Localization in peacebuilding, development, and humanitarian work is grounded on the claim that principles of both justice and effectiveness demand a transfer of power from international to local actors, and thus a change in the current donor–recipient relationship and the way international cooperation works and is structured. Like any transfer of power, this creates opportunities and provokes resistance. This article conducts a structured analysis of secondary literature and publicly available contributions from Southern practitioners to identify obstacles to localization in peacebuilding and explore concrete entry points for mitigating them. The mitigation strategies seek to rectify persistent power imbalances between international and local actors in the peacebuilding field. The article's focus on practical steps toward localization helps to overcome the stuckness of the debate in the peacebuilding literature and move beyond the mere criticism of neoliberal peacebuilding. The article paves the way toward a third local turn in peacebuilding, which concentrates on how to achieve localization in everyday peacebuilding, focusing on its more radical, decolonial implications and avoiding the neutralizing effects of the incumbent, technocratic approach to peacebuilding.

Civil society is generally seen as an important actor in peace processes. But when it comes to reaching an agreement during peace negotiations, much of the current debate is centered on the question of including or excluding civil society. Although most researchers argue that civil society participation makes the process more sustainable and democratic, most practitioners emphasize that enhanced civil society participation makes it more difficult to reach a peace agreement. I argue that practitioners and theorists must both move beyond this dichotomy and, instead, focus on the variety of ways in which civil society actors can be included in a given negotiation process. To this end, I present in this article a comprehensive overview of nine models of inclusion, from most to least direct involvement of civil society, supported by illustrative case studies. Analysis of these models suggests that it will be possible to broaden the participation of civil society in peace negotiations without decreasing the negotiations' effectiveness.