HUMR 5134: The Right to Peace
Development and the Right to Peace
Traps of Violence and Institutional Responses
5 September 2014
Bård A. Andreassen
Norwegian Centre for Human Rights
University of Oslo
Main questions addressed
• Peace and development – concerns conditions for development
• Traps of violence as underrated in analysing conditions for
development; focus is mainly on social justice as condition for peace
• Main problem addressed: the relationships between the right to peace
and “development deficiencies” (poverty) – what is causing what? Legal
perceptions (positive: DD – V/W), empirical evidence (ambiguous, trend:
V/W - DD)
• Institutional and governance responses to resolve traps of violence
Discussion points:
– Does law – and soft law – matter? What is the role of soft law? Clarity vs.
“declatority”
– Institutional and governance requirements for ending violence and
achieving development
Structure and argument
1.
Right to peace and development – what is at stake? Traps of violence as
underrated in analysing conditions for development
2.
To argue this – some conceptual discussion – what is peace?
3.
And some references to Human Rights Law – about
violence/development
4.
We rely on new definitions/evidence of changes in the conduct of war to
argue that “new types of war” (violence) trap development
5.
We keep in mind the HR/peace paradox – violence may be legitimate
and legal
Structure and argument
6.
We turn to our main issue: Peace and development - what is
causing what?
Si vis pacem, cole justitiam
Si vis justum, cole pacem, our focus
7.
Central here is a critique of structural violence (development
requires absence of structural violence!)…..
8. Hence, traps of violence constrain development
9. Some empirical evidence? Selected evidence, explanation and
theories (causal mechanisms) from the literature
10. So what? How to solve the problem that traps of violence and
constrain development? Institutional reforms to resolve
development deficiencies
11. And certainly also governance responses – e.g. power-sharing
models of governance
What is peace?
• Peace as absent of war (negative peace), but more
• Building the conditions for peace to sustain peace after
violence/war (positive peace)
• Social and economic conditions – social justice as positive
peace
• Peace as a process – ways and mechanism to resolve
conflicts and transform factors and conditions that cause
war
Human rights law some reference and definitions
• The Declaration on the right of peoples to peace
(12/11/1984):
– the elimination of the threat of war, particularly nuclear war,
– abandoning the use of force in international relations and the
settlement of international disputes by peaceful means
• Declaration on a Culture of Peace (13/9/1999: GA):
We are “recognizing that peace not only is the absence of conflict,
but also requires a positive, dynamic participatory process where
dialogue is encouraged and conflicts are solved in a spirit of mutual
understanding and cooperation”
Ref to Human Rights (Soft) Law
• UDHR (1948): Preamble
– “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”
• Article 28: “Every one is entitled to a social and international order in
which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully
realized”
• Article 30: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying
for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to
perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth herein”
Human Rights (Soft) Law
• Preamble of the Declaration on the Right to Development:
“international peace and security are essential elements for the
realization of the right to development”.
Peace dividend – go to “comprehensive development”
• Draft Declaration on the RtPeace Article 9:
“All peoples have the right to the elimination of obstacles to the
realization of the right to development, such as the servicing of unjust
and unsustainable foreign debt burdens and their conditionalities or the
maintenance of an unfair international economic order that generates
poverty and social exclusion”
Implicit: development – precondition for the realization of the right
to peace
New definitions of war – and peace?
– Traditionally: international law in defining war as
international war (The UN Charter, the Geneva
conventions)
– New wars: Internal, domestic, “civil”: Former Fed Rep
of Yugoslavia (140’/4 mill IDPs), Rwanda (800’), Angola
(350’), Liberia (150’), Kenya (1.300), Iraq (500?)
» Fighting «amongst the people: The people in the cities,
towns, streets and their houses … can be on the battlefield”
(Rupert Smith)
– War conditioned by state breakdown, state failure
– Privatisation, non-state actors, asymmetric
– The RtP – both levels (internal/international)?
New definitions of war
Broaden the definition of war – and peace - to capture
variation and new trends:
•
•
•
•
Inter-state war
Colonial war
Guerrilla war
Civil war
• Tribal/ethnic/clan
• Terrorism
The human rights - peace paradoxes
1.
2.
3.
The Preamble of the UDHR:
“Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly
relations between nations…..”
“Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have
recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and
oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
law…..”
All peace declaration in the UN – international peace, while the
majority of wars are domestic!
Building peace with non-peaceful means: just wars and humanitarian
intervention, based on human rights?
»Acceptable under chapter 7 – self defence, threat to
international peace
A realism/idealism dichotomy (IR): Violence/non-violence
The issue: What is causing what?
“Si vis pacem, cole justitiam”
• The League of Nations, 1919:
– the League (….) has for its object the establishment of universal
peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based
upon social justice
• ILO – 1919: Sécheron, Lake Geneva
– 1969: Nobel Peace Price in reward for its work for improving
peace among classes and pursuing justice for workers
» The foundation stone
The alternative – Si vis justum, cole pacem
Traps of violence – poverty is trapped by violence; Peace
first, then development
Assumes that violence:
– linked to weak institutions
– clientlist politics
– governance structures that give scope for ‘calculated violence of
neglect
“the deliberate failure of government and state officials to
carry out their duties in order to benefit from the ensuing
disorder and distress”
The notion of structural violence
• Johan Galtung, PRIO: Structural violence (1969)
• Structural violence is “violence”/oppression “built into” social
structures, institutions, ideologies and histories”
– the nature of social structures, cultural traditions, customs, the way
institutions function represent denial of rights and obstacles to
people’s needs
• Hence, direct and indirect forms of violence – undermines development
The notion of structural violence
Article 2.7 of the Draft Declaration encompasses this assumption:
“Mechanisms should be developed and strengthened to
eliminate inequality, exclusion and poverty, as they generate
structural violence, which is incompatible with peace
Development research – refer to some of the same phenomena as
traps of poverty (Chronic Poverty Institute/Report)
–Chronic poverty is defined as poverty that people suffer over
an extended period of time.
–Five poverty traps, or development failures that represent
structures and institutional practices that cause poverty
Traps of poverty
Five poverty traps
1.
Insecurity incl. crime and insecure environments
2.
Lack of effective citizenship
3.
Disproportionally affects people living in remote areas with
vulnerable or scarce living resources
4.
Social discrimination and exclusion
5.
Lack work opportunities, and access to income
Traps of poverty as structural violence
Why are poverty traps structural violence?
– Resources and knowledge exist to tackle and eradicate chronic
poverty
How can structural violence be abolished?
– Requires reforms of national and international policies, and
institutional transformations
– Policies and institutions are not unchangeable; they are social
constructs and possible to alter
Structural violence not primarily legal or physical violence but social
constraint on people’s capabilities and functioning
Traps of violence as obstructing development
More analytic focus needed on TV
– How is insecurity, violence and un-peaceful environments
distorting development
– Chronic Poverty Report (2008-9), 19 out the 32 countries
classified as chronically poor had experienced major violent
conflicts since 1970
TV is mainly suggesting greed causes of war
– The protracted violence in Congo
– Nigeria, Boko Haram
– Powerful interests manufacturing violence - warlords, local and
political elites, urban criminal gangs in pursuit of wealth and
power
Traps of violence: Explanation and causal
mechanisms (and theories)
• Disorder an instrument if power and control
• Governance structures not robust to handle internal chocks
• Types of violence (vigilante or gang hostility) are interrelated: election
violence - ethnic conflict
• Organized violence - repeated cycles; civil wars recurs, election
violence
• Development is obstructed – nested circles of unresolved violent
conflicts
Traps of violence: Explanation and causal
mechanisms (and theories)
Cox, North and Weingast argue that traps of violence undergird most of
the economic poverty traps that much of the literature has focussed on
– Violent conflict is endemic and highly common in the developing
world, including the richer developing countries
– The violence trap correlated with lack of appropriate incentives
to avoid conflict
» costs of domestic conflict for ruling elites are too low
» costs of violent domestic conflict for conflict entrepreneurs
need to be ‘raised’, and the ability to access arms held by
domestic elites reduced
Traps of violence: Explanation and causal
mechanisms (and theories)
Brozka and Croll (2005)
– “It seems unlikely that the MDGs can be reached unless issues
of security and conflict are brought into the diagnosis of the
obstacles hindering their attainment”
– Violent conflict distorts development by destructing
transportation infrastructure (and prevent local markets from
operating)
– Constrains effective use of funds to the health and education
– Civil wars spill over into neighbouring countries
Traps of violence: Explanation and causal
mechanisms (and theories)
Goodhand (2003)
– causal linkages (Violence/development) important because of
policy implications
– increasingly accepted that violent conflict is a driver of chronic
poverty
– the reverse relationship - chronic poverty causes conflict – much
more contentious
– Long-term conflict is a maintainer of chronic poverty
– chronically poor are generally less likely to engage in violent
conflict
Kenya in early 2008 as case? National and local political leaders’ “greed”
for power, was intertwined with “grievance”-led claims about land
grabbing by local farmers on the ground
Traps of violence: Explanation and causal
mechanisms (and theories)
Civil wars have structural effects on economies and
development
•Collier – this happens through five mechanisms:
– destruction of resources
– disruption of social order
– diversion of public expenditure
– lack of domestic saving for investment
– and the shifting of values and assets out of the country
•Report of the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post 2015
Development Agenda
– “peace and good governance as core elements of well-being, not
an optional extra”
Explanation and causal mechanisms: Summary
Three theories
– grievance theory – common in the development (and aid)
discourse
– greed theory
– third position: ‘cost of conflict’ perspective
The analytical task
– acknowledge that the particular direction the arrow point and
the theoretical approach relies on context
Institutional deficiencies
Two general insights:
•Structural violence as ‘social imperfections’
– are socially constructed
– result from the use or misuse of power
– the functioning of institutions and legislation that were supposed
to correct them
•Countries with high levels of violence, and weak
institutional legitimacy
– lack governance and institutional capacity to resolve serious and
violent conflicts
Institutional reforms as remedy - difficult
Three key reasons why institutional reforms are difficult
(World Bank):
– Lack of trust among elites, and people lack trust in state
institutions
– Agreements easily broken because elites and groups loosing
power and benefits are uncertain
– Country going through institutional transformation may face
security threats that disturbs the process of institutional reform
Institutional reforms
Responses to institutional weakness
Three basic obstacles need to be managed:
– Restore confidence and trust in institutions and social
relations
– Institutions that contribute to citizens’ security, justice and
job creation given resources
– Govern external ‘stresses’ (economic and security) need to
be governed
Governance responses
e.g. power-sharing to end violence/war, and build
positive peace
Key features:
– Include parties to a violent conflict in power-sharing
arrangements: Coalitions (SA, Kenya), federal institutions (
Ethiopia, Nepal) and proportional allocation of government
positions (SA)
– Integrate the “spoilers”, conflict entrepreneurs
– End impunity?
– Exit opportunities for “spoilers”?
– Increase costs of conflict
– Ability to delivery of institutional and political reforms and
material results
Cases: South Africa, Kenya