Understanding Peace

Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti
Indira Gandhi National Open University

School of Social Sciences
BGP-001
Introduction to Peace and

Conflict Management
Certificate Programme in Peace Studies and

Conflict Management
Expert Committee
Prof. D. Gopal (Chairman) Prof. Abdul Nafey Prof. Anurag Joshi
Head, Centre for Gandhi and Chairman Faculty of Political Science
Peace Studies Centre for American, Latin SOSS, IGNOU
Programme Coordinator American and Canadian Studies New Delhi
SOSS, IGNOU School of International Studies
Prof. S.V.S. Reddy
New Delhi Jawaharlal Nehru University
Faculty of Political Science
New Delhi
Prof. R.P. Mishra SOSS, IGNOU
Former Vice-Chancellor Prof. A.P. Vijapur New Delhi
Allahabad University Head and Chairman
Prof. Jagpal Singh
Allahabad Deptt. of Political Science
Aligarh Muslim University
Prof. RVR Chandrasekhar Rao SOSS, IGNOU
Aligarh
Former Vice-Chancellor New Delhi
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open Prof. R. S. Yadav Prof. A.S. Narang (Rtd.)
University, Hyderabad Professor & Chairman Faculty of Political Science
Deptt. of Political Science SOSS, IGNOU
Ambassador R. Rajagopalan
Dean, Social Sciences New Delhi
Secretary, Association of Indian
Kurukshetra University
Diplomats
Kurukshetra Prof. D. Gopal
New Delhi
Prof. Sanjay Kumar Jha
Prof. Chintamani Mahapatra SOSS, IGNOU
Chairperson, School of
Centre for Canadian, US and A New Delhi
National Security Studies
Latin American Studies
School of International Studies
Central University of Gujarat
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Gujarat
New Delhi
CPSCM Programme Coordinator: Prof. D. Gopal

Course Coordinator(s) Co-coordinator
Prof. D. Gopal Prof. A.S. Narang (Rtd.)
Head, Centre for Gandhi and Faculty of Political Science
Peace Studies SOSS, IGNOU
Programme Coordinator New Delhi
SOSS, IGNOU
New Delhi
Course Editor(s)
Prof. D. Gopal Prof. A.S. Narang (Rtd.)
Head, Centre for Gandhi and Faculty of Political Science
Peace Studies SOSS, IGNOU
Programme Coordinator New Delhi
SOSS, IGNOU
New Delhi
CPSCM-001 Course Development Team
Prof. Jai Narain Sharma (Units 1&2) Prof. Samir Kumar Das (Unit 9)
Former Chairman & Head Professor of Political Science
Deptt. of Gandhian Studies University of Kolkata
Panjab University Kolkata
Chandigarh
Prof. A. S. Narang, (Retd.) (Units 10&13)
Dr. Saurabh (Unit 3&4) Professor of Political Science
Assistant Professor School of Social Science
Centre for South Asian Studies IGNOU, New Delhi
Dr. Jyoti (Unit 11)
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Assistant Professor
Dr. Gursharan Dhanjal (Unit 5) Department of Journalism
Editor & CEO Skock Group Kamala Nehru College
Skock Consultancy Services University of Delhi
Gurgaon
Dr. (Ms.) Ashu Pasricha (Units 14&15)
Prof. Sudhir Jacob George (Unit 6) Assistant Professor
Former Head & Chairman Deptt. of Gandhian Studies
Deptt. of Political Science Panjab University, Chandigarh
Central University of Hyderabad
Dr. Avanish Patil (Unit 16)
Hyderabad
Associate Professor
Prof. Abdulrahim P. Vijapur (Units 7&12) Deptt. of History
Former Head & Chairman Shivaji University
Deptt. of Political Science Kolhapur, Maharashtra
Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh
Dr. Kaushikee (Unit 8)
Professor
Nelson Mandela Centre for
Peace and Conflict Resolution
(NMCPCR), Jamil Millia Islamia
New Delhi
Material Production Secretarial Assistance

Shri Manjit Singh Shri Vijender
Section Officer (Publication) Stenographer
SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi
October, 2017
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2017
ISBN : 978-93-87237-31-5
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other
means, without permission in writing from the Indira Gandhi national Open University.
Further information on Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained from the
University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi – 110 068
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by
Director, School of Social Sciences.
Laser Typeset by: Graphic Printers, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi - 110091.
Printed at : Raj Printers, A-9, Sector B-2, Tronica City, Loni (Gzb.)
CONTENTS
Page No.
COURSE INTRODUCTION 7
BLOCK–I UNDERSTANDING PEACE
Unit 1 Meaning and Typologies of Peace 12
Unit 2 Importance of Peace for Human Survival and Development 22
Unit 3 Theories of Peace-Building 31
Unit 4 Challenges of Peace-Building 42
BLOCK–II UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT
Unit 5 Meaning and Concept of Conflict 50
Unit 6 Sources of Conflict 60
Unit 7 Types and Levels of Conflict 69
Unit 8 Theories of Conflicts 79
BLOCK–III CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Unit 9 Methods of Conflict Resolution 89
Unit 10 Role of Government 98
Unit 11 Role of Civil Society and Media 106
Unit 12 Role of International and Transnational Organisations 116
BLOCK–IV CONTEMPORARY PEACE INITIATIVES
Unit 13 Land Reforms and other Developmental Measures 128
Unit 14 Inter-Religious Dialogue 138
Unit 15 Dialogue among Parties in Conflict 147
Unit 16 Individual Initiatives 159
COURSE INTRODUCTION
The Course BGP-001: Introduction to Peace and Conflict Management is the first course
in Certificate Programme in Peace Studies and Conflict Management (IGNOU-NCRI).
It is intended to introduce you to the basic concepts of peace and conflicts management,
their types and methods to achieve in a theoretical and global perspective. The purpose
is to make students aware of various meanings, differences and approaches on peace,
conflict management, peace-building and conflict resolution. For example the general
understanding of peace as absence of war is insufficient. Similarly, management or
settlement of a conflict does not necessarily mean that it has been resolved satisfactorily
for all the parties involved. It is, therefore, important to understand the concepts and
issues in a comprehensive and wholistic manner so that appropriate efforts can be made
for achievement of long-lasting peace at all levels making the world a better place to live
and enjoy.
The course has been divided into four Blocks containing four Units each. The first Block
introduces the students to the meaning and types of peace along with theories that explain
the concept and challenges the processes of peace building face at various levels.
Unit 1 is introduction to meaning and typologies of peace. It highlights lack of a
commonly acceptable definition of peace, distinction between negative and positive peace
and Typologies of Peace. In this unit both sub-international and international peace plans
have been discussed in detail. It, in particular, introduces students to the International
Peace plans taking into account the nature of conflicts and need for peace building based
on Distribution of Power, Organisation of Conflicts, Individual Loyalty Conflicts, Degree
of Homology, International Stratification, Degree of Interdependence, Functional Cooperation
Interaction or Interdependence and World Peace Systems.
Unit 2 emphasizes the importance of peace for Human Survival and Development. The
Unit takes note of mankind’s long drawn search for an ideal society and the challenges
it faces at present juncture. The Unit discusses the importance of peace for human
survival, development and security. It makes students aware of the meaning of security
in its various facets, particularly, human security. It emphasizes the human centred
paradigm of security then on state-centric. For that it highlights the essentiality of peace
in positive sense.
Having discussed meaning, types and importance of peace in a comprehensive manner, in
Unit 3 are described various theories of peace building. These include theories both for
liberal peace building and sustainable peace building. Peace building in International
Relations Theories has been discussed in detail. Five schools of thought seen as “middle
level theories” have also been elaborated in this Unit.
Unit 4 is an extension of Unit 3 discussing various challenges and bottlenecks that impede
the peace building processes. It delineates upon the problems faced at management,
planning and implementation levels of adopted models or processes. The Unit also
highlights poor institutional arrangements, centralized approaches, lack of citizen participation,
poor strategic communication, weak accountability between national and international
partners and limited effectiveness of capacity development approaches.
Block 2 consisting of Units 5 to 8 is designed for students to understand conflict. As
in Block 1 with regard to peace in this Block have been discussed meaning and concept
of conflict its sources, types and levels. The Unit also makes students aware of various
theories of conflicts as in the case of theories of peace in Block 1.
8 Introduction to Peace and Conflict Management
Unit 5 deals in detail about meaning and concept of conflict. It delineates on the process
of development of conflicts through various stages, and their life-cycle. The Unit also
describes in detail differences between violent and non-violent conflicts as also various
categories of conflicts like territory and border conflicts, minority, ethnic and government,
power conflicts, conflict over resources, etc. Like various categories and stages of
conflicts there also are various means and stages of dealing with conflicts. These include
crisis prevention, conflict management, crisis management, conflict settlement, conflict
resolution, conflict transformation, and peace building. The Unit describes these in detail
and brings out differences between them. To apply any of these measures an understanding
of the conflict cycle is essential. The same has been discussed in detail in the Unit.
Unit 6 on Sources of conflict further expands some of the issues highlighted in previous
unit. It discusses in detail different types of sources that cause conflict. One of these is
based on material, ideological and motivational basis. Under this are discussed economic,
value, power, and ineffective communication and escalation of conflicts. The second
category is of parties involved. The Unit describes inter-personal role, inter-group, multi-
party and international conflicts. In this Unit also is described various types of threats in
international arena, that cause or sometimes restrict escalation of conflicts. These include
threats of punishment, conquest, annihilation, possession of offensive and defensive
weapons, and boundary disputes. As an example of sources of conflicts a case of
conflicts in South Area involving India, Pakistan and China, in particular, has been
discussed. As in Unit 5 this also concludes that for a meaningful application of means to
deal with conflicts a proper understanding of sources and causes of conflicts is necessary.
In Unit 7 are described and discussed various types and levels of conflict. The Unit
begins with the conceptual clarification of the concept in view of various definitions of the
same. It also describes various objectives and functions of conflict both in terms of
negative and positive aspects. There is detailed discussion on types and levels of conflict.
Various classifications of the types have been provided by experts and scholars. These
include classifications of Quincy Wright, Anton Rapport, Singer, K.J. Holster, Stuart
Chare, Kenneth Bounding, John Galtug, and Dennis Sandaled. In view of a large number
of typologies, it is observed that current conflict typology is in a state of confusion. Some
differentiate in terms of conflict parties, others in terms of conflict issues, but most in
terms of hybrid lists that seem to muddle diverse categories.
Unit 8 describes various theories of conflict. It makes students aware of theories based
in Human Nature and Society. In Human Nature based theories, are included Biological
and Socio-Biological theories and Psychological and Social Psychological theories; Society
based theories include social process, social structural, structural violence, human needs,
resource, relative deprivation and socio-economic theories.
Block 3, consists of Units 9 to 12 on conflict management. The scope of this block
is to make students understand the importance of de-escalation, settlement and resolution
of conflicts so that we can live in peace both in society as well as in countries. The
block begins with describing various methods of conflict resolution at different levels and
in different situations. As conflicts arise due to different reasons, among different actors
and different levels, there cannot be one approach for all. Starting from international
bodies to individuals, there are stakeholders for peace. The block in Units 10, 11 and
12 discusses the role these stakeholders that is the government, civil society, media
international and transnational institutions.
Course Introduction 9
Unit 9 after recapitulating differences between various kinds of conflicts distinguishes

between conflict management, conflict settlement, conflict transformation and conflict
resolution. Each of these can be considered as an end in itself depending on the situation
or a step towards ultimate goal of conflict resolution. There has been a change in the
nature of conflicts over time. This is particularly so after the end of Cold War. Therefore,
methods of conflict resolution need to take note of these.
In Unit 10 is described the role of government. The government being an agency
empowered with use of force is responsible to maintain peace and order within territorial
limits of a state (country). It is in states that conflicts keep on emerging between
individuals, groups, communities, classes, etc. In some cases some groups may rise in
conflict against the state itself. The state is required to manage and resolve all types of
conflicts. These can be managed and settled by use of force, mediation between groups,
adjudication, commands, etc. In cases of groups in conflict against state there can be
suppression by use of full might of the state, negotiations with the group, understanding
of their grievances, and accommodation of their demands, use of good offices of local,
regional or even outside-nation individuals, institutions or agencies. The Unit also
discusses the limitations on States and challenges these face, particularly, in the present
age where issues of human rights violations, abuse of police powers, allegations of
discrimination etc. have become matters of concern at civil society level within states and
in the community of nations.
Unit 11 describes the role of civil society and media. In the present age of democracy,
information and communication revolution, international community’s expression for justice
and non-discrimination, civil society has emerged as a conscious keeper of societies.
Complimentary and supplementary to civil society is the media – print, electronic and
social. Both civil society and media can be neutral observers of conflicts and as such play
important role in establishing communication between parties in conflicts, put pressure on
them to negotiate and settle in the wider interest of peace and larger society. The Unit
apart from discussing those issues also delineates upon the type and nature of civil society
and media that can play such role. There, of course, are limits of and challenges for both
civil society and media.
Unit 12 delineates the role of International and transnational organisations in conflict
management and resolutions. In this unit, you will read the role played by United Nations
Organisation (UNO) in maintaining international peace-keeping and security since World
War II and the challenges it faces. In addition the Unit also discusses the role of some
other international organisations like North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as a
regional organisation; United Nations mandated Agency University of Peace and some
International Non-governmental organisations. The role played by those agencies specific
situations of conflict in countries like the Korean War, Palestine Issue, the Suez Crisis, the
Hungarian and Czechoslovakia crisis, the Iraq-Iran war and some others have been
highlighted.
The Unit also takes note of the serious threats terrorism is posing to the international
security and discusses various steps initiated by U.N. and other agencies to counter the
menace. By going through this Unit you will be able to appreciate the importance of
international cooperation for peace-keeping and conflict resolution as also the limitations.
The unit brings out the shortcomings in the present system and makes some useful
suggestions for a more useful role of these agencies.
Block 4 Contemporary Peace initiatives in units 13 to 16 discusses various means

approaches and processes of prevention and resolution of conflicts . In these units you
will learn about both state and non-state initiatives for peace building. Unit 13 on Land
reforms and other development measures primarily takes note of measures necessary to
address the underlying causes of disputes, conflicts and crisis situations. As peace in the
positive sense is characterised by the conditions of harmonious coexistence of human
beings-individually and collectively -living a satisfied life without fear of violence, it is
necessary to create conditions for that. Therefore to prevent conflicts policies and
provisions for Human Security are considered important. An important aspect of Human
Security is fare distribution of resources, in many countries, especially developing, land
being the primary source of livelihood but its ownership concentrated in few hands land
reforms have been an important concern for governments. In this unit you will read about
importance of land reforms and efforts by some countries, particularly in India, in this
direction. The limitations and challenges faced in that have also been highlighted. In
addition to land reforms the unit also discusses importance of other aspects of human
security, including food, economic, gender and inclusive security. The main aim is
preference for prevention. For that it is important to understand the root causes of
conflicts and address those.
Unit 14 discusses some initiatives taken by spiritual, religious and other concerned for
avoidance of communal or cultural conflicts through inter-religious dialogue. The unit
highlights the importance of understanding and appreciating each other’s religion, their
ethos and values and bring out commonalties towards living in peace. There have been
inter-religious and inter-faith dialogues in different places, shapes and levels. These include
the dialogue of life, the dialogue of commonaction (social), theological dialogue(discourses)
and dialogue of religious experience. You will read about some specific dialogues held in
different places in world. Role and efforts by some specific institutions and organisations
have also been discussed. You will also read about the criticism, particularly by some
religious persons, about the futility of such exercises.
Unit 15 of this block is on Dialogue among parties in conflict. Here is described the
importance of establishing the process of communication between parties in conflict
facilitated or moderated by third party. It helps fostering mutual recognition, understanding,
empathy and trust. You will read in some detail classification and phases of dialogue as
also differences between debate and dialogue. The unit discusses how the process of
deep dialogue between the parties can build bridges, and reduce the gap between
intentions, words and deeds. lt also highlights how the dialogue approach can provide
disputants an opportunity to clarify their own deeply held needs and. values and to others,
as at least particularly similar to others. Through mediators and facilitator’s dialogue help
to unfreeze the assumption that the other is an eternal enemy to be destroyed. There are
some other ways also for that. These include withdrawing, smoothing, forcing, compromising,
and collaborating. Both in domestic and international disputes dialogue has been encouraged
and used to reduce tensions, build bridges and restore order. The process, like others has
its limitations and faces challenges.
Last unit in this block Unit 16 is on individual initiatives. In this you will read
contributions of three important persons – Vinoba Bhave, Jai Prakash Narain and Martin
Luther King – in particular. All three were influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of non-
violence to build and maintain peace. The basic Gandhian understanding inherited by these
activists was that social structural forces that give rise to oppression needs to be
Course Introduction 11
highlighted and tackled. In this unit you will read about movements like Bhoodan and
Gramdan introduced by Vinoba Bhave, Winning hearts and Total revolution propounded
by Jai Prakash Narain and various movements for justice for blacks stared and lead by
Martin Luther. All these were aimed at attaining peace and justice by eliminating social
oppression and economic exploitation and addressing the suffering and misery of people
without confrontation .The message is that peace movements do not only try to resolve
conflicts between nation states and different groups within states but also try to provide
justice, equality and livelihood to oppressed.
Through the above 16 units of this course as a whole you will be introduced to various
concepts and definitions related to peace, conflict and peace building. There are a various
approaches to study the subject as also processes to manage and resolve conflicts and
build peace. It is important to understand those. In next blocks you will study in some
detail the applications of these concepts and approaches at ground level. With theoretical
and conceptual clarity and understanding of situations and issues involved you can
contribute in the process of peace building which the need of the hour
UNIT 1 MEANING AND TYPOLOGIES OF PEACE
Structure
1.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
1.2 Concept of Peace
1.3 Meaning of Peace
1.3.1 Cultural Traditions
1.4 Negative and Positive Peace

1.5 Typologies of Peace
1.6 Sub-International Peace Plans
1.7 International Peace Systems
1.7.1 Based on Distribution of Power
1.7.2 Based on Organisation of Conflicts
1.7.3 Based on Individual Loyalty Conflicts
1.7.4 Based on Degree of Homology
1.7.5 Based on International Stratification
1.7.6 Based on Degree of Interdependence
1.7.7 Based on Functional Cooperation Interaction or Interdependence
1.8 World Peace Systems

1.9 Summary
1.10 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Peace, in general, is considered one of the essentials for individual’s well being. But the
Problem that the world faces today is not that of peace for individual or of his morality
or social behaviour but of intergroup and international behaviour and morals. This problem
has reached such a critical and crucial stage, that either we solve it satisfactorily or we
perish as human race, along with the civilization that has come up with painful efforts and
travail of centuries. Every step in this advance has meant the devoted service of the
pioneers, often enough carried through at the expense of their lives.
Let us for a moment examine the morality that guides groups and nations in their
commerce with each other. It essentially is diametrically opposite to the social morality, the
observance of which among individuals have made our civilization possible. What is good
in individual and social conduct comes to be undesirable in political and especially in
international relations. In social relations we admire the man who is peaceful, truthful,
modest, and helpful to others. We greatly admire the man who at some personal
inconvenience and loss serves his neighbor. However, in the international field we expect
nations and their agents to be selfish, proud, overbearing and aggressive. A nation which
Meaning and Typologies of Peace 13
sacrificed its real or fancied interests for that of a neighboring nation would be considered
foolish and even depraved. In social life we denounce aggression and violence, but the
successful use of these is not applauded in the relations between nations. In social life,
a murderer pays with his life for his crime, but in international field people responsible for
arson, loot, rape, mass murders is applauded as a great patriot and a hero. In his honour
are erected arches and triumphant marches organised. In social life, individuals are
enjoined generally to trust each other and keep their word. No nation ever keeps its
word with another nation if it considers that its interests are involved. Nations betraying
each other are not the exception but the rule. Even after a war fought to end war, nations
who were allied betray each other when the war is over.
However, it is not possible for men and women to live under conditions of cruelty,
injustice and tyranny for long, without devising means to remove them. To allow these to
remain un-remedied, because they cannot be solved without violence and war, will be an
advice of despair which, however, temporarily acquiesced in, can never be a permanent
solution. Throughout the centuries the best spirit of the age has worked for ever lasting
peace. It is now clear that peace is an essential condition for both the individuals’
personal life and social relation. In this unit we will elaborate these aspects.
Aims and Objectives
After studying this unit you should be able to:
 know the meaning of peace;
 distinguish between negative and positive peace;
 understand the typologies of peace; and
 know various international peace systems.
1.2 CONCEPT OF PEACE

Throughout the ages, the idea of peace has been imbibed into various traditions, social
systems and religious scriptures. It is not new to any civilization. All civilizations have,
invariably developed only under the peaceful environment and progress could be achieved
primarily under peaceful surroundings. If we look at the history of the evolution of the
ancient or modern civilizations, it becomes clear that the underline condition of progress
is peace.
Every branch of discipline may it be art, music, sculpture or literature has flourished only
under peaceful surroundings. In countries, where the revolt, war or conflictual situation
dominates, the progress of the people or nation stagnates. Cultural evolution emanates
only where the society is peaceful. It can be said that peace is as old as human
civilization. The grand meaning of peace has recent origin. The basics of this concept have
multifarious dimensions. They reveal the same idea of ‘harmony’ which is socially
adjustable, mutually co-operative with peaceful way of life. These have been rich in
content across various religious and philosophical traditions.
1.3 MEANING OF PEACE

Peace has many dimensions. It has a much broader application which includes every level
and sphere of human and social existence. Ask a religious person what peace means, he
will depict political frictions as the other symptoms of a deep-seated spiritual illness: man
is not at peace with himself, with others, or with God. A pacifist will focus instead on
the proper moral organisation of society on the basis of non-violence. To a Marxist,
peace suggests the false promises of capitalism and the deeper reality of the international
class struggle. For observers of international affairs it primarily is absence of war or
conflicts.
Kant (1957) defines peace first as an “end of hostilities” and indicates that the problem
is largely one of “good organisation”. He equates peace with a “condition” which is “the
final end of jurisprudence”, and concludes by designating it “the highest political good”.
Expanding the concept, Galtung (1996) introduced the notion of negative peace to refer
to the absence of war and contrasted it with positive peace to refer to the absence of
structural violence. This latter term refers to inegalitarian and discriminatory social structures
which also indirectly inflict violence upon individuals or groups in a systematic and
organised way because of the institutions and practices they condone. Slavery was an
example of structural violence in the past, and discrimination on the basis of race,
ethnicity, or gender are examples of structural violence in our age. According to peace
researchers, such as Galtung, a society in which such social structures exist is not at
peace even though it may not be at war.
Brock-Utne (1985) expands Galtung’s definition. She acknowledges the existence of
negative peace (the absence of war) and positive peace (the absence of structural
violence). However, she introduces a distinction that separates structural violence that
shortens the life span from structural violence that reduces quality of life. Finally she points
out that there is a distinction between organised violence manifested in a systematic way
on an intergroup level and unorganised physical and structural violence manifested on an
interpersonal level, within the home, for example. In other words, even if there are no
wars (organised physical violence), peace cannot be said to exist when children or women
are abused within the home (unorganised physical violence). There is no peace if life span
is lessened because of the effect of inequitable economic structures or damage of nature
by pollution, radiation, etc. (organised structural violence) or if a girl child’s need for food,
health, clothing are not provided for adequately because of gender (unorganised structural
violence). Finally, there is no positive peace if quality of life is reduced when free speech
or the right to organise is denied (organised structural violence) or when educational
opportunities in a home are determined according to gender (unorganised structural
violence).
According to Wright, peace is ‘the by-product of a satisfactory organisation of the world’.
He further clarifies “the condition of community in which order and justice prevail,
internally among its members and externally in its relations with other communities is a
peaceful society”.
1.3.1 Cultural Traditions
Conflicting definitions of peace in various cultural traditions have been studied by Ishida
who lists the following renderings of peace as most prominent: Shalom (Judaeo-Christian)
- positive orientation toward justice; Eirene (Greek) and Pax (Roman) stress on good
orders; Shanti (Indian), P’ing ho (Chinese), and Heiwa (Japanese) tranquility of mind.
Declaring that these ways of conceptualising peace are likely to conflict with one another,
Ishidac suggests that it would be helpful if scholars would compute the uses of peace in
state speeches, in order to clarify the structural concepts current in each nation so that
a better balance might be achieved between conflicting meanings. He thinks that justice
should not be neglected in favour of harmony and good order.
Ishida’s emphasis on the conflicting nature of these ‘peace values’ underscores the error
of lumping diverse moral goals and political objectives under the single umbrella of peace
and ascribing to them some sort of automatic compatibility. On the other hand, each of
Ishida’s cultural formulations seems to represent a rather narrow conceptualisation in which
one value is stressed to the determinant of others.
According to Kaplan (1957) one should avoid premature closure in assigning meaning to
terms and concepts and should understand the whole process of scientific inquiry as a
matter of ‘successive definition’. Surely there are few concepts that have as many
definitions as peace. Given its multiple dimensions and complex mix of social-scientific,
ethical, and political elements, it makes excellent sense to regard peace as requiring
continuous redefinition as peace theory advances. Moreover, precisely because of its
complexity and because of what Kaplan would call its ‘systemic meaning’, any definition
apart from its theoretical framework is not likely to prove very illuminating.
1.4 NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE PEACE

There is need to distinguish between two concepts of peace. Negative peace, defined as
the absence of organised violence between such major human groups as nations, but also
between racial and ethnic groups because of the magnitude that can be reached by
internal wars; and Positive peace, defined as a pattern of cooperation and integration
between major human groups. Absence of violence should not be confused with absence
of conflict: violence may occur without conflict, and conflict may be solved by means of
nonviolent mechanisms. The distinction between these two types of peace gives rise to a
fourfold classification of relations between two nations: war, which is organised group
violence; (1) negative peace, where there is no violence but no other form of interaction
either and where the best characterisation is ‘peaceful-coexistence’; (2) positive peace,
where there is some cooperation interspersed with occasional outbreaks of violence; and
unqualified peace, where absence of violence is combined with a pattern of cooperation.
The absence of every direct form of violence is considered to be “negative peace”. Johan
Galtung (1996) explained it lucidly, as absence of violence, particularly direct forms such
as absence of personal violence, absence of war, war preparation, civil war, terrorism,
management of conflicts both national and international. As the emphasis is on war, this
approach examines direct violence or physical assault, which divides mankind in terms of
religion, race, and class etc.
According to Gandhi ‘peace is not merely a negative state of harmlessness’ or absence
but a ‘positive state of love’ of doing good to evil doers’ too. Peaceless state of affair
is a situation in which human beings are obstructed from achieving full development either
because of their own internal relations that exist between themselves (as individuals or
group members) and other persons or groups.
Violence is generally concerned with hostilities between nations, groups, communities or
individuals, absence of peace results in physical harm or disturbed, unhappy, and
potentially violent relationships. Violence starts when an individual’s potential development
(mental or physical) is held back by the condition of social relationship that is the
emotional and social deprivation (low level of education, health etc.) condition creates
peaceless circumstances into conflict.
Thus, the state of peaceless status and social injustice are the off-shoots of violence
emanating from the individuals and the social structure. According to Johan Galtung
(1996), violence is present when human beings are influenced so that their actual somatic
and mental realisations are below their potential capacities. Galtung divides violence into
direct and indirect or structural violence by which he means uneven distribution of power
over resources. The absence of former he calls ‘negative peace’ and he calls ‘the later
positive peace’, or social justice. They together constitute peace in the full sense of the
term. When both the types of violence are removed, the resulting state of affairs is peace.
The conception of peace as ‘no war’ is neither theoretically nor practically interesting: as
used for instance, in describing the relationship that obtains between Norway and Nepal.
It can often be explained in terms of a low level of interaction resulting from geographical
distance and thus will hardly be identified by many as an ideal relation worth striving for.
For peace, like health, has both cognitive and evaluative components: it designates states
of a system of nations, but this state is so highly valued that institutions are built around
it to protect and promote it. It is the concept of positive peace that is worth exploring,
especially since negative peace is a condition sine qua non and the two concepts of
peace may be empirically related even though they are logically independent.
1.5 TYPOLOGIES OF PEACE

A major axis for the classification of any peace plan is the level of organisation that it
singles out for reform. The problem of peace, in the mind of a person proposing
something, can be located at any of five levels: the level of the isolated individual; the
level of human groups; the level of human societies or nations; the level of the international
system of nations; and the emerging level of a world state. For simplicity, the first three
can be considered, leaving only three levels of peace plans: the sub-international, the
international, and the level of the world state.
1.6 SUB-INTERNATIONAL PEACE PLANS

There are several well-known approaches at the sub-international level. Although they play
a minor role in contemporary thinking about peace, they need to be mentioned because
of their prevalence. The basic idea of intra-human approaches to peace is that inter-
group, and also inter-human, conflicts are non-realistic conflicts and more particularly,
projections of intra-human conflicts. Hence, if man could be freed from more of his inner
conflicts, he would behave in a less aggressive manner at the international level. Past
generations’ techniques of freeing individuals from internal conflicts dependent on religious
conversion, whereas in contemporary societies psychotherapy is more frequently called
for- if not for the whole population, at least for its leaders, and if not for its present
leaders, at least as a screening device for future leaders.
Inter-human approaches to peace emphasize the idea of projection of inter-human rivalry
onto higher levels of human organisation and, more positively, the idea that training in
peaceful conflict resolution at lower levels may be transferred to higher levels, including
the international level. Life in the family, at school, at work, or in associations may be
seen as possible training grounds, particularly for those who are to become world leaders.
Likewise, intra-societal approaches to peace emphasize the idea of projection: societies
that are especially conflict-ridden will use external aggression as a means to force internal
cohesion. This approach also includes the idea that some political systems are more
peace-loving than others; more particularly, great importance is given to a fair distribution
of the wealth of a nation to its inhabitants.
1.7 INTERNATIONAL PEACE SYSTEMS

Various suggestions for international peace plans are both theoretically and practically
more promising than those that focus on the sub-international level.
1.7.1 Based on Distribution of Power

Most peace thinking has centered on the problem of how power shall best be distributed
among the nations of the world. Theories relating to this are usually marred by the neglect
of other kinds of power than coercive power. Influence potential in its most general sense
is rarely considered. If we stick to this tradition of studying the distribution of military
power, there are four major models of peace.
The first model is that of minimum equality, which is based on the theory that the
international system is best served by making power the monopoly of one nation or
system, just as it is monopolized by some states in the international system.
The second model focuses on maximum equality, or what is usually referred to as a
“balance of power” in the sense that no nation or alliance is strong enough to defeat
another nation or alliance. A modern version is the “balance of terror,” in which a nation
may defeat other nations, but only at the risk of being completely destroyed itself.
A third model views military powers as stabilized at a low level; this refers to all kinds
of arms control efforts. Finally, there is the model that views power as stabilized at a zero
level. This refers to the general (all nations) and complete (all weapons) disarmament
advocated by pacifists.
1.7.2 Based on Organisation of Conflicts

The second general type of international peace plan focuses on the organisation of
conflicts. The basic model here is the cris cross model, which is based on the idea that
a system is strengthened, not weakened by the more conflicts it harbors, provided all
these conflicts do not divide the units the same way. If two nations are allies in one
conflict (for instance, between East and West, in the language of the Cold War), they may
nevertheless be antagonists in another conflict (for instance, between rich and poor
nations), and this subjects them to cross pressures. The effects of cross pressures are a
tendency toward withdrawal and neutrality, or nonalignment; the development of multiple
loyalties that prevent complete identification and involvement in any conflict; and a
tendency to serve as a channel of communication between the groups that are not
exposed to cross pressure.
1.7.3 Based on Individual Loyalty Conflicts

Whereas, according to the crisis cross model, peace is obtained when nations are caught
in cross pressures, and other peace models imply that the violence potential of nations is
reduced when divided loyalties are induced in individuals. One such plan seeks to
manipulate multiple national loyalties: the idea is to impede conflict polarisation by
institutionalising, preferably across potential conflict border lines, secondary and primary
relations between individuals from different nations. In practice, the suggestions are many:
for example, mixed marriages, exchanges of all kinds (children, youths, students,
professionals, politicians), and increased knowledge and empathy.
A second plan seeks to build cross cutting organisational loyalties. The division of the
world into nations and territories provides, roughly, an exhaustive and mutually exclusive
division of mankind. But it is also divided into nearly two thousand international
organisations, which provide many individuals with other focuses of identification, although
this division is far from exhaustive (and not exclusive either). With increased communication,
geographical distance decreases in importance; thus organisational identification may
gradually gain in importance relative to national identification and eventually provide a
multiple loyalty that would make it difficult to organise individuals in wars against their
peers.
1.7.4 Based on Degree of Homology

Homology between nations means the extent to which they are similar in social and
political structure, that is institution and states in nation A has its “opposite number” in
nation B, has been singled out as a factor of importance. There are two models of peace
based on this concept. In the models of minimum homology nations are as different as
possible, in the sense that they have different value structures; thus, they will not compete
for the same scarce values but can establish a very specific pattern of interdependence
a kind of symbiosis based on complementarity. On the other hand, where maximum
homology prevails, nations are as similar as possible in social structure and value structure,
thus facilitating diffuse interaction and creating a value consensus. It is argued that the
more similar nations are in terms of their culture (including language), the lower is the
probability of misunderstanding. The theoretical basis is the thesis of “value homophily” i.e.
that similarity tends to produce liking and interaction.
1.7.5 Based on International Stratification

We may assume that international stratification that is, the ranking of nations as high or
low on such rank dimensions as size, population, power, natural resources, income per
capita, cultural level, social level and urbanization is multidimensional and that there is a
tendency toward rank equilibrium, in the sense that nations tend to divide into those that
are high and those that are low on most or many dimensions. The problem, as for
systems of individuals, is how the interaction between nations is regulated. There seem to
be two models that focus on regulating “class conflict” at the international level.
First, there is the feudal type of system, where there is a high level of interaction at the
top and a low level at the bottom that is, the international system is tied together at the
top by trade, diplomacy, and all other kinds of exchange. Although there is very little
interaction at the bottom, there may be some from top to bottom. This system is easily
controlled by the wealthy nations; if there is a consensus among them, the system may
achieve stability similar to that of the caste system or of slave societies.
By contrast, in what may be called the modern system there is an equal level of
interaction at the top and at the bottom. The “underdogs” unity in organisations makes it
possible for them to countervail the influence of the “top dog” nations. Thus, one might
envisage a kind of trade union of small nations that is able to strike against the big
nations, organise embargoes to obtain better prices for raw materials, etc. and thus force
upon the world a more equitable distribution of world output. Over time the importance
of class lines may then decrease in the international system.
1.7.6 Based on Degree of Interdependence

Some models of peace are based on interdependence between nations. Interdependence,
or interaction where some kind of positive value is exchanged between the parties to the
interaction, may vary in frequency (how often), volume (how much is transferred), and
scope (variety of value exchanged). Trade between two nations is a good example of
how all three can vary independently. There are two principal models based on this
concept. The model of minimum interdependence envisages a world where each nation is
autonomous and self-sufficient and no nation intervenes or interferes in the affairs of any
other nation. This is a clear case of negative peace, where positive peace is explicitly
ruled out (Burton 1965). On the other hand, in the model of maximum interdependence
all pairs of nations have maximum interaction in terms of frequency, volume, and scope.
The idea is that all pairs of nations would be protected from rupture and violent conflict
by the web of affiliations spun between them. Positive interaction with other nations would
be built into each nation in such a way that wars would be too costly.
1.7.7 Based on Functional Cooperation Interaction or

Interdependence
This means that only some kind of exchange should not be confused with functional
cooperation, which implies that the parties together produce something they may then
share. Co-production is one form of functional cooperation, when several nations combine
resources in order to produce something really big, such as a supersonic commercial
airplane or a gigantic development project. There is good reason to believe that, at the
level of individuals, functional cooperation on equal terms is one of the factors most
efficient in producing integration.
1.8 INTERNATIONAL PEACE SYSTEMS

Most peace thinking has centred on the problem of how power shall best be distributed
among the nations of the world. The first model is that of minimum equality of power
which is based on the theory that the international system is best served by making power
the monopoly of one nation or system, just as it is monopolised by some states in the
international system. Examples are the Pax Romana, Pax Ecclesiae, and Pax Britannica.
These are instances of Roman Empire, the Catholic Church and Britain maintaining law
and order over large areas in the globe. The second model focuses on maximum equality,
or what is usually referred to as a ‘balance of power’ in the sense that no nation or
alliance is strong enough to defeat another nation or alliance. A modern version of this is
the balance of terror, in which a nation may defeat other nations, but only at the risk of
itself being completely destroyed. The third model views military power as best stabilised
at a low level; this refers to all kinds of arms control efforts, especially those that have
taken place from the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 to the present day, including
contemporary thinking that aims at subtracting from a Hobbesian dictum that denotes
some means of violence and some objects of violence. The idea is to rule out general
and complete war. Finally, there is the model that views power as stabilised at a zero
level; this refers to the general and complete disarmament advocated by pacifists. Pacifism
asserts that this state may be obtained unilaterally by the effect of example, because
weapons become meaningless when the do not encounter similar weapons, and by the
refusal of soldiers to use arms, as well as by governmental decisions.
1.9 SUMMARY
In this Unit, you have learnt various definitions of peace, distinction between Negative and
Positive Peace and typologies of peace as identified by various approaches.
Negative peace generally is absence of direct form of violence. At a wider level, it also
means absence of war. But, as Gandhi observed peace is not merely a negative state of
harmlessness or absence but a positive state of love, of doing good to evil doers too.
Positive peace at international level, as such will mean absence of violence combined with
a pattern of cooperation.
There are several approaches at the sub-international level on types of peace. These are
divided into intra-human and inter-human approaches. More important in terms of
typology are international peace systems. These are based on Distribution of Power,
Organisation of Conflicts, Individual Loyalty Conflicts, Degree of Homology, International
Stratification, Degree of Interdependence and Functional Cooperation Interaction.
All the models of world systems have in common a certain resemblance to a nation state,
usually held to be successful by the person who puts forward the proposal. The idea is
that since many nation-states have obtained reasonable security and equity for their
inhabitants, there must be something in their structure that is worth copying at the world
level.
1.10 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1) Define Peace. Discuss its various dimensions.
2) How is negative peace different from positive peace?
3) Discuss the various typologies of Peace.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Bright, Brock Utne, (1985) Educating for Peace, New York, Peragamon Press.
Burton, John W., (1965) International Relations: A General Theory, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press,
Galtung Johan, (1996) Peace by Peaceful Means, Peace, Conflict, Development and
Civilizations, London, Sage.
Galtung Johan, (1984) Struggle for Peace, Ahmedabad, Peace Research Centre.
Kaplan, Morton, (1957) System and Process in International Politics, New York,
Wiley.
Kant, Immanuel, (1957) Perpetual Peace, New York, Wiley.
Prasad, Devi, (1984) Peace Education or Education for Peace, New Delhi, Gandhi
Peace Foundation.
UNIT 2 IMPORTANCE OF PEACE FOR HUMAN
SURVIVAL AND DEVELOPMENT
Structure
2.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
2.2 World without Violence
2.2.1 Peace and Security
2.3 Peace for Human Survival

2.4 Peace for Development
2.5 Peace for Security
2.5.1 State-Centric Paradigm
2.5.2 Human-Centric Paradigm
2.5.3 Importance of Peace
2.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Since time immemorial, mankind has been searching for an ideal society where man can
lead a happier, worthier and more rewarding life. Literature from the East and West has
been testimony to it. Manu, Kautilya, Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Marx,
Gandhi all considered the necessity for social and cultural presupposition for ideal political
order for a better human life.
Ideal society needs to be built by mankind, a society that is spiritually beautiful, materially
affluent and humanly rewarding. It can only be possible if there is peace and security of
the world. The importance of peace for any society is obvious. Without peace no nation
and no individual can move forward. Only in a peaceful atmosphere mankind can secure
greater heights. A society without peace is like life in the state of nature- brutish, barbaric,
short, dull and nasty as Hobbes pointed out. Everyone professes a desire for peace as
an ultimate goal. This prompts everyone to find out what are the conditions necessary to
ensure a stable peace. There remains a fundamental challenge to the modern world: can
conflicts between man and his social groups be resolved in some fashion other than war?
Today’s world is filled with war, terrorism, turmoil and confusion. While men have made
many technological inventions they are not able to ‘create’ peace. Scientists have
unleashed the power of atom but are powerless to check their danger for humanity. The
biggest danger in front of us today is that violence and science both have joined hands
not only to destroy the peace of universe but also to threaten the very existence of
humanity. Therefore, we have lost our peace. Technology brings people closer together in
a global community. It is increasingly important that we find ways to live together with
peace in a secure world.
Importance of Peace for Human Survival and Development 23
The search for peace in a world full of extreme economic, social and cultural heterogeneity,
bedeviled by self-aggrandizing states which go to war against each other, occasionally
plunging the world into senseless destruction has inspired many proposals for creating one
‘True World’ where every individual is at peace, hence feel secure.
Disarmaments and arms control cannot be pursued for their own sake. Their objectives
must be peace. Security will be natural consequence of peace but the reverse is not
necessarily true. The official position of every government, worldwide, is that military might
is essential because it is the only means by which one can feel secure in a dangerous
world. The truth is that the safest city in the world is one where you can walk down the
street and need no police officer to protect. But contrary to this view point, the issue of
militarism has grown as a world view. The current threats to every nation can never be
eliminated by use of massive might. Nuclear weapons provide more insecurity to the
nation than the security. Regional tensions grow up with the weapons. The mad race for
more and more weapons seems to end nowhere. Military war can never have any winner.
One may win the war or one may lose it, but human beings end up as losers in the end.
Aims and Objectives
After going through this Unit, you should be able to understand:
 the importance of peace for human survival and development;
 State Centric and Human Centric Paradigms of security; and
 the relation between peace and security.
2.2 WORLD WITHOUT VIOLENCE

For many centuries, mankind was wrongly led to believe that a major war is required to
end all the wars for all the times to come. The history has shown that this belief itself
has been the cause of many conflicts. Wars cannot bring peace. Retaliation only causes
counter- retaliation. Peace can be brought only by non violent means as expressed by the
Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi. The term non-violence should be understood not
simply as absence of physical injury but as an active force of love towards all creatures
including humans, animals and plants. Man cannot live by destructions. Though there may
be repulsion enough in nature, yet one lives by attraction and love which is the basis of
society where life can be more secure and peaceful. In the violent environment human
beings cannot have secure and peaceful conditions of life.
Can there be a world without violence? Is there a way out? The practical way to live
peacefully in a secure environment must be found. Even after the end of Cold War arms
race has not stopped. We are still relying upon nuclear weapons to provide security. But
security for whom? Security against what? We need a society that does not place human
future in jeopardy. The confusion and errors of the past demand an urgent and serious
attempt to develop workable principles for humanitarian interventions both at national and
international levels. Since new insecurities have been generated by organisations a
concerted effort is needed to understand security conception beyond military and international
relations, towards a more comprehensive and proactive framework, which includes the
root cause of conflicts.
Peace is not an end in itself. It is a way to achieve a better happier and safer life for
human beings. The quest for peace and security began with a desire to live and live better
on this earth. Aristotle made distinction in which all ‘particular goods” are constructed with
a single ‘final good’. He also stated that “there are many things which are valued “for
their own sake.” But he refrained from terming them “final” because these particular goods
are also valued as promoting something else, namely what he calls “Happiness for
humankind”.
2.2.1 Peace and Security

In the last Unit, you read that peace can be both negative and positive. Peace can also
be characterised as static or dynamic. By static peace is meant a social situation in which
nothing changes and no violence occurs for settling disputes. In contrast to this dynamic
peace refers to a situation where differences do occur but are settled non-violently.
Today, conflicts and tensions of all sorts are mounting up. Highly sophisticated weapons
are being piled up in the name of better life. The nuclear weapons are increasing day by
day. A void looms large and insecurity grapples humanity. There is almost a total absence
of the will for reformation of the man’s life for a peaceful and secure world. The unfolding
dialectic of world history is entering into comprehensive and perhaps most problematic
phase. Domestic social structures are deeply destabilized. The poor and the oppressed
are both rising in revolt. The so called superpowers of the world who very often assume
the role of the custodians of the rest of the world are competing with one another in
testing and developing more weapons to teach the others a lesson. All this has led us to
a situation of deepening conflicts and violence. We are witness to a great schism in the
human community dividing the world into extremes of affluence and of distress with
concentrations of poverty, scarcity, unemployment and deprivation in vast sections of
mankind and abundance of production and consumption in another very small section of
the same species. Industrialisation was expected to put an end to the conditions of
scarcity for mankind as a whole. But it has made even basic needs of existence more
scarce and inaccessible for an increasing number of people. These paradoxes have put a
big question mark on the basic necessity of human life i.e. peace and security of the
mankind.
2.3 PEACE FOR HUMAN SURVIVAL

The problem of human life at present juncture of world history is peaceful and secures
‘Survival’, Survival of species, survival of civilization, survival of the whole creation. Will
man-in-society survive peacefully? Will he be able to contain the seeds of conflict and
violence that he has himself sown in the pursuit of development and turn them into
instruments of change and reconstruction towards a new and different peaceful secure
order?
As mentioned earlier in a dynamic society disputes do occur. These occur not only
because of conflicting claims of entitlements but also because of the feeling that some
aspects of the social order are unjust or inappropriate. At times, these lead to violence.
In fact, violence has been a part of human societies since early times. There may be no
society in which violence has never occurred. Society has always been involved in
violence and war preparedness. During the past century, the proportion of civilian
casualties in war or violence has increased dramatically. Equally disturbing factor is
expansion of violence inside societies for political ends with or without any external
linkages. This is one of the most serious problems of peace and human survival, as it not
only undermines national and international security but also threatens the very existence of
human beings. At the same time, there is no society in which peace never occurred.
Peace is universally desired. It is not a matter of personal attitude alone, it is a question

of establishing a new society founded on values, culture and a way of life integral to
peace at local, regional or global levels. Peace can emerge for the kind of the life style
and the type of value system which cultivates among our children and grand children. It
depends on the way we nourish or flourish the cultural traditions. This, by no means, is
an easy task. It is rather a far too complex mission requiring high degree of comprehension
of the forces that stimulate or create the tensions and conflicts. No development can be
effectively pursued without an assured and durable environment of peace and security.
Earlier it was argued that “if you want peace prepare for war” but now it must be “if
we want peace prepare for peace.” “We need to remember that to prepare for peace
is the most effectual means of preserving peace.” War must be unconditionally rejected
and peace must be promoted.
2.4 PEACE FOR DEVELOPMENT

Peace is greatly needed for development. Traditionally, embracing liberal market economy
was considered to be the universal path for economic growth, and development for all
humanity. Continuing conflict and human rights abuses following the end of the Cold War
and the fact that two-thirds of the global population seemed to have gained little from the
economic gains of globalization, has led to fundamental questions about the way development
was practiced. Accordingly, there has emerged the idea of human development in 1990s
that challenges the dominant paradigm of liberal economy in the development community.
Human development proponents argue that economic growth is insufficient to expand
people’s choice or capabilities. Areas such as health, education, technology, the environment,
and employment cannot be neglected.
Human security could be said to further enlarge the scope for examining the causes and
consequences of underdevelopment, by seeking to bridge the divide between development
and security. Too often, militaries did not address or factor in the underlying causes of
violence and insecurity while development workers often underplayed the vulnerability of
development models to violent conflicts. As human survival springs from a growing
consensus these two views need to be more fully integrated in order to enhance security
for all. There is no denying of the fact that peace and development are deeply
interconnected. Following are important reasons for this:
 Peace forms an important part of people’s well-being, and is therefore an objective
of development. An objective of development is “the enlargement of human choices”.
Insecurity cuts life short and thwarts the use of human potential, thereby affecting the
achieving of this objective.
 Lack of peace has adverse consequences on economic growth, and therefore
development. Some development costs are obvious. For example, in wars, people
who join the army or flee can no longer work productively. Also, destruction of
infrastructure reduces the productive capacity of the economy.
 Imbalanced development, that involves horizontal inequalities, is an important source
of conflict. Therefore, vicious cycles of lack of development which leads to conflict,
then to lack of development, can readily emerge. Likewise, virtuous cycles are
possible, with high levels of peace leading to development, which further promotes
security in return.
Further, it could also be said that the practice of human development and peace share
three fundamental elements:
First, peace and human development are both people-centered. They challenge the
orthodox approach to security and development i.e. state security and liberal economic
growth respectively. Both emphasize people are the ultimate ends and not means. Both
treat human as agents who should be empowered to participate in the discourse.
Second, both perspectives are multi-dimensional. Both address people’s dignity as well as
their material and physical concerns.
Third, both schools of thought consider poverty and inequality as the root causes of
individual vulnerability.
2.5 PEACE FOR SECURITY

The moment human being came into this world, search for security also began. In the
history of mankind, sense of survival has been the most powerful motivating force.
Security has been one of several basic drives for people to come together in communities.
Men have shown their faith in the prince or the king and state for their security as a
collective unit. Security has always been an important element of the responsibilities of
leadership and authority.
Security is a term widely used in both the analysis and the practice of international
relations and social science. But interestingly, the concept of security falls within the
category of an ‘essentially contested concepts’ characterised by unsolvable debates about
its meaning and application.
The standard dictionary definition of security means simply the ‘absence of threats’. The
word absence here leaves open the possibility of both being safe from dangers of one
sort or another as well as feeling safe. ‘Being’ ‘feeling safe’ implies an objective and
subjective dimension to security respectively. Now, the question is what it means ‘to be’
or ‘to feel free’ or ‘relatively free’ from the absence of threats in a world full of
uncertainties?
It means different things to different persons. It also has different meanings in different
circumstances. Security as individual or societal political value has no independent meaning
and is always related to a context and a specific individual or societal value system and
its realisation. Security as a social construction term, has no meaning in itself, it is given
a particular meaning by a person.
In general, the term security presents the feeling of peace and harmony at psychological
level, a feeling of being well guarded for several uncertainties. Though security is a
contested concept, there is a consensus that security implies ‘freedom from threats to core
values’.
Security in an objective sense means the absence of threats to acquired values and in
subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked. It can be
described as, relative freedom from harmful coupled with a relatively high expectation that
defeat of the opponent shall secure position.
Most of the security studies discussions are often conducted within a conceptual
framework that refers to the ‘referent object’ of security, ’threats’.
Objectives and the ‘mean’ by which the referent object attempts to prevent and protect
from threats. Within this framework of security each will have different views about the
‘referent object’ to be secured the types of ‘threats’ most feared and which means to be
taken as a key effort for action.
With the passage of time, the meaning and scope of security have become much broader.
The threshold of the new millennium is also the beginning of a new era in world affairs.
The business and politics of the world have changed almost beyond recognition over the
course of the last one hundred years. There are many actors in politics and their patterns
of interaction are far more complex. The focus of power and influence is shifting. The
demands and expectations made by governments and the international organisation are
also changing. Individuals have found diverse ways to attain their security.
For more clear understanding of the term security the whole literature can be divided into
two paradigms.
2.5.1 State-Centric Paradigm

The Peace Treaties of Westphalia (1648) established the legal basis of modern statehood.
The Westphalia constitution gave birth to the modern state system. State has been
regarded as the most powerful actor in international system. The states have been the
universal standard of political legitimacy with no higher authority to regulate their relations
with each other. Security has been seen as the priority obligation of state goods. By
security here is meant “the protection of national territory.” The state has to take care of
its own protection. It was the birth of territorial state in Europe that encouraged the
growth of doctrine of state-centric security. National security became synonymous with
territorial integrity.
This school of thought is also known as realistic school of security. The realist security
studies have been described as ‘a child of Machiavellian and Hobbessian realism’. Realists
believe that society in general is governed by objective laws that have their roots in
human nature. Hans Morgenthau suggests that security dilemma originates in the flawed
human nature, which was power seeking and prone to violence. To live, to propagate and
to dominate are common to all men. In order to understand society, it is necessary to
understand the laws by which society lives. The international system was viewed as a
brutal arena in which states would seek to achieve their own security at the expense of
their neighbour. States constantly attempt to take advantage of each other. So, permanent
peace is unlikely to be achieved. The realistic school became popular after the Second
World War. The concept of national security for it is based on two major assumptions:
1) Most threats to the state security arise from outside its borders.
2) These threats are primarily, if not exclusively, military in nature and usually require a
military response if the security of the target state is to be preserved.
These assumptions are best summed up in the statement “a nation is secure to the extent
to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice its core values, if it wishes to avoid
war, it should be able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war.”
Some more comprehensive analysis of the concept of security in international politics has
been by adding political, economic, societal and ecological security sectors with military
sector. These can be as below:
 Military security concerns that two level interplay of the armed offensive and
defensive capabilities of states and states perceptions of each other’s intentions.
 Political security concerns the organisational stability of states, systems of good and
the ideologies that give them legitimacy.
 Economic security concerns access to the resources, finance and markets necessary
to sustain acceptable level of welfare and state power.
 Social security concerns the sustainability with the acceptable conditions for evolution
of traditional patterns of language, culture, religious and national identity and customs.
 Environmental security concerns the maintenance of the local area the planetary
biosphere as the eventual support system in which all other human enterprises
depend.
The main reasons to broaden the concept of security are, first, broadening was needed
in order to capture the changing reactions of the world. Second, the concept had useful
political qualities. Third, security had potential as an integrative concept in relations as a
field of inquiry that had nationally fluid boundaries.
The post modernist approach to the security is ‘Realism as one of the central problems
of international insecurity. According to them, alliances do not produce peace, but lead to
war. The idea is that once the software program of Realism that people carry around in
their heads has been replaced by a new software program based on cooperative norms
individuals, states and regions will learn to work with each other and global politics will
become more peaceful.
2.5.2 Human-Centric Paradigm

‘Freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’ have become the catch phrases of an
approach to human security, often referred to as ‘people-centred security’ or ‘security
with a human face’. Human security places human beings—rather than states— as the
focal point of security considerations. Human security emphasizes the complex relationships
and often-ignores linkages between disarmament, human rights and development. Today all
security discussions demand incorporation of the human dimension.
Human security is an emerging paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities whose
proponents challenge the traditional notion of national security by arguing that the proper
referent for security should be the individual rather than the state. Human security holds
that a people-centered view of security is necessary for national, regional and global
stability.
The idea of “human security” emerged in the early 1990s. The ending of the Cold War
saw a global reduction in armed conflict and political tension. The phrase ‘human security’
is part of a deliberate attempt to switch attention from the security of states to the
security of individuals. It is also an attempt to focus development efforts on mitigating
risks and preventing disasters.
During the Cold War, the prevailing security concepts were based on notions of absolute
security implying that one side’s security was to be achieved at the expense of the
respective other’s security. Deterrence and arms racing characterised mainstream security
policies throughout this period, and the arms race became so all-pervasive that no nation
was able to stand aloof from it, yet without net gains in security. Only belatedly did
nations arrive at an understanding of the ‘security dilemma’ phenomenon, on the basis of

which security experts proposed alternatives to absolute security that would contribute to
a world of peaceful coexistence, including concepts of mutual security, common security,
and cooperative security.
2.5.3 Importance of Peace

Human centric idea of peace necessarily means fulfillment of basic needs of all, absence
of discrimination and prevalence of justice. In other words what is required is fulfillment
of material, cultural and spiritual needs. These need a reasonable level of economic
development and harmony in the society. For both, peace is quite essential. As already
mentioned in situations of conflict, significant state resources have to be diverted to non-
productive tasks of maintenance of military and police forces and weapons. Conflictual
situations also cause mistrust and differences in sections of society, thereby accentuating
conflicts further. Thus, peace is essential to use resources, in many societies’ scarce
resources, for development and take care of aspirations and needs of different sections
of the society. What, therefore, is required is to replace the situations of conflict with
cooperation and sustainable development for all. This, as has been stipulated in UNESCO’s
Culture of Peace Programme, distinguishes the culture of peace from static conception of
peace which perpetuates the violence of the status quo and links. It is intrinsically linked
with social justice and the chances necessary to attain and preserve it.
2.6 SUMMARY
In this Unit, you have read that the problems of peace in our time must be tackled in
a manner drastically different from the one in which they have been tackled so far. We
have discussed the paradigms of State centred and human-centred security to understand
the changing meaning and nature of the security. While drawing upon the insights and
understandings provided by earlier traditions of thoughts and practice, we must relate the
problems to the profound and turbulent changes of our time to take holistic view. The
agenda must include structural transformation and cultural change produced by this
turbulence, taking into account the still larger mutations of religious, ecological and
aesthetic consciousness at the popular level in all parts of the world. The paradigm of
peace thus includes the building of human and institutional capabilities by abiding
framework for carrying through this major restructuring of the human enterprise, with
minimum recourse to violence and human destruction, and by arresting the suicidal and
self- destructive proclivities of the human culture and psyche.

1) What do you mean by world without violence?
2) Discuss the importance of peace for human survival and development.
3) Examine the relation between peace and security.
4) Distinguish between State-Centric and Human-Centric Paradigms of security.
5) Why is peace essential for development?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Bright, Brock Utne, (1985) Educating for Peace. New York, Peragamon Press.
Burton, John W., (1965) International Relations: A General Theory, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Galtung Johan, (1996) Peace by Peaceful Means, Peace, Conflict, Development and
Civilizations, London, Sage.
Galtung Johan, (1984) Struggle for Peace, Ahmadabad, Peace Research Centre.
Kaplan, Morton, (1957) System and Process in International Politics, New York,
Wiley.
Kant, Immanuel, (1957) Perpetual Peace, New York, Wiley.
Prasad, Devi, (1984) Peace Education or Education for Peace, New Delhi, Gandhi
Peace Foundation.
UNIT 3 THEORIES OF PEACE BUILDING
Structure
3.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
3.2 Understanding Peace Building
3.2.1 Liberal Peace Building
3.2.2 Sustainable Peace Building
3.3 Peace Building in International Relations Theories: A Meta-Look

3.3.1 Realist Theory of Peace Building
3.3.2 Idealist Theory of Peace Building
3.3.3 Structuralist Theory of Peace Building
3.3.4 Post-Structuralist Theory of Peace Building
3.4 Theoretical Approaches to Peace Building: Different Schools of Thought

3.4.1 The Conflict Management School
3.4.2 The Conflict Resolution School
3.4.3 The Complementary School
3.4.4 The Conflict Transformation School
3.5 The Alternative Discourse School of Peace Building

3.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
3.1 INTRODUCTION
There has been a great aspiration internationally in learning more about peace building.
This is aimed at enhancing the acquisition of skills and knowledge with objective thoughts
to have sustainable and long term peace at local, national, regional and international arena.
This unit seeks to explore the vital understanding of peace building, peace building in
international relations theories and theoretical approach to peace building. It is strategically
essential to know what the term peace building means; this should be taken before
looking into the conceptual frameworks. Here it is important to note that our understanding
of peace building is largely shaped by our understanding of meaning of peace. Hence, it
is essential to understand the meaning of peace before proceeding to peace building.
Peace is generally conceived of as equivalent to the absence of manifested violence. In
the Explanatory Phonographic Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language, peace is
defined as a list of synonyms which includes “respite from war”, “quiet from suits and
disorders”, “rest from any commotion”, “freedom from terror”, “silence”, “suppressions of
thought” etc. Juergen Dedring opines that traditional assumption regards peace as the
counterpart to the state of war and hence peace is defined as “absence of war”. Peace
is thus largely identified as a lack of conflict of any serious kind. Two concepts of peace
should be distinguished: negative peace and positive peace. Negative peace is focused on
the absence of manifest violence such as war, which could be realised through negotiation
or mediation rather than resorting to physical force. It recommends the use of non-violent
means, total disarmament and social and economic interdependence to avoid physical
violence and discourage the use of force in conflict situation. In a negative peace
approach, preventing war also requires a large array of international agreements and
institutions that can support stable relation among nations. The idea of improving peace
has also been reflected in many international agreements and in the mechanisms of
collective security included in United Nations. Negative peace policies may focus on a
present, short or near future time scale.
The concept of positive peace, based on broad understanding of social conditions, means
the removal of structural violence beyond merely the absence of direct violence. According
to John Galtung, positive peace would not be obtained without the development of just
and equitable conditions associated with the elimination of inegalitarian social structures.
Equality is an essential element for peace because its absence perpetuates tension of all
types. According to Boutros Boutros Ghali, former Secretary General of UN, the
elimination of repression and poverty is an essential element of peace.
Aims and Objectives
This Unit introduces you to peace building as an essentially the process of achieving
peace. After going through this unit, you will be able to:
 know the meaning of peace building;
 understand various theories of peace building;
 appreciate the importance of peace building; and
 know different schools of Thought on peace building.
3.2 UNDERSTANDING PEACE BUILDING

Peace building is essentially the process of achieving peace. Depending on one’s
understanding of peace, peace building differs considerably in terms of approaches, scope
of activities and time frame. It is therefore not astonishing that the term and the concept
of peace building are nowadays used in research and practice with varying understandings
and definitions.
According to Bertram, peace building is relatively a new field. It is, therefore, not
surprising that there are numerous and sometimes confusing definitions of peace building.
However, most interesting is that various scholars’ definition connect peace building to
mean a ‘process’ with a range of activities and stake holders involved. According to Kofi
Annan, peace building is “the various concurrent and integrated actions undertaken at the
end of a conflict to consolidate and prevent a recurrence of armed confrontation”.
Lederach characterises peace building as the attempt to address the underlying structural,
relational and cultural root causes of conflict. These two definitions have common
meaning and understanding of peace building as a process. Annan further includes
processes of changing attitudes which is reconciliatory and addressing the root causes of
the conflict. Annan’s thinking is limited to the process starting only at the end of the
conflict; the question therefore is what if the conflict does not end. Lederach encompasses
the full arrays of stages and approaches needed to transform conflict towards sustainable
peaceful relations and outcomes. Therefore, peace building is a holistic and comprehensive
process which should include: post conflict reconstruction, improving and building on social
relations, provision of aid assistance, reconciliation and entire social and structural changes.
Theories of Peace-Building 33
While all societies from early history onwards have created mechanisms and institutions to
build peace, be these councils of elders or religious leaders or other organised forums.
The institutionalisation of peace building in international law emerged only in the late 19th
century. This process started with The Hague Peace Conference in 1898, followed by the
foundation of the League of Nations, and resulted in the creation of the United Nations
at the end of World War II with the main objective to monitor and support world peace
through mediation, facilitation, good offices and arbitration between states. The term
“peace building” was first used by Johan Galtung (1969). He defined the term as one of
three approaches to peace: peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace building. Galtung’s
understanding of peace building is based on his conceptual distinction between negative
peace (end of violence) and positive peace (peaceful society at all levels). While negative
peace achieves the absence of physical violence through peacekeeping, only positive
peace can achieve the absence of structural violence through peacemaking and peace
building. Peacemaking in a conflict resolution aims at removing the tensions between the
conflicting parties in addressing the causes of violence. Peace building becomes positive
peace by creating structures and institutions of peace based on justice, equity and
cooperation, thereby permanently addressing underlying causes of conflict and preventing
their turn into violence. Most current definitions and understandings of peace building
reflect these two antipodes of positive and negative peace as introduced by Johan
Galtung.
The use of the term “peace building” started proliferating with its rebirth in the 1992 UN
Secretary General’s Report “An Agenda for Peace”. The Agenda was introduced in light
of the stronger role of the UN after the end of the Cold War and the increasing amount
of UN-led peacekeeping operations that aimed at stabilizing countries after war. In this
understanding peace building is “post-conflict peace building.” The original understanding
in “An Agenda for Peace” is essentially focused on stabilizing negative peace and presents
a narrow definition of peace building – preventing the recurrence of violence immediately
after armed conflicts and helping a country to set the parameters for starting the journey
towards positive peace. There are two different understandings of peace building, both of
which reflect the two antipodes of peace as defined by Galtung: Liberal peace building
and Sustainable peace building.
3.2.1 Liberal Peace Building

It is primarily concerned with a short to medium term aims at establishing institutions as
a precondition for the (re)-building of states and societies after wars and creating the
preconditions for a liberal, democratic peace. The understanding of liberal peacebuilding
focuses on the democratic (re)-building of states after armed conflict and is based on the
concept of the democratic/liberal peace going back to the works of Immanuel Kant. In
his work “Zum Ewigen Frieden” (Perpetual Peace), he laid the foundation of an
understanding of peace building between states based on their democratic values. He
argued that the democratic constitution of states correlates with their relatively peaceful
behaviour vis-à-vis other states. Confirming Kant’s arguments, a wide range of quantitative
research makes a clear positive causal linkage between democracy and peace. Democracies
do not fight each other because their shared norms of compromise and cooperation
prevent their conflicts of interests from escalating to violence.
A variation of the “democratic peace” is the debate on “liberal peace”, based on the
works of Adam Smith. In his book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth
of Nations”, he suggested a possible correlation between democracy, economic liberalisation
and peace, i.e. the higher the level of a free market economy in combination with a
democratic political system, the higher the chances for peace. Today the “liberal peace”
proposition is an integral part of the “democratic peace” debate as most democracies are
liberal market economies.
3.2.2 Sustainable Peace Building

John Paul Lederach (1997) is the main propounder of sustainable peace concept. He
developed a peace building framework based on an understanding of peace building that
centers on sustainable reconciliation within societies. Thus, according to Lederach, peace
building can be achieved through the establishment of structures, processes and training of
people within a generation-long time frame. Paul van Tongeren argues in favour of
complexity theory for conflict prevention and peace building. According to Tongeren to
make a contribution to peace, variety of agencies needs to work together at many
different levels in various ways. Hence, impacts can never be attributed to one single
actor. In other words, nobody can claim that factor X led to sustainable peace in country
Z. In the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) for example,
a diverse group of individuals, organisations and actors interact to support a shift from
reaction to prevention. ‘Impacts’ therefore are usually the product of a confluence of
factors for which no single agency or programme can realistically claim full credit. In sum,
the evolution of the peacebuilding discourse is connected to an underlying understanding
of peace. Thus, varying understandings of peacebuilding have emerged, all reflecting the
tension between negative and positive peace, i.e. taking a narrow or wider understanding
of peace building. We find two main paradigms: sustainable peace building with a wide
understanding, and liberal peace building with a short to medium term understanding,
which almost equals state building. While the former has received most attention from the
mid to late 1990s onwards, the latter is the liveliest discussed and disputed today. It is
important to note that these concepts also have overlapping elements. Although the explicit
goal of liberal peace building is the establishment of liberal peace, sustainable peace
building approaches also reflect many liberal elements of the “good society,” based on the
work of Kant.
Hence, acknowledging existing differences, we have decided to use a working definition
of peace building, balancing between the two extremes while also allowing for flexibility:
“Peace building aims at preventing and managing armed conflict and sustaining
peace after large-scale organised violence has ended. Peace building is a multi-
dimensional effort, its scope covers all activities that are linked directly to this
objective over 5-10 years. Peace building should create conducive conditions for
economic reconstruction, development and democratisation as preconditions for
legitimate democratic order, but should not be equated and thus confused with these
concepts.”
3.3 PEACE BUILDING IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

THEORIES: A META-LOOK
In a nutshell, the focus of all international relations (IR) theories is on regulating the
international system of states and thus maintaining peace as security, order or justice.
Important of these theories are as given below:
3.3.1 Realist Theory of Peace Building

Realism focuses on the balance of power among sovereign nation-states based on an
understanding that the international system is anarchic and states are driven by interest
rather than idealistic norms. Peace building in realism refers to maintaining stability through
hegemonies power and through the preservation of interests.
3.3.2 Idealist Theory of Peace Building

In contrast to realist, idealism advocates for a world regulated by international organisations,
norms and standards. Peace building, therefore, aims at achieving peace between nations
on the basis of the establishment of norms and standards and through a super entity like
the UN, which can help in regulation and monitoring.
3.3.3 Structuralist Theory of Peace Building

A Marxist-inspired structuralism analysis focuses on justice and equality, and critically
analyses the power relations within the system. Peace building in this context is a
revolutionary approach to mobilize the masses in order to achieve radical change in the
international system.
3.3.4 Post-Structuralist Theory of Peace Building

Post-structural international relations reading also looks into issues of justice, equality and
power relations but puts the main emphasis on marginalised actors and discourses. Here
peace building is not about a common Meta narrative but about understanding differences
and including the discourses on every day peace of ordinary people into international
debates in an emancipatory sense. Peace building within international relations theory is
often not explicit. The framing of international relations theories has, however, inspired the
middle level theories which deal more explicitly with peace building.
3.4 THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO PEACE

BUILDING: DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
Five schools of thought can be distinguished within peace research. These schools use
different terminologies, and have different conceptual understandings, approaches and
actors. The history of these schools of thought is closely linked to the history and
evolution of the field of peace building. All schools present different approaches to
mediation between conflicting parties, whether between or within states. For many
decades mediation has been the main and dominant approach to peace building, but from
the mid-1990s it became clear that peace building required additional approaches. It is
also important to note that these theoretical schools are not linked to the conceptual
debate on the nexus between peace/conflict and development.
3.4.1 The Conflict Management School

This is the oldest school of thought. The focus of the Conflict Management School is to
end wars through different diplomatic initiatives. It is closely linked to the institutionalisation
of peace building in international law. The peace builders within the logic of this school
are external diplomats from bilateral or multilateral organisations. This theoretical approach
is referred to as outcome-oriented approach, which aims to identify and bring to the
leaders of the conflict parties to negotiation table. Its main focus is on the short-term
management of the armed conflict. Recent examples include the Camp David agreement
and the Sudan peace accord. The largest contribution of the conflict management school
is its focus on those in power who have the ability to bring large scale violence to an
end through a negotiated settlement. The Conflict Management School has been criticized
on the ground that mediators tend to concentrate solely on the top leadership of the
conflicting parties, are not always neutral in internal conflicts. The approach overlooks
deep causes of conflicts and thus cannot guarantee long-term stability of the peace
agreement. Conflict Management approaches have recently moved beyond an exclusive
concern with securing a peace agreement. Those now also focus on the conditions for
successful implementation of post-conflict peace building. Thus it is now possible to
distinguish between traditional and modern approaches to conflict management.
3.4.2 The Conflict Resolution School

The approach of the Conflict Resolution School is to solve the underlying causes of
conflict and rebuild destroyed relationships between the parties. Conflict resolution
approaches are based on legal mechanisms and conventional negotiation to settle disputes
by finding compromise solution. Under this logic, relations need to be rebuilt not only
between the top representatives of the conflict parties, but also within society at large.
This school was established in academic research in the 1970s, adopting strategies from
socio-psychological conflict resolution at the inter-personal level. The main focus of this
school is to address the root causes of conflict with relationship-building and long-term
resolution-oriented approaches. The biggest contribution of the conflict resolution school is
its perspective on peace building as identifying human needs and – perhaps most
importantly as Richmond notes – listening to the voices of unofficial and ordinary people.
The Conflict Resolution School has been criticized, especially by supporters of the
Conflict Management School, because the process is too lengthy to be able to stop wars.
Improving communications and building relationships between conflict parties do not
necessarily result in an agreement to end the war. Research has also found that while
relationships between groups can be rebuilt, this need not necessarily spill over to other
groups or the leadership of the conflict parties. An interesting example comes from the
assessment of the Norwegian-funded People to People Peace Program following the Oslo
peace agreement between Israel and Palestine in 1994. The Program funded many
dialogue projects between various Israeli and Palestinian groups, which while they
improved relations between participants, had no impact on the peace process at large.
3.4.3 The Complementary School

This school focuses on the possible congruence between the conflict management and
resolution schools. By putting the strength of these two schools together, it is a somehow
logical step that peace building is needed from the top and from below. In the early to
mid 1990s, different approaches developed that sought to overcome the dichotomy
between conflict management and resolution. The first was Ronald Fisher and Loraleigh
Keashly’s (1991) “Contingency model for third party intervention in armed conflicts.” This
aimed at identifying the appropriate third party method and the timing of interventions.
Based on Friedrich Glasl’s (1982 and 1990) conflict escalation model, the approach is to
de-escalate the conflict from phase to phase. According to Glasl, when a conflict is in the
early escalation phase, it is the appropriate time for resolution-oriented approaches, while
conflict management approaches, like official mediation, should be used when the conflict
is already on a high escalation level. After a peace accord has been reached, it is time
to revert to resolution-oriented approaches. Based on quantitative empirical research
Jacob Bercovitch and Jeffrey Z. Rubin developed an approach similar to the contingency
model, but shifting the perspective from approaches to actors. In this approach it is not
important which mediators are the most effective, but who is more effective at different
stages of the conflict. The results are similar to those of Fisher and Keashly in that the
more the conflict escalates, the more powerful the third party should become.
The third strand of this school is the Multi-Track Diplomacy approach by Louise
Diamond and John McDonald (1996). This while recognizing that different approaches
and actors are needed to reach peace, seeks to make a clearer distinction between the
different approaches and actors by adopting a “track” concept. Track one involves
diplomatic peace building initiatives by governments and is in line with the Conflict
Management School. Track two represents the original conflict resolution school, while the
other tracks try to cluster other relevant actors. Complementary School received widespread
attention in scholarly circles for overcoming the conflict management/resolution dichotomy.
The main critique of this approach points out that in practice, different types of
interventions can take place at the same time and do not fully address the issue of
coordination.
Track Nine (inner circle):

Public Opinion/Communication
Track One: Government
Track Eight: Funding Track Two: Professional

Conflict Resolution
Track Seven: Religious Track Three: Business
Track Six: Activism Track Four: Private Citizen
Track Five: Research,

Training and Education
Figure 3.1: Multi-track Diplomacy
3.4.4 The Conflict Transformation School

This approach focuses on the transformation of deep-rooted armed conflicts into peaceful
ones, based on a different understanding of peace building. It recognizes the existence of
irresolvable conflicts, and therefore, suggests replacing the term conflict resolution with the
term conflict transformation. John Paul Lederach (1997) developed the first comprehensive
transformation-oriented approach. Building on the Complementary school, Lederach also
sees the need to solve the dilemma between short-term conflict management, and long-
term relationship building and resolution of underlying causes of conflict. His proposal is
to build ‘long-term infrastructure’ for peace building by supporting the reconciliation
potential of society. For a constructive transformation of conflicts, it is necessary to
identify and consolidate support structures that tend to strengthen peace. Positive
opportunities can be enhanced through the awareness of mutual dependence on each
other. He sees the need to rebuild destroyed relationships, focusing on reconciliation within
society and the strengthening of society’s peace building potential. Third party intervention
should concentrate on supporting internal actors and coordinating external peace efforts.
Sensitivity to the local culture and a long-term time frame are necessary. A key element
of this approach is to focus on peace constituencies by identifying mid-level individuals or
groups and empowering them to build peace and support reconciliation. Empowerment of
the middle level is assumed to influence peace building at the macro and grassroots levels.
Lederach divides society into three levels, which can be approached with different peace
building strategies (figure 3.2).Top leadership can be accessed by mediation at the level
of states (track 1) and the outcome-oriented approach. Mid-level leadership (track 2) can
be reached through more resolution-oriented approaches, such as problem-solving workshops
or peace-commissions with the help of partial insiders (i.e., prominent individuals in
society). The grassroots level (track 3), however, represents the majority of the population
and can be reached by a wide range of peace building approaches, such as local peace
commissions, community dialogue projects or trauma healing.
Figure 3.2: Lederach’s Levels of Peacebuilding
The largest contribution of the conflict transformation school is its shift in focus from
international to local actors, especially in terms of their capacities for peace building. It
therefore puts even more emphasis on civil society and ordinary people than the resolution
school. While in the resolution school these actors are subject to outsiders’ interventions,
within the conflict transformation school they are at the center of peace building. The
Conflict Transformation School has not been subject to fundamental critique. On the
contrary, it has become the leading school of thought in the field.
3.5 THE ALTERNATIVE DISCOURSE SCHOOL OF

PEACE BUILDING
There is an emerging literature analysing peace building through the lens of discourse
analysis and advocating for an alternative approach to peace building. By deconstructing
the theory and the international practitioners’ discourse, they show that the peace building
discourse is trapped in the “liberal imperative” as only one model for peace building is
normatively accepted, i.e. the liberal peace. These authors claim that this kind of peace
building has become a self-referential system which has lost its connection to the real
world and needs of the people. In line with Foucault, the alternative discourse school
does not present a meta-alternative, but points to the need to refocus on the everyday
peace of ordinary people. A.B. Featherstone (2000) and Alexandro Bendaña (2003)
deliver the most radical interpretations: with a power analysis based on Foucault.
Featherstone considers the peace building schools as “part of an apparatus of power
which attempts to discipline and normalize”. On the basis of an analysis of Southern
voices, Bendaña comes to similar conclusions by emphasizing that peace building becomes
an inherently conservative undertaking seeking managerial solutions to fundamental conflicts
over resources and power, attempting to modernize and re-legitimize a fundamental status
quo respectful of a national and international market economy.
The alternative approach suggested here is one of transformative peace building which
leads to a post-hegemonic society where oppressed voices are listened to and respected.
It therefore also implies structural changes and the acknowledgment that peace building is
mainly a Western enterprise that needs to engage in a serious South/North dialogue. The
biggest contribution of this emerging alternative discourse peace building school is its focus
on ordinary people, oppressed voices, the analysis of power structures and an assessment
based on realities instead of normative assumptions. There is one main criticism that can
be established against it. While the need to give voice to alternative, oppressed actors is
clearly stated within the writings of the above mentioned authors, most of them do not
actually analyse these alternative voices. This seems an inherent contradiction to the very
alternative discourse for which these authors advocate. The main focus of these studies
is the liberal peace and actors of the international community therein, i.e. Western
governments and NGOs, the UN, etc. While this deconstruction of the governmentality of
the liberal peace is a valid approach that was long obsolete, the sole focus on the liberal
peace and its critique risks to be a counter-normative approach that might lead these
authors to fall into the very liberal trap they meant to attack.
3.6 SUMMARY
In sum, the evolution of the peace building discourse is connected to an underlying
understanding of peace. Thus, varying understandings of peace building have emerged, all
reflecting the tension between negative and positive peace, i.e. taking a narrow or wide
understanding of peace building. We find two main paradigms: sustainable peace building
with a wide understanding, and liberal peace building with a short to medium term
understanding, which almost equals state building. While the former has received most
attention from the mid to late 1990s onwards, the latter is the liveliest discussed and
disputed today. It is important to note that these concepts also have overlapping elements.
We have also examined the peace building in international relations theories but Peace
building within IR theory is often not explicit. The unit also presented five schools of
thought, which can be seen as “middle level theories” of peace building. These five
schools are conflict management, conflict resolution, complementary, conflict transformation
and the emerging school of alternative discourse in peace building. These schools use
different terminologies, and have different conceptual understandings, approaches, scope
and actors involved. The history of these schools of thought is closely related to the
history and evolution of the field of peace building. The different schools have had
different influences on peace building and practice has tended to adopt elements from
different schools. Although most theories tend to place an importance on the role that
mediation can play in peace building, Marxist and alternative discourse inspired middle
level theories tend to put more emphasis on this role than would be allowed by a more
realist-inspired model of conflict management. Despite the fact that second generation
conflict management has started to reflect on the involvement of non-state actors in the
negotiation process, we still lack in well-developed theories of peace building. Michael
Lund (2003) states that peace building is an under-theorized and over-conceptualised
concept. It also lacks sufficient empirical evidence to generate conclusions about its
relevance and effectiveness.

1) Bring out the distinction between negative and positive concept of peace with suitable
examples.
2) What is peace building? Examine it in international relations theories.
3) Critically examine the conflict management theory of peace building.
4) Bring out differences between conflict transformation school and the alternative
discourse school of peace building.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Barash, D. (2000), Approaches to Peace. A Reader in Peace Studies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bendana, A. (2003), “What Kind of Peace is Being Built? Stock Taking of Post-Conflict
Peace building and Charting Future Directions”, Paper prepared for the International
Development Research Council (IDRC) on the 10th anniversary of An Agenda for Peace,
Ottawa, Canada.
Chetail, V. (ed.) (2009), Post-Conflict Peace Building: A Lexicon, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Diamond, L., J. McDonald (1996), Multi-Track Diplomacy, A Systems Approach to
Peace, West, Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Featherstone, A. (2000), “Peacekeeping, Conflict Resolution and Peace building: A
Reconsideration of Theoretical Frameworks”, International Peacekeeping 7 (1):190-218.
Galtung, J. (1969) “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research”, Journal of Peace Research
6 (3):167-191.
———, (1971) “A Structural Theory of Imperialism”, Journal of Peace Research 8:81-
117.
———, (1975) “Three approaches to peace: peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace

building” in J. Galtung, (ed.) Peace, War and Defense - Essays in Peace Research,
282-304. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.
Gawerc, M. (2006), “Peace-Building: Theoretical and Concrete Perspectives”, Peace and
Change, 31 (4):435-478.
Jeong, H. (2005), Peace Building in Post conflict Societies, Strategy and Process.
Boulder, CO/London: Lynne Rienner.
Lederach, J. P. (1997), Building Peace. Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies,
Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
———, (2005), Moral Imagination. The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Paffenholz, T., C. Spurk. (2006), “Civil Society, Civic Engagement and Peace building”,
Social Development Papers, Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction Paper No. 36.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Smith, D. (2003), Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding. The Synthesis
Report of the Joint Utstein Study on Peacebuilding. Oslo: Peace Research Institute
Oslo.
Xenias, A. (2005), “Can a Global Peace Last Even If Achieved? Huntington and the
Democratic Peace”, International Studies Review 7 (3):357–386.
UNIT 4 CHALLENGES OF PEACE BUILDING
Structure
4.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
4.2 Peace Building Challenges: Historic Overview
4.3 The Challenges
4.3.1 Lack of Shared Vision
4.3.2 Challenges to Managing Balance between Short and Long-Term Objectives
4.4 Strategies, Planning and Priority Setting

4.4.1 Proliferation of Plans and Strategic Frameworks
4.4.2 Challenges to Operational Alignment
4.4.3 Low Rates of Implementation
4.5 Financing Practices

4.6 Structural Challenges
4.6.1 Institutional Arrangements
4.6.2 Executive and Capital-Centric Approaches
4.6.3 Citizen Participation
4.6.4 Poor Strategic Communication
4.6.5 Limited Accountability of International Partners
4.6.6 Limited Effectiveness of Capacity Development Approaches
4.6.7 Legitimacy Challenges
4.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Peace-building is a post-Cold War concept and practice. Peace building is a complex and
multidimensional exercise that encompasses tasks ranging from the disarming of warring
factions to the rebuilding of political, economic, judicial and civil society institutions. It
utilizes a variety of actors, ideally, in the construction of a culture of peace to replace a
structure of violence. Ever since Johan Galtung coined the term ‘peace building’ back in
the 1970s, there have been very few attempts to flesh out the essence of this concept.
It is only recently, beginning with Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s use of the term in his An
Agenda for Peace, in which he defined it broadly as ‘action to identify and support
structures which tend to strengthen and solidify peace to avoid a relapse into conflict’.
The introduction of peace-building as a legitimate area for UN attention reflected post-
Cold War optimism about the potential for international collective action to resolve violent
conflict among and within states. There was an emerging consensus that conflict,
particularly the intra-state conflicts dominating the 1990s, was inextricably linked with
underdevelopment and inequality. This facilitated increased UN engagement in the
Challenges of Peace-Building 43
management of peace. Peace-building went beyond physical security and reconstruction.

It involved non-military instruments and addressed the political, social and economic
development of a post-conflict society. There has been an increase in complex UN peace
operations in the 1990s – involving significant civilian as well as military components. The
reasons also included with mandates that required disarmament, human rights, election
monitoring, refugee return and support for the rebuilding of state institutions. The difficulty
of a linear progression from peacemaking, via peacekeeping to peace-building was clear.
Many of the conflicts in which the UN and other international actors were engaged
throughout the 1990s proved resistant to such an orderly sequence. Relapse into armed
conflict, sporadic political violence and public disorder were persistent challenges for
peace operations deploying to civil conflicts. These challenges led to increased emphasis
on the need for an earlier start to peace-building activities to provide incentives to commit
to peace as well as to build confidence in its potential durability among post-conflict
populations. In this unit, you will read about these.
Aims and Objectives
After going through this Unit, you will be able to :
 know the importance of peace building;
 know the challenges facing peace building processes;
 understand the problem of managing balance between short and long term objectives;
and
 the ways to tackle the challenges.
4.2 PEACE BUILDING CHALLENGES: HISTORIC

OVERVIEW
The end of the Cold War changed the nature of the threats to peace and security and
called for a re-examination of methodologies for dealing with violent conflicts. The
breakdown of the East/West dynamic changed the basis for state interaction and several
long-standing conflicts such as Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique and El
Salvador that came to an end, although each for reasons of its own. However, in the
immediate post-Cold War period of the mid nineties, conflicts in Somalia, Rwanda and
Haiti were stark reminders that the end of the Cold War did not usher in an era of peace
and stability, but the nature of conflicts changed with a number of largely intra-state
conflicts finding the space to erupt. As a result, the international community grappled with
the challenges of identifying diagnostics, and developing policy instruments and new
practices. There were incremental efforts to overcome the shortcomings of existing tools
and approaches, and encourage more integrated efforts of a range of actors who had
traditionally worked in their own sectors – whether in peace building, peacekeeping,
humanitarian relief or development, with human rights issues gradually playing a more
important role.
4.3 THE CHALLENGES

Peace building is a dynamic process. The features of this process and dynamics of how
they unfold and interact at country level are different and depend to a great extent on the
specific country context. Even within the same country, perceptions of what is a priority
may change according to the region or the actors concerned. This makes decisions on
how to best priorities and sequence support to country-level peace building and state
building efforts particularly difficult for both national and for international actors. Identifying
the most critical risks of instability the most likely drivers of peace can be a useful way
to address this challenge, and indeed appear to have guided the peace building and state
building strategies.
Common challenges in peace building and state building processes and in national and
international support to peace building and state building objectives include: the lack of a
shared vision for peace and long-term development; the difficult balance between short
and long-term objectives; weak strategic planning and priority setting and low implementation
rates; inefficient financing practices; poor institutional arrangements; centralised approaches;
lack of citizen participation poor strategic communication; weak accountability between
national and international partners; and ineffective donor support etc.
4.3.1 Lack of Shared Vision

While a coherent national vision for peace building is considered as a priority and a key
outcome of political process, in most instances such a vision either does not exist or is
not shared within the country or region. The lack of a shared vision for peace and
development between national and international partners is the key challenge to the peace
building operations.
The following factors were identified as limiting the development of a shared vision for
peace building:
i) the lack of a shared understanding of the context;
ii) the absence of an agreed theory of change over the long term;
iii) the difficulty of integrating different country realities into one vision; and
iv) the tendency to focus on immediate priorities and interventions unsuited to address
the multiple dimensions of the peace building challenge.
4.3.2 Challenges to Managing Balance between Short-Term and Long-

Term Objectives
It is found that there is existence of trade-offs between short-term and long-term peace
building objectives, and the difficulty of making choices that risk undermining some aspects
of state building while supporting immediate peace building priorities, and vice versa.
Difficult choices are made by actors between aligning support to the long-term political
settlement versus short-term deals brokered between elite and power-sharing arrangements
that secured peace initially. The result is a decision to support compromised and inefficient
governance. Tensions also emerged from the impetus to deliver services quickly to meet
urgent needs and maintain stability, and longer-term objectives to build state capacity. It
is found that there are mixed views on the concept of “buying peace” (i.e. government
provision of cash transfers to help internally displaced people reintegrate into the
community following the crisis). While there was general agreement that this was a
successful short-term intervention and a likely long-term investment in peace, actors also
highlighted the importance of respect for inclusion in order to build lasting peace.
4.4 STRATEGIES, PLANNING AND PRIORITY SETTING

The lack of a shared vision for change and the difficult choices that need to be made
between short and long-term objectives impact on the strength of strategic planning
processes and on the identification and articulation of specific peace building and state
building objectives and priorities. Common problems highlighted include the following.
4.4.1 Proliferation of Plans and Strategic Frameworks

The existence of several planning documents often developed at the request of donors,
and the absence of one single strategic framework that addresses and prioritizes peace
building objectives often result in what is described as “disjointed incrementalism”. The
fragmentation of donor-funded activities, which occurs and persists to a great extent
because of the absence of government leadership and because of a continued tendency
of donors to seek to implement their own programmes, is both a cause and a symptom
of this challenge. This is further complicated by the fact that different donors have different
plans and strategies guiding their funding and implementation decisions – e.g. the UN has
its UNDAF; the World Bank has its Country Assistance Strategy; and bilateral donors
have different types of strategy plans.
4.4.2 Challenges to Operational Alignment

There are difficulties associated with the transition between various phases of assistance
(e.g. humanitarian, peace building and state building, development), and the inherent trade-
off between being flexible enough to adapt to quick changes on the ground and identifying
and aligning with sub-national priorities and plans. It is also noted that international actors
have found it difficult to quickly adapt their plans and strategies, to shift gears between
longer-term development and emergency response, and to fully align their programmes on
national priorities and systems in an environment where national plans and priorities have
been annually adjusted to meet what have often been rapidly changing contexts.
4.4.3 Low Rates of Implementation

The low rate of implementation of national strategic plans, even when good plans are in
place, is identified as a major challenge in peace building operations. Weak managerial
and leadership capacity or commitment, and/or the lack of realistic assessment of capacity
and of politics – in particular by donors – are seen as some of the causes for poor
performance in this area. The lack of consensus on what constitutes “successful
implementation” and the absence of conflict-sensitive approaches to the design of policies
and programmers are identified as challenges to the peace building and state building
process. Lack of prioritization, unrealistic timelines, weak government absorptive capacity
at central and local level, inappropriate funding mechanisms and lack of co-ordination
within the government and with international partners are all identified as causes of poor
progress with implementation of peace building plans.
4.5 FINANCING PRACTICES

Poor and inefficient donor financing practices are identified as a fundamental challenge to
peace building. Common problems appear to be:
i) the short-term horizon and the lack of flexibility of donor funding;
ii) the weak alignment of funding to nationally owned planning processes and priorities;
and
iii) specific aid modalities.
These practices may affect state legitimacy, capacity and responsiveness, as funds cannot
be committed to long-term reforms critical for state building; sectors vital to peace
building. State building remains underfunded; and the way funds are delivered may not
respond to the needs and expectations of national partners. It is also found that aid
allocations in many cases do not correspond to the identified need. Lack of data on
country-wide poverty levels and aid volatility make it difficult for the government to sustain
service delivery, which can easily contribute to undermining citizens’ trust.
4.6 STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES

The peace builders, both intra-state and inter-state, face many structural challenges in their
efforts to bring and consolidate peace. Following are important in that:
4.6.1 Institutional Arrangements

Weak institutional arrangements within and between national government departments
affect the strategic planning processes and implementation, which may lead to
compartmentalised approaches to addressing peace building challenges. The donor practice
of dealing with single institutions (e.g. ministries) on a bilateral basis, instead of supporting
cross-departmental capacities, contributes to this problem. The proliferation of institutional
structures, also promoted by donors, is another factor affecting the building of state
capacity. The lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities among government actors and
the donor practice of engaging with individual ministries are also reasons for the weak
implementation of agreed priorities and for disjointed interventions. Weak institutional
arrangements between government agencies are a major impediment to effective peace
building.
4.6.2 Executive and Capital-Centric Approaches

The focus of national and international attention on the capital and on a few central state
actors (e.g. the executive) was generally seen as characteristic of, yet challenging to,
peace building and state building.
The risks of rural-urban divide in aid and too narrow a focus on central institutions and
on the executive are considered as contributing to the creation of “islands of capability”
within a generally dysfunctional system, leaving aside more inclusive approaches to
development and seriously affecting overall state capacities and legitimacy. It is also found
that the over-centralisation of development, politics and services has exacerbated regional
frictions, because district administrations in rural areas, where the majority of the
population lives, remain weak and service delivery low. There is also a risk of developing
central government capacities beyond sustainable means. These issues can become
particularly damaging where international actors fail to analyse the nature of the social
contract, or grasp the complexity and fragility of a political settlement in a country.
4.6.3 Citizen Participation

Enhancing citizens’ participation and ensuring that they gain ownership of government
policy formulation and implementation are considered as important components of a
renewed governance system and of the social contract underpinning it. However, effective
involvements of civil society in key decision-making and planning contexts are rare. Civil
society, community-based organisations and ordinary citizens are not fully involved in
peace building programmes, which created a situation where the government is seen as
going it alone. Ensuring citizens’ participation at all stages of the design and implementation
of interventions in support of peace building and broader development objectives are seen
as a challenging yet key area for long-term stability. There is need for civil society
participation, to enable the government to understand and respond to people’s expectations
and consequently to rebuild the trust between the state and citizens. However, State-
centric and capital-centric approaches to peace building promoted by national and
international partners do not help create space for civil society actors.
4.6.4 Poor Strategic Communication

The lack of communication is identified as a real challenge to the advancement of the
peace building and state building agenda. Unsurprisingly, strategic communication in fragile
and conflict-affected countries is seldom a priority, despite being a critical element for
change and for efforts to increase the legitimacy and accountability of the state.
Communicating government decisions in regard to critical peace building goals and
interventions contributes to aligning interest and getting support for difficult reforms. The
lack of strategic communications from the centre, associated with the weaknesses of a
leadership is a major factor affecting the consolidation and advancement of the peace
building process.
4.6.5 Limited Accountability of International Partners

While mutual accountability features highly in the aid effectiveness agenda, poor accountability
on the donor side has been a key feature of the relationship between national and
international partners engaged in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. This concern is
becoming even more important as donors become increasingly engaged in supporting
highly complex peace building processes. Even when mutual accountability is an objective
of a peace building framework for collaboration between national and international
partners, often the actual commitments of international actors are not spelled out clearly
enough, and efforts to review actions against international commitments have been weak.
4.6.6 Limited Effectiveness of Capacity Development Approaches

Donor approaches to capacity development continue to be piecemeal, and they fail to
address cross-government and systemic challenges. Reliance on foreign technical assistance
and the poor rate of transfer of skills and knowledge are found to undermine the capacity,
accountability and legitimacy of the state in the eyes of citizens. Weak transfer of skills
and technical capacity, quick turnover of “advisers”, significant levels of “brain-drain”
(government officials leaving their jobs to work for donor agencies), and the lack of
coherent, long-term capacity development programmers are seen as affecting significant
progress in this area. Related to the problem of ineffective donor support to capacity
development is the use of parallel systems. The reluctance of donors to take risks and
to use country systems for implementing donor-supported activities often leads to the use
and multiplication of parallel project implementation units. One of the reasons for such
units is the difficulty faced by partner countries in putting in place adequate management
and reporting systems.
4.6.7 Legitimacy Challenges

The issue of legitimacy is a serious, although less frequently addressed, challenge for
peace-building. Contemporary peace-building as state-building is founded on the assumption
that a particular type of state can best guarantee human rights and development, that is,
one founded on democratic principles. In today’s globalised world, the democratic state
has taken on a particular paradigm—the liberal market economy state. Large parts of the
Industrialised world holds this paradigm to be the most efficient and sustainable model for
democratic statehood and the model for developing countries. Thus, peace-building not
only involves external actors in the internal workings of the state but also prescribes the
direction of that transformation. This is a highly political endeavour that raises important
questions of legitimacy at the international and local levels.
4.7 SUMMARY
This unit highlighted a series of challenges and bottlenecks that impede the peace building
processes. These include lack of a shared vision for change among key stakeholders for
peace and long-term development; lack of context and conflict analysis, the difficult
balance between short and long-term objectives; lack of trust between developing
countries and development partners; too many overlapping plans, and weak alignment of
donors behind a unified national plan; lack of agreement on the need to address shifting
short-term and long-term priorities at the same time; weak strategic planning and priority
setting and poor implementation rates; financing practices; poor institutional arrangements;
centralised approaches; lack of citizen participation, poor strategic communication; weak
accountability between national and international partners; and limited effectiveness of
capacity development approaches; insufficient attention to the protection of women and
children from armed conflict and to the participation of women in peace building and state
building; insufficient attention to economic growth and job creation, particularly for youth
etc. These challenges will need to be addressed to promote peace and security, and to
support capable and legitimate states that can take the lead in the national development
process.

1) What main challenges are there for peace building operations?
2) Describe the problem of managing balance between short and big term objectives.
3) Discuss the challenges of strategies, planning, priority setting and financing practices.
4) How can we tackle the challenges for peace-building better?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Brinkerhoff, D.W. (2007) Governance in Post-Conflict Societies: Rebuilding Fragile
States, London: Rutledge.
Bush, Kenneth (1996). “Beyond Bungee Cord Humanitarianism: Towards a Developmental
Agenda for Peacebuilding.” Canadian Journal of Development Studies. Special Issue,
p. 75-90.
Cousens, E., C. Kumar et al. (2001), Peace-building as Politics: Cultivating Peace in

Fragile Societies, Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
De Soto, Alvaro and Graciana del Castillo. “Obstacles to Peacebuilding.” Foreign Policy:
69-83
Forman, Shepard, Stewart Patrick and Dirk Salomons. Recovering From Conflict:
Strategy for an International Response. New York: Center on International Cooperation,
New York University.
Ghani, A. and C. Lockhart (2008), Fixing Failed States. A Framework for Rebuilding
a Fractured World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Necla Tshigiri, (2004), “Post-Conflict Peace building Revisited: Achievements, Limitations,
Challenges,” International Peace Academy Policy Report, October, i, 15.
Paris, R. (2004), At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Regehr, Ernie. (1995) “Rebuilding Peace in War-torn and War-threatened Societies: The
Challenge of Peacebuilding.” Ploughshares Monitor. December: 3-8.
Yannis, A. (2002) “State Collapse and its Implications for Peace-Building and
Reconstruction”, Development and Change 33, 5: 817-835.

Understanding Peace

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding Peace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti

Indira Gandhi National Open University

Introduction to Peace and

Certificate Programme in Peace Studies and

CPSCM Programme Coordinator: Prof. D. Gopal

Material Production Secretarial Assistance

Unit 9 after recapitulating differences between various kinds of conflicts distinguishes

Block 4 Contemporary Peace initiatives in units 13 to 16 discusses various means

1.4 Negative and Positive Peace

1.8 World Peace Systems

1.2 CONCEPT OF PEACE

1.3 MEANING OF PEACE

1.4 NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE PEACE

1.5 TYPOLOGIES OF PEACE

1.6 SUB-INTERNATIONAL PEACE PLANS

1.7 INTERNATIONAL PEACE SYSTEMS

1.7.1 Based on Distribution of Power

1.7.2 Based on Organisation of Conflicts

1.7.3 Based on Individual Loyalty Conflicts

1.7.4 Based on Degree of Homology

1.7.5 Based on International Stratification

1.7.6 Based on Degree of Interdependence

1.7.7 Based on Functional Cooperation Interaction or

1.8 INTERNATIONAL PEACE SYSTEMS

1.10 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

2.3 Peace for Human Survival

2.2 WORLD WITHOUT VIOLENCE

2.2.1 Peace and Security

2.3 PEACE FOR HUMAN SURVIVAL

Peace is universally desired. It is not a matter of personal attitude alone, it is a question

2.4 PEACE FOR DEVELOPMENT

2.5 PEACE FOR SECURITY

2.5.1 State-Centric Paradigm

2.5.2 Human-Centric Paradigm

nations arrive at an understanding of the ‘security dilemma’ phenomenon, on the basis of

2.5.3 Importance of Peace

2.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

3.3 Peace Building in International Relations Theories: A Meta-Look

3.4 Theoretical Approaches to Peace Building: Different Schools of Thought

3.5 The Alternative Discourse School of Peace Building

3.2 UNDERSTANDING PEACE BUILDING

3.2.1 Liberal Peace Building

3.2.2 Sustainable Peace Building

3.3 PEACE BUILDING IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

3.3.1 Realist Theory of Peace Building

3.3.2 Idealist Theory of Peace Building

3.3.3 Structuralist Theory of Peace Building

3.3.4 Post-Structuralist Theory of Peace Building

3.4 THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO PEACE

3.4.1 The Conflict Management School

3.4.2 The Conflict Resolution School

3.4.3 The Complementary School

Track Nine (inner circle):

Track Eight: Funding Track Two: Professional

Track Seven: Religious Track Three: Business

Track Six: Activism Track Four: Private Citizen

Track Five: Research,

Figure 3.1: Multi-track Diplomacy

3.4.4 The Conflict Transformation School

Figure 3.2: Lederach’s Levels of Peacebuilding

3.5 THE ALTERNATIVE DISCOURSE SCHOOL OF

3.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

———, (1975) “Three approaches to peace: peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace