Peace and conflict studies is both a pedagogical activity, in which teachers transmit knowledge to students; and a research activity, in which researchers create new knowledge about the sources of conflict.[3] Peace and conflict studies entails understanding the concept of peace which is defined as political condition that ensures justice and social stability through formal and informal institutions, practices, and norms.[4]
As pedagogical activity
Academics and students in the world's oldest universities have long been motivated by an interest in peace. American student interest in what we today think of as peace studies first appeared in the form of campus clubs at United States colleges in the years immediately following the American Civil War. Similar movements appeared in Sweden in the last years of the 19th century, as elsewhere soon after. These were student-originated discussion groups, not formal courses included in college curricula. The first known peace studies course in higher education was offered in 1888 at Swarthmore College, a Quaker school.
Introduction of peace
The First World War was a turning point in Western attitudes to war. At the 1919 Peace of Paris—where the leaders of France, Britain, and the United States, led by Georges Clemenceau, David Lloyd George, and Woodrow Wilson respectively, met to decide the future of Europe—Wilson proposed his famous Fourteen Points for peacemaking. These included breaking up European empires into nation states and the establishment of the League of Nations. These moves, intended to ensure a peaceful future, were the background to a number of developments in the emergence of Peace and Conflict Studies as an academic discipline. The founding of the first chair in International Relations at Aberystwyth University, Wales, whose remit was partly to further the cause of peace, occurred in 1919.
Indiana's Manchester College was one of the first institutions to offer a major in peace studies.
After World War II, the founding of the UN system provided a further stimulus for more rigorous approaches to peace and conflict studies to emerge. Many university courses in schools of higher learning around the world began to develop which touched upon questions of peace, often in relation to war, during this period. The first undergraduate academic program in peace studies in the United States was developed in 1948 by Gladdys Muir, at Manchester University a liberal arts college associated with the Church of the Brethren.[5] It was not until the late 1960s in the United States that student concerns about the Vietnam War forced ever more universities to offer courses about peace, whether in a designated peace studies course or as a course within a traditional major. Work by academics such as Johan Galtung and John Burton, and debates in fora such as the Journal of Peace Research in the 1960s reflected the growing interest and academic stature of the field.[6] Growth in the number of peace studies programs around the world was to accelerate during the 1980s, as students became more concerned about the prospects of nuclear war. As the Cold War ended, peace and conflict studies courses shifted their focus from international conflict[7] and towards complex issues related to political violence, human security, democratisation, human rights, social justice, welfare, development, and producing sustainable forms of peace. A proliferation of international organisations, agencies and international NGOs, from the UN, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, European Union, and World Bank to International Crisis Group, International Alert, and others, began to draw on such research.[8]
Critical theory agendas relating to positive peace in European academic contexts were already widely debated in the 1960s.[9] By the mid-1990s peace studies curricula in the United States had shifted "...from research and teaching about negative peace, the cessation of violence, to positive peace, the conditions that eliminate the causes of violence."[7] As a result, the topics had broadened enormously. By 1994, a review of course offerings in peace studies included topics such as: "north-south relations"; "development, debt, and global poverty"; "the environment, population growth, and resource scarcity"; and "feminist perspectives on peace, militarism, and political violence".[7]
A 1995 survey found 136 United States colleges with peace studies programs: "Forty-six percent of these are in church-related schools, another 32% are in large public universities, 21% are in non-church related private colleges, and 1% are in community colleges. Fifty-five percent of the church-related schools that have peace studies programs are Roman Catholic. Other denominations with more than one college or university with a peace studies program are the Quakers, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, and United Church of Christ. One hundred fifteen of these programs are at the undergraduate level and 21 at the graduate level. Fifteen of these colleges and universities had both undergraduate and graduate programs."[7]
Norwegian academic Johan Galtung is widely regarded as a founder of peace and conflict studies.
Although individual thinkers such as Immanuel Kant had long recognised the centrality of peace (see Perpetual Peace), it was not until the 1950s and 1960s that peace studies began to emerge as an academic discipline with its own research tools, a specialized set of concepts, and forums for discussion such as journals and conferences. Beginning in 1959, with the founding of the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), associated with Johan Galtung, a number of research institutes began to appear.[7]
In 1963, Walter Isard, the principal founder of regional science, assembled a group of scholars in Malmö, Sweden, for the purpose of establishing the Peace Research Society. The group of initial members included Kenneth Boulding and Anatol Rapoport. In 1973, this group became the Peace Science Society. Peace science was viewed as an interdisciplinary and international effort to develop a special set of concepts, techniques and data to better understand and mitigate conflict.[10] Peace science attempts to use the quantitative techniques developed in economics and political science, especially game theory and econometrics, techniques otherwise seldom used by researchers in peace studies.[11] The Peace Science Society website hosts the second edition of the Correlates of War, one of the most well-known collections of data on international conflict.[12] The society holds an annual conference, attended by scholars from throughout the world, and publishes two scholarly journals: Journal of Conflict Resolution and Conflict Management and Peace Science.
In 1964, the International Peace Research Association was formed at a conference organized by Quakers in Clarens, Switzerland. Among the original executive committee was Johan Galtung. The IPRA holds a biennial conference. Research presented at its conferences and in its publications typically focuses on institutional and historical approaches, seldom employing quantitative techniques.[13] In 2001, the Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA) was formed as a result of a merger of two precursor organisations. The PJSA is the North American affiliate of IPRA and includes members from around the world with a predominance from the United States and Canada. The PJSA publishes a regular newsletter (The Peace Chronicle), and holds annual conferences on themes related to the organization's mission "to create a just and peaceful world" through research, scholarship, pedagogy, and activism.[14]
In 2008, Strategic Foresight Group presented its report on an innovative mechanism to find sustainable solution to conflicts in the Middle East. It also developed a new Water Cooperation Quotient,[15] which is a measure of active cooperation by riparian countries in the management of water resources using 10 parameters including legal, political, technical, environmental, economic and institutional aspects.
Institutions like Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) are advancing the understanding of peace and development by analyzing the complex drivers of conflict and insecurity. Their approach acknowledges that conflicts are rarely caused by a single factor. Instead, a constellation of economic, social, political, and environmental factors, often reinforcing and exacerbating each other in ways that can lead to sustained violence or, conversely, pave pathways to peace.[16]
There has been a long-standing debate on disarmament issues, as well as attempts to investigate, catalogue, and analyse issues relating to arms production, trade, and their political impacts.[22] There have also been attempt to map the economic costs of war, or of relapses into violence, as opposed to those of peace.
Peace and conflict studies is now well established within the social sciences: it comprises many scholarly journals, college and university departments, peace research institutes, conferences, as well as outside recognition of the utility of peace and conflict studies as a method.
Peace Studies allows one to examine the causes and prevention of war, as well as the nature of violence, including social oppression, discrimination and marginalization. Through peace studies one can also learn peace-making strategies to overcome persecution and transform society to attain a more just and equitable international community.
Feminist scholars have developed a speciality within conflict studies, specifically examining the role of gender and interlocking systems of inequality in armed and other conflicts.[23][24] The importance of considering the role of gender in post-conflict work was recognised by the United Nations Security Council resolution 1325. Examples of feminist scholarship include the work of Carol Cohn and Claire Duncanson.
Negative peace refers to the absence of direct violence. Positive peace refers to the critical theory of conflict resolution and the absence of indirect and structural violence, and is the concept that most peace and conflict researchers adopt. This is often credited to Galtung[25] but these terms were previously used by Martin Luther King Jr. in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" in 1963, in which he wrote about "negative peace which is the absence of tension" and "positive peace which is the presence of justice." These terms were perhaps first used by Jane Addams in a series of lectures about 'positive ideals of peace' begun in 1899 that took form in her book Newer Ideals of Peace where she switched to the term "newer ideals", but continued to contrast them to the term "negative peace"; she described them as we think of them today, as peace with "a sense of justice no longer outraged." The idea was further popularized by then-UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his 1992 report An Agenda for Peace, published in the aftermath of the Cold War.[26]
Several conceptions, models, or modes of peace have been suggested in which peace research might prosper.[27]
The crux of the matter is that peace is a natural social condition, whereas war is not. The premise is simple for peace researchers: to present enough information so that a rational group of decision makers will seek to avoid war and conflict.
Third is pacifism: the view that peace is a prime force in human behaviour.
A further approach is that there are multiple modes of peace.[28]
There have been many offerings on these various forms of peace. These range from the well known works of Kant, Locke, Rousseau, Paine, on various liberal international and constitutional and plans for peace. Variations and additions have been developed more recently by scholars such as Raymond Aron, Edward Azar, John Burton, Martin Ceadal, Wolfgang Dietrich, Kevin Dooley, Johan Galtung, Robert L. Holmes,[29][30][31][32] Michael Howard, Vivienne Jabri, John-Paul Lederach, Roger Mac Ginty, Pamina Firchow, Hugh Miall, David Mitrany, Oliver Ramsbotham, Anatol Rapoport, Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, Oliver Richmond, S.P. Udayakumar, Tom Woodhouse, others mentioned above and many more. Democratic peace, liberal peace, sustainable peace, civil peace, hybrid peace, post-liberal peace, everyday peace, trans-rational peace(s) and other concepts are regularly used in such work.
Under the conceptions of peace, sustainable peace must be regarded as an important factor for the future of prosperity. Sustainable peace must be the priority of global society where state actors and non-state actors do not only seek for the profits in a near future that might violate the stable state of peace. For a sustainable peace, nurturing, empowerment, and communications are considered to be the crucial factors throughout the world. Firstly, nurturing is necessary to encourage psychological stability and emotional maturity. The significance of social value in adequate nurturing is important for sustainable peace. Secondly, in order to achieve real security and sustainable peace, inner security must be secured along with arranged social systems and protection based on firm foundation. Lastly, communications are necessary to overcome ignorance and isolation and establish a community based on reliable and useful information.[33] The concepts of interim peace and sustainable peace is one approach for analyzing peace processes. Interim peace refers to agreements achieved under conditions of duress or imminent threat, providing only short-term cessation of hostilities without addressing underlying conflicts. In contrast, sustainable peace emerges from equitable agreements that consider long-term implications for all stakeholders, fostering lasting stability and justice. The case of the Mosul Arbitration in the early 20th century exemplifies the limitations of interim peace, as the imposed settlement failed to address root causes of instability, contributing to a century of unrest in the region. These distinctions underscore the need for holistic approaches in peacebuilding, ensuring durable and inclusive resolutions.[34]
Conflict triangle
Johan Galtung's conflict triangle works on the assumption that the best way to define peace is to define violence, its opposite. It reflects the normative aim of preventing, managing, limiting and overcoming violence.[25]
Direct (overt) violence: for example, direct attacks and massacres.
Structural violence: Structural violence is indirect violence caused by repressive, unequal and unjust social structures, not direct acts of violence or unavoidable causes of harm.
Cultural violence: Cultural violence occurs as a result of the cultural assumptions that blind one to direct or structural violence. For example, one may be indifferent toward the homeless, or even consider their expulsion or extermination a good thing.
Each corner of Galtung's triangle can relate to the other two. Ethnic cleansing can be an example of all three.
A simplification of these can be phrased as:
Direct violence: harming or hurting the body and mind.
Structural violence: economic exploitation and political repression.
Cultural violence: underlying values and epistemic models that legitimize direct and structural violence.[citation needed]
Appeasement and deterrence
Appeasement in a strategy of making political, material, or territorial concessions to an aggressive power to avoid conflict.[35]Deterrence is a strategy to use threats or limited force to dissuade an actor from escalating conflict,[36] typically because the prospective attacker believes that the probability of success is low and the costs of attack are high.[37]
Cost of conflict and price of unjust peace
Cost of conflict is a approach which attempts to calculate the price of conflicts. The idea is to examine this cost, not only in terms of the deaths and casualties and the economic costs borne by the people involved, but also the social, developmental, environmental and strategic costs of conflict. The approach considers direct costs of conflict, for instance human deaths, expenditure, destruction of land and physical infrastructure; as well as indirect costs that impact a society, for instance migration, humiliation, growth of extremism and lack of civil society. The price of unjust peace can be higher than the cost of conflict.[38][39]
Critical theory argues for a shift from "negative peace" described as absence of violence against individuals to "positive peace" described as the absence of structural violence.[47] This emerged rapidly at the end of the Cold War, and was encapsulated in the report of then-UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace.[26] Indeed, it might be said that much of the machinery of what has been called "liberal peacebuilding" by a number of scholars[48] and "statebuilding" by another[49] is based largely on the work that has been carried out in this area. Many scholars in the area have advocated a more "emancipatory" form of peacebuilding, however, based upon a "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P),[50] human security,[51] local ownership and participation in such processes,[52] especially after the limited success of liberal peacebuilding/ statebuilding in places as diverse as Cambodia, the Balkans, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nepal, Afghanistan, and Iraq. This approach includes the normatively oriented work that emerged in the peace studies and conflict research schools of the 1960s (e.g. Oslo Peace Research Institute on "Liberal Peace and the Ethics of Peacebuilding")[53] and more critical theory ideas about peacebuilding that have recently developed in many European and non-western academic and policy circles.[54]
Prediction and forecasting
Conflict forecasts and early warnings can be sufficiently precise to be relevant for policy and evaluation of theories.[55] Conflict escalation can be rational for one side of the conflict in some cases of asymmetric conflicts,[56]appeasement[46] or for Fait accompli,[57] causing challenges to de-escalation.
Complex system approach to peace and armed conflict
Peacekeeping efforts by armed forces can provide one means to limit and ultimately resolve conflict.
The normative aims of peace studies are conflict transformation and conflict resolution through mechanisms such as peacekeeping, peacebuilding (e.g., tackling disparities in rights, institutions and the distribution of world wealth) and peacemaking (e.g., mediation and conflict resolution). Peacekeeping falls under the aegis of negative peace, whereas efforts toward positive peace involve elements of critical theory, peace building and peacemaking.[60]
Peace and conflict studies in military
Peace and conflict are widely studied by militaries. One approach by military to prevent conflict and conflict escalation is deterrence.[61]Critical theory argues that military is overtly committed to combat in the article "Teaching Peace to the Military", published in the journal Peace Review,[62]James Page argues for five principles that ought to undergird this undertaking, namely, respect but do not privilege military experience, teach the just war theory, encourage students to be aware of the tradition and techniques of nonviolence, encourage students to deconstruct and demythologize, and recognize the importance of military virtue.
Criticism and controversy
Conservative writers Roger Scruton (left) and David Horowitz (right) are among the critics of peace and conflict studies.
A number of criticisms have been aimed at critical theory in peace and conflict studies, often but not necessarily from outside the realms of university system, including that peace studies:
are hypocritical because they "tacitly or openly support terrorism as a permissible strategy for the 'disempowered' to redress real or perceived grievances against the powerful" (i.e. ideological anti-Western concepts developed by social scientists such as Johan Galtung which arguably add a sense of unjustified acceptability which is used in support of radicalism);
have curricula that are (according to human rights activist Caroline Cox and philosopher Roger Scruton) "intellectually incoherent, riddled with bias and unworthy of academic status...";[63]
have policies proposed to "eliminate the causes of violence" that are uniformly leftist policies, and not necessarily policies which would find broad agreement among social scientists.[64]
In 1980, political scientist J. David Singer criticized peace research on three fronts:[65]
Peace research contributed to creating a schism in research into the causes of war, thus making it harder to develop systematic research into war
"many peace researchers had the intellectual innocence of most bright amateurs; they underestimated the rate at which their research findings would become applicable and would be applied to major policy problems of the day."
many peace researchers failed to distinguish between objective research into the conditions of war and peace on one hand, and political action and propaganda in favor of specific policies
Barbara Kay, a columnist for the National Post, specifically criticized the views of Norwegian professor Johan Galtung, who is considered to be a leader in modern peace research. Kay wrote that Galtung has written on the "structural fascism" of "rich, Western, Christian" democracies, admires Fidel Castro, opposed resistance to the Soviet Invasion of Hungary in 1956, and has described Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov as "persecuted elite personages". Galtung has also praised Mao Zedong for "endlessly liberating" China. Galtung has also stated that the United States is a "killer country" that is guilty of "neo-fascist state terrorism" and has reportedly stated that the destruction of Washington, D.C., could be justified by America's foreign policy. He has also compared the United States to Nazi Germany for bombing Kosovo during the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.[63]
In the Summer 2007 edition of City Journal, Bruce Bawer sharply criticized Peace Studies. He noted that many Peace Studies programs in American Universities are run by Marxist or far-left Professors. More broadly, he argued that Peace Studies are dominated by the belief that "America ... is the wellspring of the world's problems" and that while Professors of Peace Studies argue "that terrorist positions deserve respect at the negotiating table," they "seldom tolerate alternative views" and that "(p)eace studies, as a rule, rejects questioning of its own guiding ideology."[66]
Regarding his claim that Peace Studies supports violence in the pursuit of leftist ideology, Bawer cited a quote from Peace and Conflict Studies,[67][68] a widely used 2002 textbook written by Charles P. Webel and David P. Barash which praised Vladimir Lenin because he "maintained that only revolution—not reform—could undo capitalism's tendency toward imperialism and thence to war."[66]
David Horowitz has argued that Webel and Barash's book implicitly supports violence for socialist causes, noting that the book states "the case of Cuba indicates that violent revolutions can sometimes result in generally improved living conditions for many people." Horowitz also argued that the book "treats the Soviet Union as a sponsor of peace movements, and the United States as the militaristic, imperialist power that peace movements try to keep in check" and that "the authors justify Communist policies and actions while casting those of America and Western democracies in a negative light." Horowitz also claimed that the authors discuss the Cuban Missile Crisis without mentioning its cause (i.e. the placement of the Soviet missiles in Cuba) and blame John F. Kennedy while praising Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev for "be[ing] willing to back down". Finally, Horowitz criticized the author's use of Marxist writers, such as Andre Gunder Frank and Frances Moore Lappe, as the sole basis on which to study "poverty and hunger as causes of human conflict."[69]
Kay and Bawer also specifically criticized Professor Gordon Fellman, the Chairman of Brandeis University's Peace, Conflict, and Coexistence Studies Program, who they claimed has justified Palestinian suicide-bombings against Israelis as "ways of inflicting revenge on an enemy that seems unable or unwilling to respond to rational pleas for discussion and justice."[66][70]
Katherine Kersten, who is a senior fellow at the Minneapolis-based conservative think tank Center of the American Experiment, believes that Peace Studies programs are "dominated by people of a certain ideological bent, and [are] thus hard to take seriously." Robert Kennedy, a professor of Catholic studies and management at the University of St. Thomas, criticized his university's Peace Studies Program in an interview with Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2002, stating that the program employs several adjunct professors "whose academic qualifications are not as strong as we would ordinarily look for" and that "The combination of the ideological bite and the maybe less-than-full academic credentials of the faculty would probably raise some questions about how scholarly the program is."[71]
Responses
Such views have been strongly opposed by scholars who claim that these criticisms underestimate the development of detailed interdisciplinary, theoretical, methodological, and empirical research into the causes of violence and dynamics of peace that has occurred via academic and policy networks around the world.[8]
In reply to Barbara Kay's article, a group of Peace Studies experts in Canada responded that "Kay's...argument that the field of peace studies endorses terrorism is nonsense" and that "(d)edicated peace theorists and researchers are distinguished by their commitment to reduce the use of violence whether committed by enemy nations, friendly governments or warlords of any stripe." They also argued that:
...Ms. Kay attempts to portray advocates for peace as naive and idealistic, but the data shows that the large majority of armed conflicts in recent decades have been ended through negotiations, not military solutions. In the contemporary world, violence is less effective than diplomacy in ending armed conflict. Nothing is 100% effective to reduce tyranny and violence, but domestic and foreign strategy needs to be based on evidence, rather than assumptions and misconceptions from a bygone era.[72]
Most academics in the area argue that the accusations are incorrect that peace studies approaches are not objective, and derived from mainly leftist or inexpert sources, are not practical, support violence rather than reject it, or have not led to policy developments.
The development of UN and major donor policies (including the EU, US, and UK, as well as many others including those of Japan, Canada, Norway, etc.) towards and in conflict and post-conflict countries have been heavily influenced by such debates. A range of key policy documents and responses have been developed by these governments in the last decade and more, and in UN (or related) documentation such as "Agenda for Peace", "Agenda for Development", "Agenda for Democratization", the Millennium Development Goals, Responsibility to Protect, and the "High Level Panel Report".[73] They have also been significant for the work of the World Bank, international development agencies, and a wide range of nongovernmental organisations.[74] It has been influential in the work of, among others, the UN, UNDP, UN Peacebuilding Commission, UNHCR, World Bank, EU, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, for national donors including USAID, DFID, CIDA, NORAD, DANIDA, Japan Aid, GTZ, and international NGOs such as International Alert or International Crisis Group, as well as many local NGOs. Major databases have been generated by the work of scholars in these areas.[75]
Finally, peace and conflict studies debates have generally confirmed, not undermined, a broad consensus (in developed world and the Global South) on the importance of human security, human rights, development, democracy, and a rule of law (though there is a vibrant debate ongoing about the contextual variations and applications of these frameworks).[76] At the same time, the research field is characterized by a number of challenges including the tension between "the objective of doing critical research and being of practical relevance".[77]
↑ "Irenology". www.collinsdictionary.com. Collins. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
↑ Christie Nicoson, Barbara Magalhães Teixeira, Alva Mårtensson (09 November 2023), "Re-Imagining Peace Education: Using Critical Pedagogy as a Transformative Tool," International Studies Perspectives, ekad023
↑ Miller and King, 2005, "Peace," in A glossary of terms and concepts in peace and conflict studies, University for Peace, Geneva
↑ Wolfgang Dietrich, Daniela Ingruber, Josefina Echavarría, Gustavo Esteva and Norbert Koppensteiner (eds.): The Palgrave International Handbook of Peace Studies: A Cultural Perspective, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
↑ Robert Gilman, Sustainable Peace putting the pieces together, The Foundations of Peace (IC#4)
↑ Okur, Mehmet Akif (2023). "The Case for an ‘Interim Peace-Sustainable Peace’ Dichotomy from the Middle East: Reconsidering Mosul Arbitration at its Centenary." Cumhuriyet Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi (CTAD). 19 (37): 231–259. DOI: 10.53478/ctad.1180627. Available at: https://ctad.hacettepe.edu.tr/19_37/8.pdf.
↑ "For Young Activists, Peacemaking 101", by Tom Ford and Bob von Sternberg, Minneapolis Star Tribune, December 17, 2002.
↑ In defence of peace studiesArchived 2023-10-29 at the Wayback Machine by Catherine Morris, director, Peacemakers Trust, Victoria; Ben Hoffman, president and CEO, Canadian International Institute of Applied Negotiation, Ottawa; Dean E. Peachey, visiting professor in transitional justice, Global College, University of Winnipeg, National Post, February 25, 2009. (Full letter is available here)
↑ Report of the Secretary- General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, United Nations, 2004: Boutros Boutros Ghali, An Agenda For Peace: preventative diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping, New York: United Nations, 1992; An Agenda for Development: Report of the Secretary-General, A/48/935, 6 May 1994; "Supplement to An Agenda for Peace" A/50/60, S.1995/1, 3 January 1995; An Agenda for Democratization, A/50/332 AND A/51/512, 17 December 1996.
↑ Michael Doyle and Nicolas Sambanis, Making War and Building Peace, (Princeton University Press, 2006); Charles T. Call and Elizabeth M. Cousens, "Ending Wars and Building Peace: International Responses to War-Torn Societies," International Studies Perspectives, 9 (2008): Stephen D. Krasner, "Sharing Sovereignty. New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States," International Security, 29, 2 (2004); Roland Paris, At War's End, (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Burton, John W., and Edward E. Azar, International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books, 1986.
Caplan, Richard, International Governance of War-Torn Territories: Rule and Reconstruction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Ceadal, M, Thinking about Peace and War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Chandler, D. Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-Building. Pluto Press, 2006.
Churchman, D. The Origins, Nature, and Management of Human Conflict. University Press of America, 2013.
Cooper, Neil, "What's the Point of Arms Transfer Controls?", Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 27, No. 1, April 2006 pp.118–137.
Jarat Chopra, and Tanja Hohe, "Participatory Intervention", Global Governance, Vol. 10, 2004.
Darby, John, and Roger MacGinty, Contemporary Peacemaking, London: Palgrave, 2003.
Wolfgang Dietrich, Josefina Eachavarría Alvarez, Norbert Koppensteiner eds.: Key Texts of Peace Studies; LIT Münster, Vienna, 2006.
Wolfgang Dietrich, Daniela Ingruber, Josefina Echavarría, Gustavo Esteva and Norbert Koppensteiner (eds.): The Palgrave International Handbook of Peace Studies: A Cultural Perspective, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Dooley, Kevin L., and S.P. Udayakumar, "Reconceptualizing Global Conflicts: From Us Versus Them to Us Versus Then," Journal of Global Change and Governance, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2009.
Duffield, Mark, Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security, London: Zed Books, 2001.
Dugan, M. 1989. "Peace Studies at the Graduate Level." The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science: Peace Studies: Past and Future, 504, 72–79.
Dunn, DJ, The First Fifty Years of Peace Research, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
Fukuyama, Francis, State Building: Governance and World Order in the Twenty-First Century, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004.
Galtung, J., "A Structural Theory of Imperialism", Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1971.
Galtung, Johan, and Carl G. Jacobsen, Searching for Peace: The Road to TRANSCEND, Pluto Press: London, 2000.
Gibler, Douglas M.; Miller, Steven V. (2021). "The Territorial Peace: Current and Future Research". In McLaughlin, Sara; Vasquez, John A. (eds.). What do we know about War? (3ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. pp.158–170.
Harris, Ian, Larry J. Fisk, and Carol Rank. (1998). "A Portrait of University Peace Studies in North America and Western Europe at the End of the Millennium." International Journal of Peace Studies. Volume 3, Number 1. ISSN 1085-7494 linkArchived 2008-10-26 at the Wayback Machine
Holmes, Robert L.Pacifism: A Philosophy of Nonviolence, London, Bloomsbury, 2017[1]
Howard, M. The Invention of Peace and the Re-Invention of War, London: Profile, 2002.
Jabri, Vivienne, Discourses on Violence, Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1996.
Jabri, Vivienne, War and the Transformation of Global Politics, London: Palgrave, 2007.
Keynes, John Maynard, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, London: Macmillan, 1920.
Koppensteiner, Norbert: The Art of the Transpersonal Self. Transformation as Aesthetic and Energetic Practice; [ATROPOS] New York, Dresden, 2009.
Kosaka, Masataka, International Politics and the Search for Peace, Tokyo: Japan Publishing Industry Foundation for Culture, 2023 [1966]. link
Kumar, Samrat Schmiem, Bhakti - the yoga of love: Trans-rational approaches to Peace Studies; Münster: LIT Verlag, 2010.
Lederach, J., Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1997.
López-Martínez, Mario (dir) Enciclopedia de paz y conflictos. Granada, 2004. ISBN84-338-3095-3, 2 tomos.
Lund, Michael S., "What Kind of Peace Is being Built: Taking Stock of Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and Charting Future Directions", Paper presented on the 10th Anniversary of Agenda for Peace, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, January 2003.
Miall, Hugh, Oliver Ramsbotham, and Tom Woodhouse, Contemporary Conflict Resolution, Polity Press, 2005.
Mitrany, D.A., The Functional Theory of Politics, London: Martin Robertson, 1975.
Richmond, OP, Maintaining Order, Making Peace, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Richmond, OP, A Post-Liberal Peace, London: Routledge, 2011.
Richmond, OP, The Transformation of Peace, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. ————
Richmond, OP, and Jason Franks, Liberal Peace Transitions: Between Statebuilding and Peacebuilding, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
Rosato, Sebastian (2003). "The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory". American Political Science Review. 97 (4): 585–602. doi:10.1017/s0003055403000893. S2CID17654114.
Routledge Contemporary Security Studies series: Women, Peace and Security: Translating Policy into Practice First published 2010. Introduction by 'Funmi Olonisakin, Director of Conflict, Security & Development Group, King's College London, and Karen Barnes. Chapter by Lesley Abdela 'Nepal and the implementation of UNSCR1325'. ISBN978-0-415-58797-6 (hbk)
Rummel, RJ, The Just Peace, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.
Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou, and Anuradha M. Chenoy, Human Security: Concepts and Implications, London: Routledge, 2006
Taylor, Paul, and A.J.R. Groom (eds.), The UN at the Millennium, London: Continuum, 2000.
Tidwell, Alan C., Conflict Resolved, London: Pinter, 1998.
Trinn, Christoph, and Thomas Wencker, "Integrating the Quantitative Research on the Onset and Incidence of Violent Intrastate Conflicts" International Studies Review, 2020. (doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa023)
Vayrynen, R., New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation, London: Sage, 1991.
Vedby Rasmussen, Mikkel, The West, Civil Society, and the Construction of Peace, London: Palgrave, 2003.
Wallensteen, Peter (ed.), Peace Research: Achievements and Challenges, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1988.
Young, Nigel J. (ed.), The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace (4 vols. 2010) 3:449–498.
Zartman, William, and Lewis Rasmussen (eds.), Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.
A peace process is the set of sociopolitical negotiations, agreements and actions that aim to solve a specific armed conflict.
Johan Vincent Galtung was a Norwegian sociologist and the principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies. He was the main founder of the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) in 1959 and was its first director until 1970. He also established the Journal of Peace Research in 1964.
Abdul Aziz Said was Professor Emeritus of International Relations in the School of International Service at American University, Washington, D.C. He was the founding Director of the university's International Peace and Conflict Resolution program. Said was viewed as a trailblazer in his field. Well known for shifting the focus of International Relations theory from real politic-based on the concept that the law of power governs states, to new world order theories based on cooperation and common security. Starting in the late 1980s Said increasingly focused his work on human rights, conflict resolution, and later explored the relationship between spirituality and religion in international politics.
The School of International Service (SIS) is American University's school of advanced international study, covering areas such as international politics, international communication, international development, international economics, peace and conflict resolution, international law and human rights, global environmental politics, and U.S. foreign policy.
Peace education is the process of acquiring values, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors to live in harmony with oneself, others, and the natural environment.
Charles Thomas William Curle, better known as Adam Curle, was a British academic, known for his work in social psychology, pedagogy, development studies and peace studies. After holding posts at the University of Oxford, University of Exeter, University of Ghana and Harvard University, in 1973 he became the inaugural Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford, following the establishment of the University's Department of Peace Studies. Curle's works included several books on education, including Educational Strategy for Developing Societies (1963), and a number of books on peace and peacemaking, including Making Peace (1971). He was also, throughout his career and after his retirement in 1978, active in peacemaking and mediation, and visited Nigeria and Biafra several times as part of a Quaker contingent during the Nigerian Civil War of 1967–70.
Geoffrey D. Dabelko is a professor at the George V. Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Service at Ohio University in Athens, OH. He teaches and conducts research in the School's Environmental Studies Program and Master's in Sustainability, Security, and Resilience. His recent research focuses on the conflict and cooperation potential of responses to climate change, environmental peacebuilding, climate resilience and environmental leadership.
Peace journalism is a style and theory of reporting that aims to treat stories about war and conflict with balance, in contrast to war journalism, which peace journalism advocates say display a bias toward violence. The theory proposes practical methods for correcting biases in stories appearing in the mainstream and alternative media, and suggests ways for journalists to work with other media professionals, audiences, and organizations in conflict.
Peacebuilding is an activity that aims to resolve injustice in nonviolent ways and to transform the cultural and structural conditions that generate deadly or destructive conflict. It revolves around developing constructive personal, group, and political relationships across ethnic, religious, class, national, and racial boundaries. The process includes violence prevention; conflict management, resolution, or transformation; and post-conflict reconciliation or trauma healing before, during, and after any given case of violence.
An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping, more commonly known simply as An Agenda for Peace, is a report written for the United Nations by Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1992. In it, Boutros-Ghali responds to a request by the UN Security Council for an "analysis and recommendations" to strengthen peacemaking and peace-keeping. The document outlines the way Boutros-Ghali felt the UN should respond to conflict in the post-Cold War world.
Kristian Berg Harpviken is a Norwegian sociologist and researcher, and since 2009 director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Harpviken is foremost known for his competence on Afghanistan, where he has travelled extensively and conducted multiple field works since he first engaged with the country in 1989.
Environmental peacebuilding examines and advocates environmental protection and cooperation as a factor in creating more peaceful relations. Peacebuilding is both the theory and practice of identifying the conditions that can lead to a sustainable peace between past, current or potential future adversaries. At the most basic level, warfare devastates ecosystems and the livelihoods of those who depend on natural resources, and the anarchy of conflict situations leads to the uncontrolled, destructive exploitation of natural resources. Preventing these impacts allows for an easier movement to a sustainable peace. From a more positive perspective, environmental cooperation can be one of the places where hostile parties can sustain a dialogue, and sustainable development is a prerequisite for a sustainable peace.
Luc E.H.G. Reychler is a Belgian social and political scientist.
Peace economics is a branch of conflict economics and focuses on the design of the sociosphere's political, economic, and cultural institutions and their interacting policies and actions with the goal of preventing, mitigating, or resolving violent conflict within and between societies. This violent conflict could be of any type and could involve either latent or actual violence. Recognizing the cost of violence, peace economics focuses on the benefits of (re)constructing societies with a view toward achieving irreversible, stable peace. Along with approaches drawn from other areas of scholarship, peace economics forms part of peace science, an evolving part of peace and conflict studies.
Global Peace System is a concept of global conflict resolution dependent on nonviolent processes to eradicate war. It relies upon a multi-strand approach to conflict resolution, incorporating broad social and political solutions. In contemporary peace and conflict studies, the concept of a global peace system has been evolving since the 1940s around the theory that there is a global infrastructure of peacebuilding and that there is a need for systems thinking in peacebuilding. The term "global peace system" was coined from the work of Robert Johansen, who explored the concept in 1978's Toward a Dependable Place.
Peace psychology is a subfield of psychology and peace research that deals with the psychological aspects of peace, conflict, violence, and war. Peace psychology can be characterized by four interconnected pillars: (1) research, (2) education, (3) practice, and (4) advocacy. The first pillar, research, is documented most extensively in this article.
Hizkias Assefa is a conflict mediator known widely in Africa for his non-aligned work as a consultant who has mediated in most major conflict situations in sub-Saharan Africa in the past 20 years, as well as in a dozen countries elsewhere. He is also a professor of conflict studies. Of Ethiopian origin, he is based in Nairobi, Kenya. He was one of the founding faculty members in 1994 of the Conflict Transformation Program at Eastern Mennonite University.
The U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security was adopted when President Barack Obama signed an executive order on December 19, 2011, 11 years after the United Nations Security Council adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security. It specified initiatives and activities that will empower and enlist women and girls in efforts to achieve international peace and security. The U.S. NAP was formally revised in June 2016. On June 11, 2019, the White House released the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security, which superseded the National Action Plan.
Séverine Autesserre is a French-American author and researcher. She writes about war and peace, peacebuilding, peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, the ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and African politics. Autesserre is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor and Chair of Political Science at Barnard College, Columbia University, where she specializes in international relations and African studies. She previously worked for international humanitarian and development agencies.
Florian Krampe is a German/Swedish political scientist and international relations scholar at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).[2] He is best known for his work on climate-related security risks, Environmental Peacebuilding, and the governance of natural resources after armed conflict. He also serves as Affiliated Researcher at the Research School for International Water Cooperation at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University. Between 2020 and 2022 Krampe was cross appointed Specially Appointed Professor at the Network for Education and Research on Peace and Sustainability at Hiroshima University, Japan.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
