Negative and Positive Peace Framework

Leave a comment

A dichotomous negative and positive peace framework is perhaps 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. The basic distinction between positive and negative peace was popularized by prominent peace theorist Johan Galtung.

Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 6, no. 3, 1969, pp. 167–191.

While the dichotomy is often credited to Galtung, he was not the first to describe it. Martin Luther King in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail in 1953, 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 likely used first by Jane Addams in her1907 book Newer Ideals of Peace. Berenice A. Carroll and Clinton F. Fink note: "Addams expressed this idea in 1899...in saying that the concept of peace had become 'no longer merely absence of war.' But in Newer Ideals of Peace, Addams used the term "negative peace" also in a different and more complex sense, to characterize certain older ideals of peace that she held to be negative or inadequate. In this sense her use of the term brought with it the implication that peace should be understood to encompass more adequate and positive goals and principles."

Balance of Power

Leave a comment

The balance of power theory of international relations conceptualizes peace as an outcome of preventing any one state, faction, or figure from gaining enough power to dominate all others. If one state becomes much stronger, the theory predicts it will take advantage of its weaker neighbors, thereby driving them to unite in a defensive coalition.

The balance of power theory is a core tenet of both classical and neorealist theory and seeks to explain alliance formation. Due to the neorealist idea of anarchism as a result of the international system, states must ensure their survival through maintaining or increasing their power in a self-help world. With no authority above the state to come to its rescue in the event of an attack by a hegemon, states attempt to prevent a potential hegemon from arising by balancing against it. According to Kenneth Waltz, founder of neorealism, "balance-of-power politics prevail wherever two, and only two requirements are met: that the order be anarchic and that it be populated by units wishing to survive". They can do this either through "internal balancing" , where a state uses internal efforts such as moving to increase economic capability, developing clever strategies and increasing military strength or through "external balancing", which occurs when states take external measures to increase their security by forming allies. States happy with their place in the system are known as "status quo" states, while those seeking to alter the balance of power in their favor are generally referred to as "revisionist states" and aspire for hegemony, thus repairing the balance.

Some realists maintain that a balance-of-power system is more stable than one with a dominant state, as aggression is unprofitable when there is equilibrium of power between rival coalitions. When threatened, states may seek safety either by balancing, allying with others against the prevailing threat; or bandwagoning, aligning themselves with the threatening power. Other alliance tactics include buck-passing and chain-ganging. Realists have long debated how the polarity of a system impacts the choice of tactics; however, it is generally agreed that in bipolar systems, each great power has no choice but to directly confront the other. Along with debates between realists about the prevalence of balancing in alliance patterns, other schools of international relations, such as constructivists, are also critical of the balance of power theory, disputing core realist assumptions regarding the international system and the behavior of states.

Economic Development

Leave a comment

Theories of Peace

Leave a comment

Democratic/Liberal Peace

Leave a comment

Liberal peace theories argue that there is a strong tendency for domestic and international peace to follow when the large majority of individuals in a society have control over decisions in both political and economic issues. The theories assume common people have a self-interest in peace, since they normally can obtain material and non-material well-being only during peace. Hence, peace may be secured if narrow groups and would-be elites can be restrained through effective political institutions. Interstate trade serves as an analogous constraint on state leaders. ¹

Democratic peace is the proposition that democratic states never (or almost never) wage war on one another.

The concept of democratic peace must be distinguished from the claim that democracies are in general more peaceful than nondemocratic countries. Whereas the latter claim is controversial, the claim that democratic states do not fight each other is widely regarded as true by scholars and practitioners of international relations. Proponents of the democratic peace hark back to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and, more recently, to U.S. Pres. Woodrow Wilson, who declared in his 1917 war message to Congress that the United States aimed to make the world “safe for democracy.”

In Project for a Perpetual Peace (1795), Kant envisioned the establishment of a zone of peace among states constituted as republics. Although he explicitly equated democracy with despotism, contemporary scholars claim that Kant’s definition of republicanism, which emphasizes the representative nature of republican government, corresponds to our current understanding of liberal democracy. Thus, the terms democratic peace (or liberal peace) and Kantian peace are today often used interchangeably.²

Both hypotheses are sufficiently simple that they have been invoked in public policy debates. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, for example, reformulated the liberal peace hypothesis in 1996 in the following terms: "Countries that both have McDonald's restaurants don't fight each other." Both hypotheses have been used to explain the transition from the fratricidal Western Europe of the first half of the twentieth century to Europe's present status as a zone of peace. The empirical support for the two hypotheses, however, is quite different. Ev- idence for the democratic peace is so strong that arguments against it require methodologically esoteric appeals to alliance linkages, control variables, and ex- pected conflict frequencies under a null hypothesis. The liberal peace, in con- trast, suffers from two very conspicuous and large-scale failures: World War I and World War II. Those empirical challenges continue to the present. Friedman's "McDonald's hypothesis," for example, lasted only three years before the United States began bombing attacks on the Serbian capital of Belgrade, a city with seven McDonald's restaurants. In short, whereas the practical burden of proof for the democratic peace involves showing that it is false, the burden of proof on the liberal peace involves showing that it is true.³

https://www.prio.org/Publications/Publication/?x=3179 ↩
https://www.britannica.com/topic/democratic-peace ↩
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3699600?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents ↩

Peace and Peace Studies

Leave a comment

Peace

Excerpts from 'Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas'; David Cortright, Cambridge University Press 2008.

Peace in its simplest characterization indicates an absence of conflict - especially violent conflict - while more proactive definitions include an active presence of positive states of being, such as justice, equality, free expression, physical health and safety, and self-actualization. When put into practice, the meanings of peace and what its pursuit entails vary significantly according to worldview and circumstance. The term is highly emotive, and is often abused as a tool of political propaganda. When peace is defined narrowly it can imply passivity and the acceptance of injustice. Peace is more than the absence of war. It is also the maintenance of an orderly and just society – orderly in being protected against the violence or extortion of aggressors, and just in being defended against exploitation and abuse by the more powerful. Many writers distinguish between negative peace, which is simply the absence of war, and positive peace, which is the presence of justice. Genuine peace means progress toward a freer and more just world. Johan Galtung developed the concept of “ structural violence ” to describe situations of negative peace that have violent and unjust consequences. Violence in Galtung ’ s expansive definition is any condition that prevents a human being from achieving her or his full potential. Leonardo Boff, the Brazilian priest and theologian, employed the term “ originating violence, ” which he defined as an oppressive social condition that preserves the interests of the elite over the needs of dispossessed and marginalized populations. Positive peace thus means transcending the conditions that limit human potential and assuring opportunities for self realization.

Mahatma Gandhi spoke of nonviolence rather than peace and emphasized the necessity of overcoming injustice. Gandhi's meaning was deftly summarized by Jonathan Schell: “ Violence is a method by which the ruthless few can subdue the passive many. Nonviolence is a means by which the active many can overcome the ruthless few. ” Yet the word nonviolence is “ highly imperfect, ” wrote Schell. It is a word of “ negative construction, ” as if the most important thing that can be said about nonviolence is that it is not something else. Schell attempted to resolve this dilemma by defining nonviolence as “ cooperative power ”– collective action based on mutual consent, in contrast to coercive power, which compels action through the threat or use of force.

Further, peace researcher and former Australian ambassador John W. Burton argues that peace must not necessarily mean the absence of conflict. Conflict is intrinsic in human relationships, although it does not have to be and usually is not violent. The challenge for peace practitioners is to find ways in which communities can resolve differences without physical violence. In this context peace is understood as a dynamic process not an absolute end point. The goal of peacemakers is to develop more effective ways of resolving disputes without violent conflict, to identify and transform the conditions that cause war.

Pacifism

Pacifism existed as a movement and set of ideas long before the actual word was coined in 1901 . The term emerged during the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow, at a time when organizations seeking to prevent war were spreading throughout Europe and the United States. Proposals for arbitration and the development of international law were gaining support among political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. Bertha von Suttner ’ s book Lay Down Your Weapons was an international bestseller, published in thirty-seven editions and translated into more than a dozen languages. The ideology of the peace movement was maturing. The narrow religious base of the early Anglo-American peace societies was giving way to more secular, humanitarian perspectives, especially in continental Europe. Prior to the Glasgow congress members of the various peace societies and international organizations generally referred to themselves as “ peace workers, ”“ peace advocates, ” or, most commonly, “ friends of peace. ” Activists sought to develop a better term that would more effectively convey the growing maturity and sophistication of the movement.

It was Émile Arnaud of France, president of the Ligue internationale de la paix et de la liberté, who first introduced the word “ pacifism. ” It was meant to suggest a coherent body of thought and developed set of political beliefs and policies for preventing war and assuring peace. The term was officially adopted at the Glasgow congress. Thereafter those who participated in the various peace organizations and societies around the world began to refer to themselves as “ pacifists. ” It was a term of distinction and had a broad social connotation. It was meant to encompass all of those who worked to preserve peace and prevent war.

Arnaud sought to distinguish pacifists from those who merely hope or pray for peace. “ We are not passive types . . . we are pacifists. ” Pacifism included a personal commitment to take action, to work for peace. It implied, historian Roger Chickering wrote, a “ high degree of engagement in activity ” to help reduce the level of violence in international relations. The study of peace is thus a history of social action as well as of ideas, an examination of social movements and of intellectual development.

Debate over pacifism in theory and in practice came to a head with the outbreak of war in 1914 , when the peace movement collapsed and fractured. Most peace advocates, including internationalists and socialists, abandoned their commitment to transnational solidarity and marched off to war. In the years after World War I there was much recrimination and debate about the meaning of pacifism. The purists who had opposed the march to war claimed the term for themselves. They narrowed its definition to the unconditional rejection of war in all its forms. The restrictive meaning of pacifism became the accepted standard and became the standard in both scholarly and popular discourse.

Many of those who considered themselves pacifist were uncomfortable with the absolutist stand. As the menace of fascism mounted in the 1930's, pacifism became increasingly marginalized and associated with isolationism. The term sank into disrepute and was largely abandoned, even by those who considered themselves advocates of peace. Some tried to redefine pacifism to include rearmament and collective military resistance against Hitler. Others adopted a “ peace with justice ” perspective, arguing that the prevention of war depended on resolving political and economic grievances. They were part of a broad social movement amorphously defined as for peace, but they lacked a coherent program for preventing the impending war and had no commonly accepted “ ism ” to describe the prevailing philosophy.

Scholars attempted to remedy this frustrating imprecision by providing definitions for the various philosophies and political tendencies that exist within the peace community. The most elaborate and sophisticated attempt to parse the meaning of pacifism was provided by historian Martin Ceadel in his masterful volume, Thinking about Peace and War. Ceadel identified five distinct theories of war and peace, ranging from militarism to pacifism. He differentiated absolute pacifism from “ pacificism. ” The latter term was coined by the historian A.J.P. Taylor to describe those who believe that war is always irrational and inhumane and should be prevented, but who accept that it may be necessary at times. Ceadel defined pacificists as those who believe that war can be prevented and with sufficient commitment to justice can be abolished, or nearly so.

Pacifism and 'Just War'

Pacifism and the just war tradition are analytically distinct and are often considered opposites. The concept of pragmatic pacifism helps to bridge the gap and provides a more holistic framework for understanding peace advocacy. It reflects the dominant position of those who consider themselves peace supporters. Absolute pacifists have always been a minority, even within peace movements. The majority of those who work for peace seek to avoid war but are willing to accept some limited use of force for self-defense or to uphold justice and protect the innocent. Some uses of military force are more objectionable than others. This is evident from the fact that certain wars, such as those in Vietnam and Iraq, inspired vociferous movements of mass protest, while other uses of force, such as the multinational operation in Bosnia, were broadly accepted, even by many peace supporters. Because just war language is often abused by political leaders to justify military aggression there is concern that misuse of the framework can be a slippery slope toward the legitimation of indiscriminate violence. As Michael Walzer emphasized, just war reasoning is a challenge to political realism. 36 The just war doctrine establishes a rigorous set of moral conditions that must be met before armed conflict can be considered. If thoroughly and honestly applied these criteria would rule out most of the armed conflicts that political leaders claim to be just and would make war a rare occurrence.

Pragmatic pacifism can be understood as a continuum of perspectives, beginning on one end with the rejection of military violence and extending across a range of options that allow for some limited use of force under specific conditions. The just war position also contains a continuum of perspectives, extending from limited police action to all-out war, based on a set of moral criteria that can vary significantly in different settings. Views on whether a particular use of force is justified range from a restrictive interpretation that permits military action only under narrowly constrained circumstances, to more expansive claims that seek to justify large-scale military operations and even the unprovoked invasion of other countries. The continuum of pacifism can be combined with that of just war to form a continuous range of options extending from absolute nonviolence at the one end to the justification of war at the other. All the differing perspectives on war and peace thus can be considered in relation to one another. This is the approach employed by Ceadel in his classification of five major perspectives on peace and war.

An honest appraisal of war through the lens of just war criteria would forbid any consideration of nuclear strikes and would rule out virtually all forms of large-scale, unilateral military intervention. It would leave only self-defense and limited, legally constrained uses of multilateral force to protect civilians and restore conditions of justice. The “ responsibility to protect ” principles that have recently gained international endorsement embody this perspective.

Peace Studies

Peace Studies 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. 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 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 philosophy, political science, geography, economics, psychology, sociology, international relations, history, anthropology, religious studies, and gender 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.

Peace studies intersects heavily with international relations theory, which seeks to explain relationships between nation-states and similar polities. The core of international relations theory was formulated in the early-to-mid 20th century, a time when consolidated and organized states and governments were considered the primary agents of activity. Consequently, international relations theory does not always offer appropriate explanations for peace and conflict between individuals, communities, and identity groups.