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 Opponent: an adversary, Justice: equity within Rectifying Injustice:
conflicts rival competing relationships inequity
Type of Conflict: conflict Peaceful Outcome: win- Security: institutional Removing Threat:
of interests win resolution protection competing interests
Non-violence: freedom Means: democratic
from war institution, conflict
resolution processes
2 Peace: fair, just, & Opponent: an oppressor Justice: equality and Rectifying Injustice:
cooperative relationships fairness exploitation
Type of Conflict: Peaceful Outcome: Security: power Removing Threat:
unbalanced relationships mutually beneficial exploitation     
relationship
Non-violence: freedom Means: education, 
from structural violence confrontation,
conciliation, bargaining


INTRACTABLE CONFLICT COMPONENTS OF PEACE

Conflict Transformation: creation of “we-ness”— Transcenders: Transformers: Foundations for
trust (must transform the conflict into one that is Establishing Developing trust “We-ness”
tractable) connects
3 Peace: defeat of the enemy Enemy: antithesis of Justice: rightness of my Injustice: interference What is due the Rectifying Basic Human
peace goals and aspirations in your pursue of your grandchildren of Injustice Right
goals and aspirations your enemy?
Type of Conflict: Outcome: Security: victory (eternal Threat: the presence of What is due the Alleviating fear Confidence-
protracted, intractable irreconcilable vigilance) the “other” grandchildren of building
differences differences your enemy?
Non-violence: expulsion Means: “good” What is due the Renouncing Establishing
of “bad” violence violence grandchildren of violence consent
your enemy?
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. Absence of turmoil
2. Absence of tension
3. Absence of conflict
4. 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 Wartime
1. Good and Evil are reduced to us and
1. Good and Evil have many shades of
them with no bystanders.
gray.
2. The present has a special quality—a
2. The present is pretty much like other
final battle of good and evil.
times.
3. The great forces of the cosmos are for us
3. Great forces (nature, God, civilization)
against them.
are not particularly involved in our
disputes. 4. When the war is over things will be
vastly different.
4. After the present period, things will go
on pretty much as they always have.
5. There is only one problem with ultimate
5. Life is complex with many problems to
importance that must be solved
be solved that have varying importance
from day to day. 6. "We" and "They" are qualitatively
different. They wish for power. We act in
6. All people act pretty much the same and
self defense and with respect for common
act from the same motives.
decency.
7. They lie and are so evil that only force
7. We can talk with those we disagree with.
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
a) Constructive ambiguity: If a conflict is likely to become less important in the
Conflict Management future, then leave its resolution ambiguous.
Good News: At the end of the day, you are alive. Conflict Transformation
Bad News: Whether you live through tomorrow is uncertain.
Good News: It produces the best (most rewarding and most enduring) solutions.
1) Goal: To prevent conflicts from escalating into total conflict.
Bad News: It is problem-solving in a reconciliation framework (we-ness).
2) Assumptions
a) It is better to aim low and succeed than to aim high and fail. 1) Goal: Create new solutions that are beyond the scope of what immediately seems
b) Many of the most achievable improvements in the situation accomplish little and possible.
put prior advancements in jeopardy. 2) Assumption: We can agree about where we want to go.
3) Method: Create a hiatus in which neither side tries to destroy the other: Create “live 3) Method: Turn the conflict into political (economic, social) problem that we acting
and let live attitude in the places where people interact by removing or managing the together can solve.
factors that cause threat (coexistence) a) Conflict is irresolvable because:
a) Degree of integration i) There are incompatible interests – real or perceived.
b) Degree of imposition or coercion ii) Parties are too angry to talk constructively.
4) Strategy iii) There exist fundamental differences in values about the subject of the conflict
a) Appeal to self-interest: one’s own existence is dependent upon the existence of or about process for resolving it.
the other. iv) The parties hold different versions of the “truth” about what already has or
b) Create moral anchors that allow both sides to see the human face of the other. will happen in the future and about the facts involved.
c) Encourage alignment based upon interests other than sectarian identity.
v) The parties have differing views of what their relationship is or should be.
d) Contain issues that could increase polarization.
vi) There exist misunderstandings that are hard to sort out.
Conflict Resolution b) The conflict becomes a complex riddle or puzzle that has to be solved mutually or
Good News: Many conflicts are non-zero sum. cooperatively:
Bad News: Not all problems are non-zero sum. c) Diagnosing the conflict by sorting out the various interests, values, preferences,
1) Goal: Remove the resistances or obstacles to an overall resolution or settlement. realities, emotional investments, and so on:
2) Assumption: The gap between the parties can be traversed with small steps.  What do I want?  What do they want?  Do we fully understand each other
3) Method: Fractionating the conflict into resolvable issues by based the various  Why do I want it?  Why do they want needs, reason, beliefs, and
interests involved. it? feelings?
 What are the
a) Shared interests various ways that  What are the  Is the conflict based upon
b) Different interests I can satisfy what various ways that misunderstanding or a real conflict
i) Different valuations iv) Different time preferences I want? they can satisfy of interests, beliefs, preferences, or
ii) Different expectations v) Different capabilities values?
what they want?
iii) Different attitudes about risk
 What is the conflict really about?
c) Opposing Interests
4) Strategy 4) Developing alternatives solutions to the problem: figuring out what it would take to
a) Logrolling work things out.
i) Creating a package linking less valued concessions to more valued gains. a) Expanding the pie:
ii) Concessions that avoid losses are more effective than concession improve i) Claiming vs. creating value
upon gains. b) Creating new compensation frameworks:
b) Entrapment: Once people made a concession or agreement, they tend to act and i) Finding new ways to compensate a party for yielding on a issue
think in ways that justify this move. 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

 Why do I want it?  Why do they want needs, reason, beliefs, and
it? feelings?
 What are the
various ways that  What are the  Is the conflict based upon
I can satisfy what various ways that misunderstanding or a real conflict
I want? they can satisfy of interests, beliefs, preferences, or
what they want? values?
 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

Unstable War
Strain

Unstable
Peace
Stable
Peace

Strength
 Peace/War System
Strain Strength:
Structural Variables: Structural Variables:
1. Images of the past 1. Memories of the past
2. Professionalization 2. Professionalization:
of conflict mediators, etc.

Dynamic Variables: Dynamic Variables:

1. Arms Race 1. Travel and
2. Differential Growth communication
a. Population 2. Web of economic
b. Economic interdependence—cross-
cutting
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 No conflict
Bargaining

Development
 Curle's Paradigm
Unpeaceful Relationship Peaceful Relationships
Static Unstable Dynamic
Negotiation: Sustainable Peace
Conciliation Bargaining
Balanced
Unbalanced

1. Education/Conscientization Confronatation
Latent Conflict Overt Conflict
Low Awareness High Awareness
 Curle’s Paradigm
Unbalanced,
low awareness
Unbalanced,
Education high awareness

Balanced,
Confrontation
high awareness

Conciliation No conflict
Bargaining

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 high awareness
n
Conciliation No conflict
Bargaining

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 Opponent: an adversary, Justice: equity within Rectifying Injustice:
conflicts rival competing relationships inequity
Type of Conflict: conflict Peaceful Outcome: win- Security: institutional Removing Threat:
of interests win resolution protection competing interests
Non-violence: freedom Means: democratic
from war institution, conflict
resolution processes
2 Peace: fair, just, & Opponent: an oppressor Justice: equality and Rectifying Injustice:
cooperative relationships fairness exploitation
Type of Conflict: Peaceful Outcome: Security: power Removing Threat:
unbalanced relationships mutually beneficial exploitation     
relationship
Non-violence: freedom Means: education, 
from structural violence confrontation,
conciliation, bargaining


INTRACTABLE CONFLICT COMPONENTS OF PEACE

Conflict Transformation: creation of “we-ness”— Transcenders: Transformers: Foundations for
trust (must transform the conflict into one that is Establishing Developing trust “We-ness”
tractable) connects
3 Peace: defeat of the enemy Enemy: antithesis of Justice: rightness of my Injustice: interference What is due the Rectifying Basic Human
peace goals and aspirations in your pursue of your grandchildren of Injustice Right
goals and aspirations your enemy?
Type of Conflict: Outcome: Security: victory (eternal Threat: the presence of What is due the Alleviating fear Confidence-
protracted, intractable irreconcilable vigilance) the “other” grandchildren of building
differences differences your enemy?
Non-violence: expulsion Means: “good” What is due the Renouncing Establishing
of “bad” violence violence grandchildren of violence consent
your enemy?
 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