NEGATIVE VS POSITIVE PEACE ●​ Key factors in sustaining peace

according to this theory:

●​ Peace Studies - an academic field that ○​ Shared values
examines causes of conflict and ○​ Mutual trust
violence and explores the ways to ○​ Respect for human rights
prevent conflict, resolve disputes, and
build lasting peace at personal, social, ●​ Immanuel Kant introduced the idea of
and global levels. perpetual peace (1795). He believed
-​ About solutions; preventing that citizens who experience the costs of
conflict before it becomes violent war would naturally oppose it, making
and resolving dispute thru democracies more peaceful. Lasting
peaceful means peace could be achieved if:
○​ Personal Level - between ○​ States adopted democratic
individuals governments
○​ Social Level - in communities ○​ Nations engaged in economic
and societies interdependence
○​ Global Level - between states ○​ International organizations
and nations promoted cooperation and law
●​ Negative Peace - absence of war or ●​ Michael Doyle revived Kant’s ideas,
direct violence; injustice and inequality supported them with empirical research,
may still exist showed that liberal democracies rarely
●​ Positive Peace - presence of justice, go to war with each other, confirming
equality and harmony; strong institutions Liberal Peace Theory. He emphasized
and social systems the importance of shared values,
international norms, and cooperation in
Pioneers of Peace maintaining peaceful relations.
●​ Johan Vincent Galtung ●​ This theory highlights the importance of
○​ Father of Peace Studies democracy, mutual trust and
○​ Introduced negative & positive cooperation in maintaining peaceful
peace and structural violence relations among nations.
(indirect harm to people thru
social, economic and political
inequalities) DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY
●​ Argues that democracies (liberal ones)
rarely/never go to war with each other
●​ Posits that mature democracies avoid
THE LIBERAL PEACE THEORY armed conflict due to shared norms of
compromise, institutional checks like
●​ Argues that liberal states (democratic accountability to publics, and structural
ones) are unlikely to engage in war with constraints that raise war costs.
one another due to shared political ●​ Monadic - democracies generally
institutions, economic interdependence, peaceful toward all states
and common norms favoring peaceful ●​ Dyadic - democracies avoid war with
conflict resolution. other democracies
●​ It emphasizes: ●​ Systematic - more democracies
○​ Democratic Governance system-wide promote overall peace
○​ Rule of Law ●​ Why does it happen?
○​ Economic cooperation and Free ○​ Normative/Cultural: Shared
Trade democratic values prevent
○​ International Institutions escalation
 ○​ Structural/Institutional: ■​ Countries should form a
Institutions limit leaders’ league of federation that
war-making promotes cooperation
●​ Rudolph Rummel - pioneered DPT with and prevents wars
data showing no wars between liberal through shared
democracies since 1816. Key international laws
Contributions: ○​ Cosmopolitan Right (Universal
○​ Analyzed 200+ years of history Hospitality)
○​ Coined “Democide”: ■​ All individuals are part of
Governments murdered 262M a global community and
people in 20th deserve basic rights and
century-democracies killed zero respectful treatment even
citizens across national borders
○​ Power Kills (1997), death by
government- argued freedom Pioneers and Key Thinkers
prevents war & mass murder
○​ Nominated for Nobel Peace ●​ Immanuel Kant
Prize: democracy “Miracle of ○​ Most important pioneer
Liberty” ○​ Wrote Perpetual Peace (1795)
●​ Bruce Russett - Made DPT mainstream ○​ Proposed that lasting peace can
with stats proving democracies don’t be achieved thru republican
war. Key contributions:​ governments, international
○​ Grasping the Democratic Peace cooperation, and cosmopolitan
(1993) rights
○​ Blended normative (talk-first ●​ Jeremy Bentham
culture) + structural (voter ○​ Advocated international
checks) explanations cooperation and legal reforms
○​ Co-authored Triangulating ○​ Believed peace promotes the
Peace greatest happiness for the
○​ Opposed forced regime change; greatest number opposed secret
urged “democracy by example” diplomacy and militarism
○​ supported free trade and
transparency as tools for peace
○​ He contributed to the idea that
PERPETUAL PEACE COSMOPOLITANISM peace should benefit all
●​ Lasting world peace can be achieved humanity, not just individual
when all people are treated as members states
of a single global community, not just ●​ Hugo Grotius
citizens of separate nations ○​ Father of International Law
●​ Three main pillars:​ ○​ Argued that nations should follow
○​ Republicanism (Civil laws and moral principles even
Constitution of States) during war
■​ States should have ●​ John Locke​
republican or democratic ○​ Influenced ideas about natural
governments, where rights and government by
citizens have a say in consent
decisions about war and ○​ His political philosophy
peace supported democratic system,
○​ International Federation of which Kant saw as essential for
Free States peace
○​
 ●​ Jean-Jacques Rousseau -​ Emphasized protests, noncooperation,
○​ Discussed social contracts and political jiu-jitsu to challenge injustice ex.
political legitimacy Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia
○​ Contributed ideas about freedom (1989)- mass nonviolent protest led to
and citizenship that shaped the fall of communist rule
Kant’s thinking -​ Non-violence as effective tool for
systemic change

Why Culture of Peace matters?

THE CONCEPT OF PEACE: CULTURE OF ●​ It transforms conflict and structural
PEACE & NON-VIOLENCE injustice
●​ Promotes education, human rights,
Culture of Peace - values and behaviors that equality, democracy
reject violence and promote dialogue, ●​ Provides sustainable, long-term peace
cooperation and human rights ex. UNESCO schools teaching conflict
resolution and tolerance reduce bullying
Non-violence - avoiding physical and spiritual and violence
harm ●​ Philosophies of Gandhi, King, and Sharp
continue to inspire global peace
TYPES OF NON-VIOLENCE movements
●​ Principled non-violence - ethical/moral
commitment ex. Gandhi refusing to fight
back against British oppression
●​ Tactical non-violence - strategy to REALISM AND THE NEOREALISM
achieve social or political goals ex.
Peaceful protests in the US Civil Rights Thomas Hobbes
Movement -​ Created a book entitled “Leviathan
(1651)”
KEY PIONEERS / SCHOLARS OF
STRATEGIC NON-VIOLENCE WHAT IS REALISM?
●​ Mahatma Gandhi - developed -​ A theory that says states act mainly to
“Satyagraha”: truth force → nonviolent protect their own survival and power in a
resistance word with no higher authority, where
○​ Non-violence as a way of life to conflict is always possible
achieve lasting social change ex.
Salt March (1930) - Gandhi led ORIGIN OF HUMAN AGGRESSION
240 miles of peaceful protest -​ Hobbes argued that the origin of human
against British salt tax, inspiring aggression is rooted in the inherent,
Indian independence, influenced natural condition of humankind, which
global movements for justice he termed the “state of nature”
●​ Martin Luther King Jr. - adopted 1.​ Competition - people fight for resources
Gandhi’s principles for the US Civil 2.​ Diffidence (fear) - people attack first to
Rights movement. Key principles: avoid being attacked
○​ Resist injustice without hatred 3.​ Glory - people seek power and
○​ Seek reconciliation, not reputation
humiliation
○​ Endure suffering without WHAT IS NEOREALISM?
retaliation -​ An international relations theory, by
○​ Peaceful protest leading to Civil Kenneth Waltz in 1979, posits that the
Rights Acts anarchic structure of the global
system-not human nature-compels
 states to prioritize security, survival, and ■​ Discrimination - protect
relation power. non-combatants
-​ Kenneth Waltz argues that human ■​ Proportionality - use only
aggresssion does not mainly come from necessary force
human nature. Instead, it comes from ■​ Moral Restraint - avoid
the structure of the international system. unnecessary cruelty

St. Augustine
●​ Founder of Just War Theory
●​ War is always tragic but sometimes
JUST WAR THEORY necessary
-​ A moral framework that examines when ●​ Goal of war: peace
war can be justified and how it should be ●​ His key ideas:
conducted. ○​ Just cause (self-defence,
-​ Aims to limit violence and protect human restoring peace)
life ○​ Legitimate authority
○​ Right intention (not revenge or
Asks: hatred)
●​ When is war morally justified?
●​ How should war be fought? Thomas Aquinas
●​ Systematized Augustine’s ideas
Goal: ●​ Integrated Just War theory into natural
●​ Aims to limit violence and protect human law
life ●​ 3 conditions for a Just War:​
○​ Legitimate authority
Two main points: ○​ Just cause
●​ Jus ad Bellum (Justice of War) ○​ Right intention
○​ Conditions for starting a war
○​ Focus: starting a war Michael Walzer
○​ Should we go to war? ●​ Author of Just and Unjust Wars
○​ A war is just only if all three ●​ Secular, human-rights based approach
conditions are met: ●​ Key contributions:
1.​ Legitimate authority ○​ Aggression is the greatest crime
a.​ War must be ○​ Strong protection of civilians
declared by a ○​ Moral responsibility in warfare
lawful ruler
2.​ Just Cause Importance of Just War Theory
a.​ Defense against -​ Guides ethical decisions in war
regression or -​ Influences international law
correcting a grave -​ Relevant to modern conflicts
injustice -​ Promotes restraint and accountability
3.​ Right Intention
a.​ Goal must be War may sometimes be unavoidable but must
peace and justice, always be morally justified and follow ethical
not hatred or gain limits. This theory remains relevant today
●​ Jus in Bello (Justice in War)
○​ Rules for conduct during war
○​ Focus: Fighting a war
○​ How should we fight it?
○​ Aquinas also emphasized ethical
conduct during war: STRUCTURAL & CULTURAL VIOLENCE
Johan Galtung
-​ A peace researcher
-​ Studied why violence happens in society
-​ Violence has three forms, not just
physical forms

THE VIOLENCE TRIANGLE

●​ Direct Violence
○​ Easy for us to see and identify
○​ Often involves clear perpetrators
and victims
●​ Cultural Violence
○​ Takes place, permitted or WHAT IS THE “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS”?
encouraged by a culture, shared -​ A theory proposed by Samuel P.
beliefs, behaviours and the Huntington states future conflicts will not
social environment be due to ideological differences but
○​ Its below the surface, woven into rather due to cultural differences
social, religious or ideological between civilizations during the
beliefs that value some people Post-Cold War Era
more than others, often -​ The origin of aggression comes from
distributing power to them cultural differences between civilizations
●​ Structural Violence -​ Huntington classified worlds into
○​ Societies or governments can civilizations which he defined as: “A
create physical or societal civilization is thus the highest cultural
structures that inflict violence on grouping of people, and the broadest
people level of cultural identity people have
○​ Prison and justice systems can short of that which distinguishes humans
be violent, immigration policies from other species”
can be violent, great inequalities
of wealth and power also builds WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
violence into a society HUNTINGTON’S COC AND THE REMAKING
○​ Often supported and sustained OF WORLD ORDER?
by newspaper and media 1.​ Explains the reason for conflicts of
distortion and by powerful people post-cold war world
advancing the interests of a 2.​ Add another perspective for new origin
small group of conflict in the future, counters
○​ While the perpetrators are hard Fukuyoma’s “End of History”
to identify, their victims can be 3.​ It predicts that future conflicts are
clear to see located in fault lines

CONS OF HUNTINGTON’S COC

●​ Dismisses the concept of structural
violence
THE “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS” THEORY ●​ Ignore intra-civilization wars
●​ Oversimplification of complex conflicts
Samuel P. Huntington ●​ Classification of civilizations is
-​ Known in comparative politics and inaccurate
international relations ●​ Impossible during the present globalized
world
 -​ Capitalist societies compete for land,
resources, and markets.
-​ This competition creates conflict
between nations
MARXIST AND CRITICAL THEORY ON WAR -​ War becomes a result of economic
(ECONOMIC ROOT OF CONFLICT) rivalry

Karl Marx Origins of Human Aggresion

-​ Studies how society works and focused -​ Marxist Theory rejects the idea that
on problems like poverty, inequality humans are naturally violent.
and exploitation -​ They believed aggression is shaped by
-​ Best known for his ideas about social conditions
capitalism, socialism, and -​ Poverty, inequality, and exploitation
communism create anger and conflict where war
-​ He wrote “The Communist Manifesto” grows from these social problems
and “Das Kapital”
Structural Violence
Friedrich Engels -​ They believed this hidden violence leads
-​ Studied the conditions of workers during to real wars
Industrial Revolution -​ Capitalism creates inequality,
-​ Helped and support Marx then work with exploitation and suffering without direct
him to develop the Marxist theory fighting

Friedrich Engels on war and the state

What is Marxism? -​ He studied war, armies, and the modern
-​ Social, political, and economic theory by state
Marx and Engels that critiques -​ He believed modern states build strong
capitalism as an exploitative system military forces to protect capitalism
inherently divided between the working -​ He argues that war is organized by the
class (proletariat) and owners state
(bourgeoisie) -​ Military power supports class domination

CLASS STRUGGLE Modern Warfare

Ruling Class vs Working Class -​ They believed modern warfare is linked
to imperialism
Bourgeoisie -​ Powerful countries fight to control
●​ Owners weaker nations and resources
●​ Rich and powerful people -​ War is a result of capitalist expansion
●​ Controls land/resources -​ Ending war requires changing the social
●​ Protect business/investments and economic system​
●​ Political power

Proletariat
●​ Poor and working people
●​ Ordinary people

Economic Roots of Conflict HUMAN SECURITY & FEMINIST

-​ Marx and Engels believed the PERSPECTIVES
“economy” is the main cause of war.
Cynthia Holden Enloe
 -​ A pioneering feminist scholar and 3.​ Power Hierarchies
activist recognized for transforming
International Relations (IR) by STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE
introducing gender analysis asking, -​ Refers to harm caused by unfair social
“Where are the women?” In global systems, rather than direct physical
politics, militarism, and economics. attacks
-​ Occurs when people are denied basic
needs because of social, economic, or
Betty A. Reardon gender-based inequalities
-​ A world-renowned leader in the fields of -​ Examples:
peace education and human rights -​ Poverty and lack of resources
-​ Her pioneering work has lain the -​ Discrimination based on gender,
foundation for a new cross-disciplinary race or social class
integration of peace education and
international human right from a??? MODERN WARFARE
-​ Impacts civilians more than soldiers,
HUMAN SECURITY affecting communities even far from the
-​ A concept that focuses on protecting battlefield. Effects include:
people and their well-being, rather than -​ Forced migration and
only protecting a country’s borders or displacement
military strength. -​ Economic insecurity and loss of
-​ Mainly focuses on three key areas: livelihood
1.​ Freedom from fear -​ Gender-based violence,
2.​ Freedom from Want particularly against women
3.​ Protection of Human Dignity and -​ Destruction of homes,
Rights communities and social

FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE
-​ Feminist perspective on security
examines how gender roles and power
relationships influence the war security
is understood and implemented
-​ Feminist scholars focus on several
important ideas:
1.​ Gender and Power in Security
2.​ Criticism of Militarized and
Male-Dominated Security
Systems
3.​ Inclusion, Equality and Social
Justice

ORIGIN OF AGGRESSION (FEMINIST VIEW)

-they believe aggression is not something
people are born with or controlled by biology
alone. Instead, aggression is learned from
social and cultural influences

-​ Aggression develops through systems

such as:
1.​ Patriarchy
2.​ Militarism