From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Peace Research" redirects here Peace and

conflict studies is a social science field that identifies and analyses violent and nonviolent behaviours 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 is in contrast to war studies (polemology) which has as its aim on 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 political science, geography, economics, psychology, sociology, international relations, history, anthropology, religious studies, and gender studies, as well as a variety of others.

Contents

1 Historical background o 1.1 As pedagogical activity o 1.2 As research activity 2 Description 3 Ideas o 3.1 Conceptions of peace o 3.2 Conflict triangle o 3.3 Cost of conflict 4 Normative aims 5 Teaching peace and conflict studies to the military 6 From conflict resolution via liberal peace- and statebuilding to trans-rational peace and elicitive conflict transformation 7 Criticism and controversy o 7.1 Responses 8 See also 9 Notes 10 Sources 11 External links o 11.1 Journals o 11.2 Other periodicals o 11.3 Scholarly societies o 11.4 Data o 11.5 Research Institutes o 11.6 Online Tools

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 U.S. 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 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 USA (led by Georges Clemenceau, David Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson) 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 (but they also, as Keynes presciently pointed out, laid the seeds for future conflict).[2] 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. 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 not to develop until 1948, and then only at Manchester College in Indiana, a small liberal arts college.[3] It was not until the late 1960s in the US 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.[4] Growth in the number of peace studies programmes 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 [5] 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.[6]

Agendas relating to positive peace in European academic contexts were already widely debated in the 1960s.[7] By the mid-1990s peace studies curricula in the US had shifted "...from research and teaching about negative peace, the cessation of violence, to positive peace, the conditions that eliminate the causes of violence."[5] 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."[5] There is now a general consensus on the importance of peace and conflict studies amongst 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 International Peace Research Association website gives one of the most authoritative listings available. A 2008 report in the International Herald Tribune mentions over 400 programmes of teaching and research in peace and conflict studies, noting in particular those at the United World Colleges, Peace Research Institute (Oslo), the American University, University of Bradford, the UN mandated Peace University UPEACE in Ciudad Coln/Costa Rica, George Mason, Lund, Michigan, Notre Dame, Queensland, Uppsala, Innsbruck/Austria, Universitat Jaume I in Castelln de la Plana (Spain), Virginia, and Wisconsin. The Rotary Foundation and the UN University (Tokyo) supports several international academic teaching and research programmes. A 1995 survey found 136 U.S. 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 nonchurch 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."[5] Other notable programmes can be found at the University of Manitoba (Canada), University of Hiroshima (Japan), University of Innsbruck (Austria), Universitat Jaume I in Castelln de la Plana (Spain), University of Sydney, University of Queensland (Brisbane), King's College (London), Sault College (Sault Ste. Marie), London Metropolitan, Sabanci (Istanbul), Marburg (Germany), Sciences Po (Paris), University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands), Otago (New Zealand), St Andrews, and York (UK). Perhaps most importantly, such programmes and research agendas have now become common in institutions located in conflict, post-conflict, and developing countries and regions (e.g., National Peace Council (Sri Lanka), Centre for Human Rights (South Africa), University of Sarajevo, Bosnia), Chulalongkorn University (Thailand), National University of East Timor (Timor-Leste), University of Kabul (Afghanistan), Makerere University, Mbarara University (Uganda), Tel Aviv University (Israel), etc.

As research activity

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.[5] In 1963, Walter Isard, the principal founder of Regional science assembled a group of scholars in Malm, 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.[8] 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.[9] 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.[10] 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.[11] In 2001, the Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA) was formed as a result of a merger of two precursor organizations. 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.[12]

Description
Peace Studies can be classified as:

Multidisciplinary, encompassing elements of Politics and International Relations (particularly critical international relations theory), Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology and Economics. Critical theory is also widely used in peace and conflict studies. Multilevel. Peace Studies examines intrapersonal peace, peace between individuals, neighbours, ethnic groups, marriages, states and civilisations. Multicultural. Gandhi is often cited as a paradigm of Peace Studies. However, true multiculturalism remains an aspiration as most Peace Studies centres are located in the West. Both analytic and normative. As a normative discipline, Peace Studies involves value judgements, such as "better" and "bad". Both theoretical and applied.[6]

There has been a long standing and vibrant debate on disarmament issues, as well as attempts to investigate, catalogue, and analyses issues relating to arms production, trade, and their political impacts.[13] There have also been attempts to map the economic costs of war, or of relapses into violence, as opposed to those of peace.[14] 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.

Ideas
Conceptions of peace
Galtung's negative and positive peace framework is the most widely used today. Negative peace refers to the absence of direct violence. Positive peace refers to the absence of indirect and structural violence, and is the concept that most peace and conflict researchers adopt.[15] Several conceptions, models, or modes of peace have been suggested in which peace research might prosper.[16]

The first 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; Jains, the Satyagraha tradition in Hinduism, Buddhism, and other portions of Indian religion and philosophy; as well as certain schools of Islam. 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.[17]

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, Michael Howard, Vivienne Jabri, Jean-Paul Lederach, Roger Mac Ginty, 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, trans-rational peace(s)and other concepts are regularly used in such work.

Conflict triangle
Johan Galtung's conflict triangle works on the assumption that the best way to define peace is to define violence, its antithesis. It reflects the normative aim of preventing, managing, limiting and overcoming violence.[15]

Direct (overt) violence, e.g., direct attack, massacre. Structural violence. Death by avoidable reasons such as malnutrition. Structural violence is indirect violence caused by an unjust structure and is not to be equated with an act of God. 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.

Cost of conflict
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.[18]

Normative aims
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 peace building and peacemaking.[19]

Teaching peace and conflict studies to the military

One of the interesting developments within peace and conflict studies is the number of military personnel undertaking such studies. This poses some challenges, as the military is an institution overtly committed to combat. In the article "Teaching Peace to the Military", published in the journal Peace Review,[20] 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.

From conflict resolution via liberal peace- and statebuilding to trans-rational peace and elicitive conflict transformation
Scholars working in the areas of 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.[21] This represented a shift in interest from conflict management approaches oriented towards a negative peace to conflict resolution and peacebuilding approaches aimed at a 'positive peace'. 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.[22] Indeed, it might be said that much of the machinery of what has been called liberal peacebuilding by a number of scholars [23] rests, or statebuilding by another groups of scholars [24] 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),[25] human security,[26] local ownership and participation in such processes,[27] especially after the limited success of liberal peacebuilding/ statebuilding in places as diverse as Cambodia, the Balkans, Timor Leste, 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)[28] and more critical ideas about peacebuilding that have recently developed in many European and non-western academic and policy circles.[29] 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.[30] The trans-rational approach unites existing spiritual interpretations of society and relation[31] with the mechanistic methods of modern peace. Hence this school prefers the strictly relational and systemic method of elicitive conflict transformation (Lederach)[32] to the prescriptive approaches of modern conflict resolution.[33]

Criticism and controversy

A number of criticisms have been aimed at peace and conflict studies, often but not necessarily from outside the realms of university system, including that peace studies:

do not produce practical prescriptions for managing or resolving global conflicts because "ideology always trumps objectivity and pragmatism"; are focused on putting a "respectable face on Western self-loathing"; 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...";[34] have faculty are not fully competent in the disciplines (such as economics) whose ideas were invoked as solutions to problems of conflict;[35] have policies proposed to "eliminate the causes of violence" are uniformly leftist policies, and not necessarily policies which would find broad agreement among social scientists.[35]

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 U.S. to Nazi Germany for bombing Kosovo during the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.[34] 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 worlds 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."[36] Regarding his claim that Peace Studies supports violence in the pursuit of leftist ideology, Bawer cited a quote from Peace and Conflict Studies,[37][38] a widely used 2002 textbook written by Charles P. Webel and David P. Barash which praised Vladimir Lenin because he maintained that only revolutionnot reformcould undo capitalisms tendency toward imperialism and thence to war."[36] 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."[39] Kay and Bawer also specifically criticized Professor Gordon Fellman, the Chairman of Brandeis University's Peace, Conflict, and Coexistence Studies Program, whom 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. [36][40] 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."[41]

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.[6] 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."[42] 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 postconflict 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'.[43] They have also been significant for the work of the World Bank, International Development Agencies, and a wide range of Non Governmental Organisations.[44] 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 uncluding USAID, DFID, SIDA, 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.[45] 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).[46]

See also

List of peace activists War Against War The Acorn: Journal of the Gandhi-King Society (journal) Conflict Management and Peace Science (journal) Conflict resolution Conflict resolution research Democratic peace theory Global Peace Index International Festival of Peace Poetry Journal for Peace and Justice Studies (journal) Peace Peace education Peace and Justice Studies Association Peace Industry Peace Review (journal) University for Peace Elise M. Boulding

Notes
1. Jump up ^ Dugan, 1989: 74 2. Jump up ^ Keynes 1920 3. Jump up ^ Abrams, Holly (2010-11-04). "Peace studies pioneer dies at 77". The Journal Gazette. Retrieved 2010-11-13. 4. Jump up ^ Wallensteen 1988 5. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Harris, Fisk, and Rank 1998 6. ^ Jump up to: a b c Miall, Ramsbotham, & Woodhouse 2005

7. Jump up ^ Galtung 1971 8. Jump up ^ Home 9. Jump up ^ Peace Studies Program - Student Information- Graduate Minor Field 10. Jump up ^ Correlates of War 2 11. Jump up ^ History of the IPRA 12. Jump up ^ Mission and Values of the PJSA 13. Jump up ^ SIPRI 2007: Cooper, 2006 14. Jump up ^ http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/econ/documents/research/war.pdf 15. ^ Jump up to: a b Galtung & Jacobsen 2000 16. Jump up ^ among many, Richmond 2005 17. Jump up ^ Wolfgang Dietrich, Daniela Ingruber, Josefina Echavarra, Gustavo Esteva and Norbert Koppensteiner (eds.): The Palgrave International Handbook of Peace Studies: A Cultural Perspective, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 18. Jump up ^ Strategic Foresight Group 19. Jump up ^ Richmond 2002 20. Jump up ^ Page, James S. 2007. 'Teaching Peace to the Military'. Peace Review, 19(4):571-577. 21. Jump up ^ Wallensteen, 1988 22. Jump up ^ Boutros Ghali 1992 23. Jump up ^ Duffield, 2001, Paris, 2004, Richmond, 2005 24. Jump up ^ Caplan 2005, Chandler, 2006, Fukuyama, 2004 25. Jump up ^ www.responsibilitytoprotect.org 26. Jump up ^ Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy 2006 27. Jump up ^ Chopra & Hohe 2004 28. Jump up ^ http://www.prio.no/Research-and-Publications/Project/?oid=64922; http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/intrel/cpcs/papers/liberalpeace/ 29. Jump up ^ Jabri 2007: Richmond & Franks 2009 30. Jump up ^ Wolfgang Dietrich: Variationen ber die vielen Frieden; Wiesbaden [VS Verlag], 2008 31. Jump up ^ Samrat Schmiem Kumar: Bhakti - the yoga of love. Trans-rational approaches to Peace Studies; [LIT] Mnster, Vienna, 2010 32. Jump up ^ Lederach, John Paul: Preparing for Peace; Syracuse [Syracuse University Press], 1996 33. Jump up ^ Koppensteiner, Norbert: Tha Art of the Transpersonal Self. Transformation as Aesthetic and Energetic Practise; [ATROPOS] New York, Dresden, 2009 34. ^ Jump up to: a b "Barbarians within the gate" by Barbara Kay, National Post, February 18, 2009. 35. ^ Jump up to: a b Bawer 2007 36. ^ Jump up to: a b c The Peace Racket by Bruce Bawer, City Journal, Summer 2007. 37. Jump up ^ Peace and Conflict Studies by Charles P. Webel and David P. Barash, Textbook (Hardcover - Older Edition), SAGE Publications, March 2002, 592pp, ISBN 978-0-7619-2507-1. 38. Jump up ^ Take a Break from War by Kaushik Roy, The Telegraph (Calcutta, India), November 15, 2002. 39. Jump up ^ "One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Freedom Fighter" by David Horowitz, (website of Students for Academic Freedom), November 08, 2004.

40. Jump up ^ September 11 and the Field of Peace Studies by Gordon Fellman, Peacework, October 2002. 41. Jump up ^ "For Young Activists, Peacemaking 101," by Tom Ford and Bob von Sternberg, Minneapolis Star Tribune, December 17, 2002. 42. Jump up ^ In defence of peace studies 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) 43. Jump up ^ Report of the Secretary- Generals 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. 44. Jump up ^ E.g. for the World Bank, see, "Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy" [1]: For DFID see [2]; e.g. see also International Crisis Group 45. Jump up ^ e.g. Correlates of War at Harvard University [3]: PRIO/ Uppsala University Data on Armed Conflict [4]. 46. Jump up ^ 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 Wars End, (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Sources

Aron, Raymond, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations, London: Transaction, 2003 [1966]. Avruch, Kevin, Peter W. Black, and Joseph A. Scimecca (eds.), Conflict Resolution: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, London: Greenwood Press, 1991. Azar, Edward E., The Management of Protracted Social Conflict, Hampshire, UK: Dartmouth Publishing, 1990. Beer,Francis A., Meanings of War and Peace, College Station: Texas A&M University Press 2001. Beer, Francis A., Peace Against War, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1981. Boutros Ghali, An Agenda For Peace: preventative diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping, New York: United Nations, 1992. Bawer, Bruce "The Peace Racket", City Journal, Summer 2007 link Burton, J., & EA Azar, International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, Wheatsheaf Books, 1986. Caplan, Richard, International Governance of War-torn Territories: Rule and Reconstruction, Oxford: OUP, 2005. Ceadal, M, Thinking About Peace and War, Oxford: OUP, 1987. Chandler, D. Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-building. Pluto Press, 2006.

Cooper, Neil, 'What's The Point of Arms Transfer Controls?', Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 27, No. 1, April 2006 pp. 118137. Jarat Chopra, Tanja Hohe, "Participatory Intervention", Global Governance, Vol. 10, 2004. Darby, John, and Roger MacGinty, Contemporary Peacemaking, London: Palgrave, 2003. Wolfgang Dietrich, Josefina Eachavarra Alvarez, Norbert Koppensteiner eds.: "Key Texts of Peace Studies"; LIT Mnster, Vienna, 2006. Wolfgang Dietrich, Daniela Ingruber, Josefina Echavarra, 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, Volume 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, N.Y.: 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. 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 link Howard, M The Invention of Peace and the Re-Invention of War, London: Profile, 2002. Jabri, Vivienne, Discourses on Violence, Manchester UP, 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 Kumar, Schmiem Samrat: Bhakti- the yoga of love. Trans-rational approaches to Peaec Studies; [LIT]Mnster, Vienna, 2010. Lederach, J, Building Peace- Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1997. 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. Lpez Martnez, Mario (dir) Enciclopedia de paz y conflictos. Granada, 2004. ISBN 84338-3095-3, 2 tomos.

Miall, Hugh, Oliver Ramsbotham, & 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, Macmillan, 2002. Richmond, OP, The Transformation of Peace, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Richmond OP & Franks J, Liberal Peace Transitions: Between Statebuilding and Peacebuilding, Edinburgh University Press, 2009.

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, Kings College London, and Karen Barnes. Chapter by Lesley Abdela Nepal and the implementation of UNSCR1325. ISBN 978-0-415-58797-6 (hbk)

Rummel, RJ, The Just Peace, California, 1981. Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou & Chenoy, Anuradha M. 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. 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. Zartman, William, and Lewis Rasmussen (eds.), Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.

External links
Journals

The Acorn: Journal of the Gandhi-King Society Peacebuilding Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy Conflict Management and Peace Science Defense and Peace Economics Journal for Peace and Justice Studies Journal of Conflict Resolution Journal of Peace Research International Interactions OJPCR: The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution (open access) Peace and Conflict Studies Goddard College Individualized MA with specialties in Peace and Conflict Studies The International Journal of Peace Studies

Journal of Global Change and Governance Peace, Conflict & Development (open access) Peace Review Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy Peace Studies Journal Nonviolent Social Change - the Bulletin of the Manchester College Peace Studies Institute a journal on nonviolent social change Journal of Religion, Conflict, and Peace International Peacekeeping Conflict, Security & Development Conflict and Cooperation Security Dialogue Alternatives: Global, Local, Political Peace and Conflict Studies Journal In Factis Pax: Journal of Peace Education and Social Justice

Other periodicals

Accord: An International Review of Peace Initiatives Peace Watch Common Knowledge

Scholarly societies

International Association for Peace and Conflict Studies (IAPCS) Peace & Justice Studies Association Peace Science Society International Peace Research Association

Data

Uppsala Conflict Data Program Correlates of War 2 Global Peace Index Data resources from PRIO

Research Institutes

International Peace and Conflict Resolution MA Program, Arcadia University, Philadelphia, PA, USA Instituto Interuniversitario de Desarrollo Social y Paz, Universitat Jaume I, Castelln de la Plana, Spain Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute, University of Manchester, UK Center for Conflict Studies, University of Marburg Marburg, Germany Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame Center for Security Studies, Angelo State University San Angelo, Texas, United States

Berghof Conflict Research Berlin, Germany Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden Department of Conflict, Peace and Development Studies, Tribhuvan University Kathmandu, Nepal World Peace Academy - Swiss Centre for Peace Studies Basel, Switzerland National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago, NZ The Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney Rutgers MA in Peace and Conflict Studies Peacebuilding, Development and Security Program, Centre for Military and Security Studies, University of Calgary Research Centre for Sustainable Peace, Institute of Advanced Global Studies, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan Peace Research Institute, International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan Peace and Conflict Studies, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR) at George Mason University Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK) Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center Institute for Economics and Peace Sydney, Australia Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) Future Worlds Center Nicosia, Cyprus Centre for Peace Studies, University of Troms, Norway TRANSCEND Peace University (TPU online), founded by Johan GALTUNG Center for Justice and Peacebuilding of Eastern Mennonite University University of Toronto, Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. The Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Center for Peace and Justice Education, Villanova University Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies at Fresno Pacific University Soka University of America's Pacific Basin Research Center Justice and Peace Studies at the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota Kansas Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution at Bethel College Instituto Universitario Gutierrez Mellado Archbishop Desmond Tutu Centre for War and Peace Studies at Liverpool Hope University Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Centre for Peace and Reconciliation Studies at Coventry University EPU in Stadtschlaining Austria. Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, New Delhi. Centre for Conflict Studies, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Institute for Peace Science, Hiroshima University Hiroshima City University, Hiroshima Peace Institute Hiroshima Institute for Peace Education NAGASAKI PEACE INSTITUTE Nagasaki Institute Of Applied Science, Nagasaki Institute for Peace Culture

International Peace Research Institute, Meiji Gakuin University MA Program in Peace, Development, Security and International Conflict Transformation, University of Innsbruck INCORE (International Conflict Research), University of Ulster University for Peace, Costa Rica International Peace and Conflict Resolution, School of International Service, American University Peace and Conflict Studies, Conrad Grebel University College, University of Waterloo, Canada Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, University of San Diego Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of St Andrews, UK Peace Studies at Naropa University Interdisciplinary Center 'Sciences for Peace' (CISP), University of Pisa, Italy Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution, University of Hawai'i at Manoa Conflict Resolution Cerificate Program, Monterey Institute of International Studies

Online Tools

UN Peacemaker, United Nations [hide]

v t e

Anti-war

Opposition to wars or aspects of war

Military action in Iran 2011 military intervention in Libya Iraq War War in Afghanistan War on Terror Sri Lankan Civil War Landmines Vietnam War Nuclear armament World War I World War II Second Boer War American Civil War War of 1812 Anti-war organizations Anti-nuclear organizations

Agents of opposition

Conscientious objectors Draft evasion Peace activists Peace movement Peace churches Peace and conflict studies Peace camp Teach-in War resisters War tax resisters Anarcho-pacifism Anti-imperialism Antimilitarism Anti-nuclear movement Appeasement Christian anarchism Direct action Hippie Isolationism Non-interventionism Nonviolence Nonkilling Pacificism Pacifism Satyagraha Simple living Socialism Soviet influence on the peace movement Anarcho-punks Art Books Films Plays Songs Symbols

Related ideologies

Media

Categories:

Aftermath of war Peace and conflict studies Subfields of political science

Navigation menu

Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact page

Toolbox Print/export Languages

Deutsch Espaol Franais Italiano Nederlands Norsk bokml Polski Portugus Romn Svenska

Edit links This page was last modified on 6 October 2013 at 21:55. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.