investing in the social infrastructure of peace through forms of cooperation that sustain coexistence when institutions fail. International actors may focus on negotiations and formal agreements, but much of the real work happens elsewhere: in schools, community centres, clinics, and marketplaces where collaboration develops. The lesson from protracted conflicts such as Georgia–Abkhazia is that peace is built through small, everyday interactions, acts of cooperation and trust that keep the peace process alive.