Peace and conflict studies

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Peace studies
)
Copy of the sculpture Reconciliation by Josefina de Vasconcellos (1977), initially presented to the Bradford University Department of Peace Studies, located in front of the Chapel of Reconciliation at the former site of the Berlin Wall

Peace and conflict studies or conflict analysis and resolution is a social science field that identifies and analyzes violent and nonviolent behaviors as well as the structural mechanisms attending conflicts (including social conflicts), with a view towards understanding those processes which lead to a more desirable human condition.[1] A variation on this, peace studies (irenology), is an interdisciplinary effort aiming at the prevention, de-escalation, and solution of conflicts by peaceful means, thereby seeking "victory" for all parties involved in the conflict.

This social science is in contrast to

military studies
, which has as its aim the efficient attainment of victory in conflicts, primarily by violent means to the satisfaction of one or more, but not all, parties involved.

Disciplines involved may include philosophy, political science, geography, economics, psychology, communication studies, sociology, international relations, history, anthropology, religious studies, gender studies, law, and development studies as well as a variety of others. Relevant sub-disciplines of such fields, such as peace economics, may be regarded as belonging to peace and conflict studies also.

Historical background

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. 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.

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

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.

major
in peace studies.

After

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.[5]

Critical theory agendas relating to positive peace in European academic contexts were already widely debated in the 1960s.[6] 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."[4] 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".[4]

There is now a general consensus on the importance of peace and conflict studies among scholars from a range of disciplines in and around the social sciences, as well as from many influential policymakers around the world. Peace and conflict studies today is widely researched and taught in a large and growing number of institutions and locations. The number of universities offering peace and conflict studies courses is hard to estimate, mostly because courses may be taught out of different departments and have very different names. The

UN University
supports several international academic teaching and research programs.

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."[4]

Other notable programs can be found at the

University of Kabul
, on September 11, 2014 University of peshawar, the provincial capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan established an Institute with prime objective of offering peace education to the youth who suffered it most since 1979 Afghan war. It is called Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS).

As research activity

Norwegian academic Johan Galtung is widely regarded as a founder of peace and conflict studies.

Although individual thinkers such as

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.[4]

In 1963,

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.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] 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

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.[10] 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.[11]

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,[12] 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.[13]

Description

Peace and conflict studies along with its concepts of conflict analysis and conflict resolution[14][15][16][17][18] can be classified as:

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.[19] 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.[20][21] 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.

Ideas

Conceptions of peace

See also: Peace § Theories
Delegates at the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement achieved negative peace, ending the war but not the wider conflict.

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[22] 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.[23]

Several conceptions, models, or modes of peace have been suggested in which peace research might prosper.[24]

  • 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.
  • Second, the view that violence is sinful or unskillful, and that non-violence is skillful or virtuous and should be cultivated. This view is held by a variety of religious traditions worldwide: Quakers, Mennonites and other Peace churches within Christianity; Baháʼís, Jains, the Satyagraha tradition in Hinduism, Buddhism, and other portions of Indian religion and philosophy; as well as certain schools of Islam[citation needed].
  • 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.[25]

There have been many offerings on these various forms of peace. These range from the well known works of

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.

Sustainable peace

See also: Global peace system

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, inner security must be secured along with arranged social systems and protection based on firm foundation. Lastly, communications are necessary to overcome ignorance and establish a community based on reliable and useful information. It will prevents isolation to take place which is critical to bring sustainable peace.[26]

Conflict triangle

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.[22]

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

dissuade an actor from escalating conflict,[28] typically because the prospective attacker believes that the probability of success is low and the costs of attack are high.[29]

Cost of conflict is a tool which attempts to calculate the price of conflict to the human race. 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.

Strategic Foresight Group, a think tank in India, has developed a Cost of Conflict Series for countries and regions involved in protracted conflicts. This tool is aimed at assessing past, present and future costs looking at a wide range of parameters.[30]

Causality

The

institutional liberalism, alliances, Pax Americana and political stability.[33][34][35][36] Realism and liberal internationalism are claimed by some to lead in some cases to more wars and in other cases to less wars.[37]

Critical theory

Responsibility to Protect" (R2P),[41] human security,[42] local ownership and participation in such processes,[43] 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 research agenda is in the process of establishing a more nuanced agenda for peacebuilding which also connects with the original, qualitatively and normatively oriented work that emerged in the peace studies and conflict research schools of the 1960s (e.g. see the Oslo Peace Research Institute research project on "Liberal Peace and the Ethics of Peacebuilding" and the "Liberal Peace Transitions" project at the University of St Andrews)[44] and more critical ideas about peacebuilding that have recently developed in many European and non-western academic and policy circles.[45] Some scholars have pointed towards the hybrid outcomes that have arisen in practice, indicating both the potential and problems of hybrid forms of peace, with an everyday orientation, and suggestive of the emergence of a post-liberal framework.[46]

The UNESCO Chair for Peace Studies at the University of Innsbruck/Austria proposed in 2008 a culture-based classification of peace interpretations: energetic, moral, modern, post-modern and trans-rational approaches.[47] The trans-rational approach unites existing spiritual interpretations of society and relation[48] with the mechanistic methods of modern peace. Hence this school prefers the strictly relational and systemic method of elicitive conflict transformation (Lederach)[49] to the prescriptive approaches of modern conflict resolution.[50]

Scholars working in the areas of Critical theory peace and conflict studies have made significant contributions to the policies used by non-governmental organisations, development agencies, international financial institutions, and the UN system, in the specific areas of conflict resolution and citizen diplomacy, development, political, social, and economic reform, peacekeeping, mediation, early warning, prevention, peacebuilding, and statebuilding.[51]

Normative aims

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.[52]

Peace and conflict studies in military

Peace and conflict are widely studied by militaries. One approach by military to prevent conflict and

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 of Critical theory in Peace and conflict studies

 
Conservative writers Roger Scruton (left) and David Horowitz (right) are among the critics of peace and conflict studies.

A serious number of well established 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:

1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.[55]

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."[57]

Regarding his claim that Peace Studies supports violence in the pursuit of leftist ideology, Bawer cited a quote from Peace and Conflict Studies,[58][59] 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."[57]

Frances Moore Lappe, as the sole basis on which to study "poverty and hunger as causes of human conflict."[60]

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."[57][61]

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."[62]

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.[5]

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.[63]

Most academics in the area argue that the accusations 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, are clearly incorrect. They note that 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

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.[66]

Finally, peace and conflict studies debates have generally confirmed, not undermined, a broad consensus (western and beyond) 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).[67] 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".[68]

See also

Journals

People

Further reading

Notes

  1. ^ Dugan, 1989: 74
  2. ^ Abrams, Holly (2010-11-04). "Peace studies pioneer dies at 77". The Journal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2018-10-20. Retrieved 2010-11-13.
  3. ^ Wallensteen 1988
  4. ^ a b c d e Harris, Fisk, and Rank 1998
  5. ^ a b c Miall, Ramsbotham, & Woodhouse 2005
  6. ^ Galtung 1971
  7. ^ Home Archived 2007-08-26 at the Wayback Machine
  8. ^ "Peace Studies Program – Student Information- Graduate Minor Field". Archived from the original on 2008-09-20. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
  9. ^ "Correlates of War 2". Archived from the original on 2007-08-23. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
  10. ^ "KU Leuven Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen - Centrum Voor Politicologie - Algemeen". Archived from the original on 3 December 2011. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  11. ^ "About the Peace and Justice Studies Association". Archived from the original on 27 November 2013. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  12. ^ http://strategicforesight.com/publication_pdf/28799WCQ-web.pdf Archived 2016-10-20 at the Wayback Machine [bare URL PDF]
  13. ^ "Peace and development | SIPRI". www.sipri.org. Retrieved 2024-02-07.
  14. ISBN 978-0203893166
    .
  15. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2023-06-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  16. ISBN 978-0-19-976010-7
    . Retrieved 2023-06-22.
  17. ^ "Conflict Analysis and Resolution : Indiana University Southeast". southeast.iu.edu. Archived from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2023-06-22.
  18. ^ "Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution < George Mason University". catalog.gmu.edu. Archived from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2023-06-22.
  19. ^ SIPRI 2007: Cooper, 2006
  20. ^ Cohn, C. (2013). Women and wars. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  21. ^ Owen, Jean (27 May 2013). "Book Review: Women and Wars, ed. Carol Cohn". The Feminist and Women's Studies Association (UK & Ireland). Archived from the original on 11 December 2014. Retrieved 20 June 2014.
  22. ^ a b Galtung & Jacobsen 2000
  23. ^ Boutros Ghali 1992
  24. ^ among many, Richmond 2005
  25. ^ 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.
  26. ^ Robert Gilman, Sustainable Peace putting the pieces together, The Foundations of Peace (IC#4)
  27. ^ "Appeasement - World War 2 on History". www.history.co.uk. Archived from the original on 4 April 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  28. ISBN 978-0-8039-0819-2. Archived
    from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
  29. JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt1rv61v2. Archived
    from the original on 2023-04-05. Retrieved 2021-09-05.
  30. ^ "Strategic Foresight Group - Anticipating and Influencing Global Future". Archived from the original on 11 August 2015. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  31. ^ Gibler & Miller 2021.
  32. ISBN 978-0-19-879351-9. Archived
    from the original on 2021-05-15.
  33. ^ Reiter 2017.
  34. ^ Hobson 2017.
  35. ^ Rosato 2003.
  36. ^ Downes & Sechser 2012.
  37. ISSN 2057-3170
    .
  38. ^ Boutros Ghali 1992
  39. ^ Duffield, 2001, Paris, 2004, Richmond, 2005
  40. ^ Caplan 2005, Chandler, 2006, Fukuyama, 2004
  41. ^ "International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (ICRtoP)". Archived from the original on 2 March 2011. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  42. ^ Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy 2006
  43. ^ Chopra & Hohe 2004
  44. ^ Burgess, Peter. "Liberal Peace and the Ethics of Peacebuilding". Archived from the original on 4 January 2014. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
  45. ^ Jabri 2007: Richmond & Franks 2009
  46. ISBN 978-0-415-66784-5
    .
  47. ^ Wolfgang Dietrich: Variationen über die vielen Frieden; Wiesbaden [VS Verlag], 2008
  48. ^ Samrat Schmiem Kumar: Bhakti – the yoga of love. Trans-rational approaches to Peace Studies; [LIT] Münster, Vienna, 2010
  49. ^ Lederach, John Paul: Preparing for Peace; Syracuse [Syracuse University Press], 1996
  50. ^ Koppensteiner, Norbert: Tha Art of the Transpersonal Self. Transformation as Aesthetic and Energetic Practise; [ATROPOS] New York, Dresden, 2009
  51. ^ Wallensteen, 1988
  52. ^ Richmond 2002
  53. ISBN 978-0-19-090960-4. Archived
    from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
  54. ^ Page, James S. 2007. 'Teaching Peace to the Military'. Peace Review, 19(4):571–577 Archived 2008-01-11 at the Wayback Machine.
  55. ^ a b "Barbarians within the gate Archived 2011-09-30 at the Wayback Machine" by Barbara Kay, National Post, February 18, 2009.
  56. ^ Bawer 2007
  57. ^ a b c The Peace Racket Archived 2016-03-13 at the Wayback Machine by Bruce Bawer, City Journal, Summer 2007.
  58. ISBN 978-0-7619-2507-1
    .
  59. ^ Take a Break from War by Kaushik Roy, The Telegraph (Calcutta, India), November 15, 2002.
  60. ^ "One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Freedom Fighter" Archived 2019-01-01 at the Wayback Machine by David Horowitz, (website of Students for Academic Freedom), November 08, 2004.
  61. ^ September 11 and the Field of Peace Studies Archived 2008-09-06 at the Wayback Machine by Gordon Fellman, Peacework, October 2002.
  62. ^ "For Young Activists, Peacemaking 101", by Tom Ford and Bob von Sternberg, Minneapolis Star Tribune, December 17, 2002.
  63. ^ In defence of peace studies Archived 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)
  64. ^ 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.
  65. ^ E.g. for the World Bank, see, "Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy" [1][permanent dead link]: For DFID see [2] Archived 2009-03-19 at the Wayback Machine; e.g. see also International Crisis Group
  66. ^ e.g. Correlates of War at Harvard University [3] Archived 2008-08-07 at the Wayback Machine: PRIO/ Uppsala University Data on Armed Conflict [4] Archived 2012-11-02 at the Wayback Machine.
  67. ^ 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).
  68. ^ Laurent Goetschel and Sandra Pfluger (eds.) (2014): Challenges of Peace Research http://www.swisspeace.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Media/Publications/WP_7_2014.pdf Archived 2017-02-06 at the Wayback Machine

Sources and further reading

External links

Library guides to peace studies

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peace_and_conflict_studies&oldid=1220502445"