Theories of Peace
Goal: to use the concept of the
enemy to construct a theoretical
framework for analyzing peace
Peace: Creation and
maintenance of
relationship of proven
value and worth
Types of Peace
•Separate: Disentangle; Co-Existence
•Associate: Entangle; Partnerships
Goal of Peace
•Restore: reestablish trust, value
•Build: create trust, value
Tractable Conflicts
I.
Peace: mediated, resolved conflicts
Opponent: an adversary, rival
Type of Conflict: conflict of interests
Peaceful Outcome: win-win resolution
II. Peace: fair, just, & cooperative relationships
Opponent: an oppressor
Type of Conflict: unbalanced relationships
Peaceful Outcome: mutually beneficial relationships
Intractable Conflicts
III. Peace: defeat of the enemy
Enemy: antithesis of peace
Type of Conflict: protracted, intractable differences
Outcome: irreconcilable differences
Spring 2001
PEACE STUDIES FRAMEWORK
TRACTABLE CONFLICT
COMPONENTS OF PEACE
1
Peace: mediated, resolved
conflicts
Type of Conflict: conflict
of interests
Opponent: an adversary,
rival
Peaceful Outcome: winwin resolution
Justice: equity within
competing relationships
Security: institutional
protection
Non-violence: freedom
from war
2
Peace: fair, just, &
cooperative relationships
Type of Conflict:
unbalanced relationships
Opponent: an oppressor
Justice: equality and
fairness
Security: power
Peaceful Outcome:
mutually beneficial
relationship
Non-violence: freedom
from structural violence
Rectifying Injustice:
inequity
Removing Threat:
competing interests
Means: democratic
institution, conflict
resolution processes
Rectifying Injustice:
exploitation
Removing Threat:
exploitation






Means: education,
confrontation,
conciliation, bargaining



INTRACTABLE CONFLICT
3
Peace: defeat of the enemy
Enemy: antithesis of
peace
Type of Conflict:
protracted, intractable
differences
Outcome:
irreconcilable
differences
COMPONENTS OF PEACE
Conflict Transformation: creation of “we-ness”—
trust (must transform the conflict into one that is
tractable)
Justice: rightness of my
Injustice: interference
goals and aspirations
in your pursue of your
goals and aspirations
Security: victory (eternal Threat: the presence of
vigilance)
the “other”
Non-violence: expulsion
of “bad” violence
Means: “good”
violence
Transcenders:
Establishing
connects
What is due the
grandchildren of
your enemy?
What is due the
grandchildren of
your enemy?
What is due the
grandchildren of
your enemy?
Transformers:
Developing trust
Foundations for
“We-ness”
Rectifying
Injustice
Basic Human
Right
Alleviating fear
Confidencebuilding
Renouncing
violence
Establishing
consent
Chantal Mouffe:
1. The constitutive other and the
impossibility of a world without
antagonisms
2. Difference vs. Negating Identity
3. We/them -- Friend/enemy
4. Displacement of the enemy with the
adversary.
Tractable Conflicts
I.
Peace: mediated, resolved conflicts
Opponent: an adversary, rival
Type of Conflict: conflict of interests
Peaceful Outcome: win-win resolution
II.
Peace: fair, just, & cooperative relationships
Opponent: an oppressor
Type of Conflict: unbalanced relationships
Peaceful Outcome: mutually beneficial relationships
Intractable Conflicts
III. Peace: defeat of the enemy
Enemy: antithesis of peace
Type of Conflict: protracted, intractable
differences
Outcome: irreconcilable differences
Transcenders:
If the enemy is someone who was potentially one of
us and from whom we have been separated by
violence, then the first task is to reestablish the
human bonds that once connected us.
Transformers:
By definition, intractable conflicts cannot be
resolved. Still, they can be transformed into tractable
ones that are, in principle, capable of resolution. The
only way to do this is to construct a context that
includes the sacrificially expelled other.
Tractable Conflicts
I. Peace: mediated, resolved conflicts
Opponent: an adversary, rival
Type of Conflict: conflict of interests
Peaceful Outcome: win-win resolution
II.
Peace: fair, just, & cooperative relationships
Opponent: an oppressor
Type of Conflict: unbalanced relationships
Peaceful Outcome: mutually beneficial relationships
Intractable Conflicts
III.
Peace: defeat of the enemy
Enemy: antithesis of peace
Type of Conflict: protracted, intractable differences
Outcome: irreconcilable differences
Boulding’s Definition of Peace:
Peace as Not War: a setting in which conflict and
excitement, debate and dialogue, drama and
confrontation do not get out of hand and become
destructive
Positive Aspects:
1. Condition of good management
2. Orderly resolution of conflict
3. Harmony associated with mature relationships
Negative Aspects:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Absence of turmoil
Absence of tension
Absence of conflict
Absence of war
Boulding’s Approach
1. The goal is to make peace more probable and war less likely.
2. The concept of the “causes of war” is rejected because war and
peace are multi-causal, subject to quite strong random influences,
and sharp discontinuities at the breaking points.
3. The variable of war-peace system, particular the international
system, can be classified roughly by the way in which they
contribute either to the strain or to the strength of the system.
4. Conflict activities are those in which we are conscious that an
increase in our welfare may diminish the welfare of others or an
increase in the welfare of others may diminish our welfare.
5. The difference between peace and war is mainly defined in
terms of the taboo line – the line that defines what we can do but
refrain from doing from what we can do and do.
Boulding’s Paradigm
All
Non-conflict
Peace
Human
Activity
Conflict
War
Peace and War
1. War and Peace are not merely the absence of the other, but
positively definable states of a system.
2. Example: awake and asleep; neither is simply the opposite
of the other.
3. Peace and war can be represented as differing phases in a
system.
4. A different system of acting and thinking characterizes the
war and peace phases.
Perception of Reality in War & Peace
Peacetime
1. Good and Evil have many shades of
gray.
2. The present is pretty much like other
times.
3. Great forces (nature, God, civilization)
are not particularly involved in our
disputes.
4. After the present period, things will go
on pretty much as they always have.
5. Life is complex with many problems to
be solved that have varying importance
from day to day.
6. All people act pretty much the same and
act from the same motives.
7. We can talk with those we disagree with.
Wartime
1. Good and Evil are reduced to us and
them with no bystanders.
2. The present has a special quality—a
final battle of good and evil.
3. The great forces of the cosmos are for us
against them.
4. When the war is over things will be
vastly different.
5. There is only one problem with ultimate
importance that must be solved
6. "We" and "They" are qualitatively
different. They wish for power. We act in
self defense and with respect for common
decency.
7. They lie and are so evil that only force
can settle the issues
Boulding’s Paradigm
All
Non-conflict
Peace
Human
Activity
Conflict
War
Approaches to Conflict Reduction/De-escalation
April 2003
Approaches to Conflict Reduction
Conflict Management
Good News: At the end of the day, you are alive.
Bad News: Whether you live through tomorrow is uncertain.
1) Goal: To prevent conflicts from escalating into total conflict.
2) Assumptions
a)
It is better to aim low and succeed than to aim high and fail.
b)
Many of the most achievable improvements in the situation accomplish little and
put prior advancements in jeopardy.
3) Method: Create a hiatus in which neither side tries to destroy the other: Create “live
and let live attitude in the places where people interact by removing or managing the
factors that cause threat (coexistence)
a)
Degree of integration
b)
Degree of imposition or coercion
4) Strategy
a)
Appeal to self-interest: one’s own existence is dependent upon the existence of
the other.
b)
Create moral anchors that allow both sides to see the human face of the other.
c)
Encourage alignment based upon interests other than sectarian identity.
d)
Contain issues that could increase polarization.
Conflict Resolution
Good News: Many conflicts are non-zero sum.
Bad News: Not all problems are non-zero sum.
1) Goal: Remove the resistances or obstacles to an overall resolution or settlement.
2) Assumption: The gap between the parties can be traversed with small steps.
3) Method: Fractionating the conflict into resolvable issues by based the various
interests involved.
a)
Shared interests
b)
Different interests
i) Different valuations
iv) Different time preferences
ii) Different expectations
v) Different capabilities
iii) Different attitudes about risk
c)
Opposing Interests
4) Strategy
a)
Logrolling
i) Creating a package linking less valued concessions to more valued gains.
ii) Concessions that avoid losses are more effective than concession improve
upon gains.
b)
Entrapment: Once people made a concession or agreement, they tend to act and
think in ways that justify this move.
a)
Constructive ambiguity: If a conflict is likely to become less important in the
future, then leave its resolution ambiguous.
Conflict Transformation
Good News: It produces the best (most rewarding and most enduring) solutions.
Bad News: It is problem-solving in a reconciliation framework (we-ness).
1) Goal: Create new solutions that are beyond the scope of what immediately seems
possible.
2) Assumption: We can agree about where we want to go.
3) Method: Turn the conflict into political (economic, social) problem that we acting
together can solve.
a)
Conflict is irresolvable because:
i) There are incompatible interests – real or perceived.
ii) Parties are too angry to talk constructively.
iii) There exist fundamental differences in values about the subject of the conflict
or about process for resolving it.
iv) The parties hold different versions of the “truth” about what already has or
will happen in the future and about the facts involved.
v) The parties have differing views of what their relationship is or should be.
vi) There exist misunderstandings that are hard to sort out.
b)
The conflict becomes a complex riddle or puzzle that has to be solved mutually or
cooperatively:
c)
Diagnosing the conflict by sorting out the various interests, values, preferences,
realities, emotional investments, and so on:
 What do I want?  What do they want?  Do we fully understand each other
needs, reason, beliefs, and
 Why do I want it?  Why do they want
feelings?
it?
 What are the
 Is the conflict based upon
various ways that  What are the
misunderstanding or a real conflict
I can satisfy what
various ways that
of interests, beliefs, preferences, or
I want?
they can satisfy
values?
what they want?
 What is the conflict really about?
4) Developing alternatives solutions to the problem: figuring out what it would take to
work things out.
a)
Expanding the pie:
i) Claiming vs. creating value
b)
Creating new compensation frameworks:
i) Finding new ways to compensate a party for yielding on a issue
c)
Bridging:
i) Identifying interests that can be satisfied by redesign the framework or
context.
Approaches to Conflict
Reduction/De-escalation
1.
Conflict Management
2.
Conflict Resolution
3.
Conflict Transformation
Conflict Management
Good news: At the end of the day, you are alive.
Bad news: Whether you live through tomorrow is
uncertain.
Goal: To prevent conflicts from escalating into total
conflict.
Assumptions:
1. It is better to aim low and succeed than to aim
high and fail.
2. Many of the most achievable improvements in
the situation accomplish little and put prior
advancements in jeopardy.
Method
Create a hiatus in which neither side tries to
destroy the other: Create “live and let live
attitude in the places where people interact by
removing or managing the factors that cause
threat (coexistence)
• Degree of integration
• Degree of imposition or coercion
Strategy
1.
Appeal to self-interest: one’s own
existence is dependent upon the
existence of the other.
2. Create moral anchors that allow both
sides to see the human face of the other.
3. Encourage alignment based upon
interests other than sectarian identity.
4. Contain issues that could increase
polarization.
Conflict Resolution
Good news: Many conflicts are non-zero sum.
Bad news: Not all problems are non-zero sum.
Assumption: The gap between the parties can be
transverse with small steps
Goal: Remove the resistances or obstacles to an overall
resolution or settlement.
Method
Fractionating the conflict into resolvable issues by
based the various interests involved.
Shared interests
Different interests
Different valuations
Different expectations
Different attitudes about risk
Different time preferences
Different capabilities
Opposing Interests
Strategy:
1. Logrolling:
• Creating a package linking less valued
concessions to more valued gains.
• Concessions that avoid losses are more
effective than concession improve upon
gains.
2. Entrapment: Once people made a concession or
agreement, they tend to act and think in ways that
justify this move.
3. Constructive ambiguity: If a conflict is likely to
become less important in the future, then leave its
resolution ambiguous.
Conflict Transformation
Good News: It produces the best (most rewarding
and most enduring) solutions.
Bad News: It is problem-solving in a
reconciliation framework (we-ness).
Goal: Create new solutions that go beyond the
scope of what seems immediately possible.
Assumption: We agree about where we want to
go.
Method: Turn the conflict into political (economic,
social) problem that we acting together can solve.
Why is the conflict irresolvable?
1. There are incompatible interests – real or perceived.
2. Parties are too angry to talk constructively.
3. There exist fundamental differences in values about the
subject of the conflict or about process for resolving it.
4. The parties hold different versions of the “truth” about
what already has or will happen in the future and about
the facts involved.
5. The parties have differing views of what their
relationship is or should be.
6. There exist misunderstandings that are hard to sort out.
Method (continued)
2. The conflict becomes a complex riddle or puzzle that
has to be solved mutually or cooperatively.
3. Diagnosing the conflict: sorting out the various:
various interests, values, preferences, realities,
emotional investments, and so on .
 What do I want?  What do they want?  Do we fully understand each other
needs, reason, beliefs, and
 Why do I want it?  Why do they want
feelings?
it?
 What are the
 Is the conflict based upon
various ways that  What are the
misunderstanding or a real conflict
I can satisfy what
various ways that
of interests, beliefs, preferences, or
I want?
they can satisfy
values?
what they want?
 What is the conflict really about?
Strategy:
1. Expanding the pie
• Claiming vs. creating value
2. Creating new compensation frameworks
• Finding new ways to compensate a party for
yielding on a issue
3. Bridging
• Identifying interests that can be satisfied by
redesigning the framework or context
Peace/War System
Stable
War
Strain
Unstable War
Unstable
Peace
Stable
Peace
Strength
Peace/War System
Strain
Strength:
Structural Variables:
1. Images of the past
2. Professionalization
of conflict
Structural Variables:
1. Memories of the past
2. Professionalization:
mediators, etc.
Dynamic Variables:
Dynamic Variables:
1. Arms Race
2. Differential Growth
a. Population
b. Economic
1. Travel and
communication
2. Web of economic
interdependence—crosscutting
European Union
European Coal and Steel Community
Treaty of Paris, April 18, 1951
1. Coal and steel were the fundamental building blocks of
industry.
2. The heavy industries of the Ruhr had been the traditional
basis for German power. Three times in the previous
seventy years, France and Germany had fought over the
coal reserves of Alsace-Lorraine.
3. Integrating the coal and steel industry would ensure that
Germany and France developed common interests that
would help prevent military and economy rivalry.
Vision of Jean Monnet & Robert Schuman
To sneak up on peace
Functionalism: upgrading common interests
Functional spillover
Technical spillover
Political spillover
Principal Objectives:
1. Establish European citizenship
2. Ensure freedom, security, and justice
3. Promote economic and social progress
4. Assert Europe’s role in the world
Three Pillars:
Pillar 1: primarily economic (EC & EMU)
Pillar 2: joint action in foreign and security affairs
Pillar 3: justice and home affairs
Original Six Countries: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium,
Luxembourg, Netherlands
Today: 15 member states; 13 candidate countries
Institutions:
The European Commission
The Council of the Union
The European Parliament
The Court of Justice
The Court of Auditors
Tractable Conflicts
I.
Peace: mediated, resolved conflicts
Opponent: an adversary, rival
Type of Conflict: conflict of interests
Peaceful Outcome: win-win resolution
II. Peace: fair, just, & cooperative relationships
Opponent: an oppressor
Type of Conflict: unbalanced relationships
Peaceful Outcome: mutually beneficial
relationships
Intractable Conflicts
III.
Peace: defeat of the enemy
Enemy: antithesis of peace
Type of Conflict: protracted, intractable differences
Outcome: irreconcilable differences
Curle’s Approach
1. The most useful categories for thinking about peace are
peaceful and unpeaceful relationships.
2. The goal is to transform unpeaceful relationship into peaceful
relationship.
3. Conflict occurs when one side desires something that can be
obtained only at the expense of what another side desires. His
view is objectivist and concerns incompatible interests.
4. The key variables are (1) balanced and unbalanced and (2)
high and low levels of awareness.
5. Exploitative imbalance is a particular prevalent form of
unpeaceful relationship and is his principal concern.
Curle’s Paradigm
Unbalanced,
low awareness
Unbalanced,
Education
high awareness
Balanced,
Confrontation
high awareness
Conciliation
Bargaining
No conflict
Development
Curle's Paradigm
Unpeaceful Relationship
Unstable
Dynamic
Negotiation:
Conciliation Bargaining
Sustainable Peace
Unbalanced
Balanced
Static
Peaceful Relationships
1. Education/Conscientization
Latent Conflict
Low Awareness
Confronatation
Overt Conflict
High Awareness
Curle’s Paradigm
Unbalanced,
low awareness
Unbalanced,
Education
high awareness
Balanced,
Confrontation
high awareness
Conciliation
Bargaining
No conflict
Development
Paulo Freire: Pedagogy of the Oppressed
1. The purpose of education is to empower people
to be the creators of their own history.
2. The method is dialogical. No one is absolutely
ignorant.
3. Identification of generative themes that give
rise to “limit situations.”
4. Exploration of “untested feasibility.”
5. Dialogue is the exercise of freedom.
Curle’s Paradigm
Unbalanced,
low awareness
Unbalanced,
Education
high awareness
Balanced,
Confrontatio
n
high awareness
Conciliation
Bargaining
No conflict
Development
Confrontation
I. Non-Violence—A Response to Violence
Criteria for Effectiveness
1. Active force against force
2. Effective against violence
II. Source of Power: Role of Consent
How do you think about your power?
III. Methods of Struggle
A. Non-Violence Protest & Persuasion
B. Non-Cooperation
1. Social
2. Economic
3. Political
C. Non-Violent Intervention
IV. Mechanism of Change
A. Conversion
B. Accommodation
C. Coercion
Tractable Conflicts
I.
Peace: mediated, resolved conflicts
Opponent: an adversary, rival
Type of Conflict: conflict of interests
Peaceful Outcome: win-win resolution
II. Peace: fair, just, & cooperative relationships
Opponent: an oppressor
Type of Conflict: unbalanced relationships
Peaceful Outcome: mutually beneficial relationships
Intractable Conflicts
III. Peace: defeat of the enemy
Enemy: antithesis of peace
Type of Conflict: protracted, intractable differences
Outcome: irreconcilable differences
Spring 2001
PEACE STUDIES FRAMEWORK
TRACTABLE CONFLICT
COMPONENTS OF PEACE
1
Peace: mediated, resolved
conflicts
Type of Conflict: conflict
of interests
Opponent: an adversary,
rival
Peaceful Outcome: winwin resolution
Justice: equity within
competing relationships
Security: institutional
protection
Non-violence: freedom
from war
2
Peace: fair, just, &
cooperative relationships
Type of Conflict:
unbalanced relationships
Opponent: an oppressor
Justice: equality and
fairness
Security: power
Peaceful Outcome:
mutually beneficial
relationship
Non-violence: freedom
from structural violence
Rectifying Injustice:
inequity
Removing Threat:
competing interests
Means: democratic
institution, conflict
resolution processes
Rectifying Injustice:
exploitation
Removing Threat:
exploitation






Means: education,
confrontation,
conciliation, bargaining



INTRACTABLE CONFLICT
3
Peace: defeat of the enemy
Enemy: antithesis of
peace
Type of Conflict:
protracted, intractable
differences
Outcome:
irreconcilable
differences
COMPONENTS OF PEACE
Conflict Transformation: creation of “we-ness”—
trust (must transform the conflict into one that is
tractable)
Justice: rightness of my
Injustice: interference
goals and aspirations
in your pursue of your
goals and aspirations
Security: victory (eternal Threat: the presence of
vigilance)
the “other”
Non-violence: expulsion
of “bad” violence
Means: “good”
violence
Transcenders:
Establishing
connects
What is due the
grandchildren of
your enemy?
What is due the
grandchildren of
your enemy?
What is due the
grandchildren of
your enemy?
Transformers:
Developing trust
Foundations for
“We-ness”
Rectifying
Injustice
Basic Human
Right
Alleviating fear
Confidencebuilding
Renouncing
violence
Establishing
consent
Components of Peace
Justice
Just War Theory, International Law, Arms Control
Security
Realist Political Theory
Non-violence
Pacifism
Basic Human Rights
•Physical security
•Subsistence
•Effective participation
•Free physical movement
Tractable Conflicts
I.
Peace: mediated, resolved conflicts
Opponent: an adversary, rival
Type of Conflict: conflict of interests
Peaceful Outcome: win-win resolution
II. Peace: fair, just, & cooperative relationships
Opponent: an oppressor
Type of Conflict: unbalanced relationships
Peaceful Outcome: mutually beneficial relationships
Intractable Conflicts
III. Peace: defeat of the enemy
Enemy: antithesis of peace
Type of Conflict: protracted, intractable differences
Outcome: irreconcilable differences