This book presents a critical analysis of the liberal peace project and offers possible alternatives and models.In the past decade, with the assumption that conflict-prone societies pose a threat to international security and stability, peacebuilding has increasingly become merged with the securitization agenda. The model used for reconstructing societies after conflicts has been based on 'open markets' and 'open societies', which are supposed to ensure long-lasting development and act as a de facto security strategy of conflict prevention. With this rationale, (re)building of viable institutions, often based on generic Western models, has become a priority, and an end in itself. The main argument of this book is that failures in the liberal peace project are not due to efficiency problems related to its adaptation in adverse local environments, but need to be sought in the contradictions and assumptions that exist within the model itself.Combining theoretical discussions with empirical evidence from key post-conflict settings, the aims of the book are: (1) to explain the contradictions in the model of liberal peace, in both theory and application; (2) to use case studies to show evidence of the incompatibility of externally led models and their applications in local settings; and (3) to propose alternatives to address not only questions of the efficiency of peacebuilding operations but also questions of legitimacy. The point of departure for this work is an ethical concern for the legitimacy of liberal peace as the best model for peacebuilding and statebuilding.This book will be of great interest to students of peacebuilding/peacekeeping, statebuilding, war and conflict studies, international security and IR.