What is the essence of international peace and how can it be achieved? Innumerable attempts have been made in the past to seek out the answer to that pivotal question. Countless efforts have gone into supranational endeavours designed to promote a less conflict-ridden international order. Over the centuries historians, IR theorists, strategists, peace researchers, economists and public servants have developed many explanatory models and practical measures which, so it was hoped, would offer world society a more effective approach to the age-old problem of finding an applicable solution to the creation and preservation of international peace.
Yet the word "peace" is evidently an ambiguous and multi-faceted concept with very distinctive meanings and connotations to individual peoples in different countries and at different times throughout history—and thus with likewise very unique ideas and perspectives on how to realize it. In view of this, the academic field of Peace and Conflict studies generally distinguishes between 'negative' and 'positive' peace.
Table of Contents
1. Negative, Positive and Universal Peace
Objectives and Topics
The work explores the essential definition of international peace by analyzing the distinction between negative and positive peace and examining how their interplay, when combined with universal validity, can contribute to a more stable and resilient international order.
- Theoretical distinction between negative and positive peace
- Limitations of historical peace agreements regarding justice
- The role of political tension in international systems
- Reciprocal nature of peace categories
- The necessity of universal application for sustainable world peace
Excerpt from the Book
Negative, Positive and Universal Peace
What is the essence of international peace and how can it be achieved? Innumerable attempts have been made in the past to seek out the answer to that pivotal question. Countless efforts have gone into supranational endeavours designed to promote a less conflict-ridden international order. Over the centuries historians, IR theorists, strategists, peace researchers, economists and public servants have developed many explanatory models and practical measures which, so it was hoped, would offer world society a more effective approach to the age-old problem of finding an applicable solution to the creation and preservation of international peace.
Yet the word "peace" is evidently an ambiguous and multi-faceted concept with very distinctive meanings and connotations to individual peoples in different countries and at different times throughout history—and thus with likewise very unique ideas and perspectives on how to realize it. In view of this, the academic field of Peace and Conflict studies generally distinguishes between 'negative' and 'positive' peace. While the former type basically conceives of peace as but the absence of tension and violence, the latter also presupposes the concurrent presence of justice and equality as a necessary and integral part of a genuine peace.
Summary of Chapters
1. Negative, Positive and Universal Peace: This chapter introduces the core conceptual framework, defining negative versus positive peace while arguing that true global stability requires the universal application of these combined principles.
Keywords
International Peace, Negative Peace, Positive Peace, Conflict Studies, Global Order, Universal Justice, International Relations, Peace Research, Structural Integrity, Political Stability, Global Security, Human Freedoms, Peace-building, Diplomacy, International Architecture
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The work focuses on the conceptual definition of international peace and how different models of peace contribute to or fail to sustain global stability.
What are the central themes discussed?
The text explores the differences between negative and positive peace, the impact of historical peace settlements, the volatility of power balances, and the requirement for universal justice in global peace-building.
What is the core research objective?
The objective is to understand how the reciprocal relationship between negative and positive peace can be leveraged to move beyond temporary stability toward a more sustainable and universally valid world peace.
Which academic field is the foundation of this analysis?
The work is grounded in the academic discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies.
What does the main body of the text address?
It addresses historical approaches to peace agreements, the limitations of simply removing tension (negative peace), and the necessity of integrating justice and systemic fairness (positive peace) for lasting results.
Which keywords characterize this study?
Key terms include International Peace, Negative Peace, Positive Peace, Global Justice, and Conflict Resolution.
How does the author define "negative peace"?
Negative peace is defined as the absence of overt tension and violence within a system, though the author notes this is often an unstable state.
Why is "positive peace" considered necessary?
Positive peace is necessary because it goes beyond the absence of conflict by addressing systemic imbalances, social justice, and equality, which are essential for long-term structural integrity.
What role did the "Cold War" play in the author's argument?
The Cold War is used as a case study for "long peace," demonstrating that the mere absence of direct conflict does not necessarily equate to a stable or peaceful environment if systemic tensions remain high.
What is the significance of "universal application"?
The author argues that without universal validity and application, peace remains localized and temporary, failing to secure the integrity of the global order.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Joe Majerus (Autor:in), 2017, Negative, Positive and Universal Peace, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/432933
