She recommends crafting an approach to suit a country, not lifting a framework that was successful in one place and trying to implement it in another. Discover more about how La Trobe are influencing policy makers to build sustainable peace processes long after civil war ends. BBC Future. About this content. Autism War and Peace Cachexia Phosphate. Advertisement Feature Presented By. Audacious Academia When peace fails Can learning about war bring us peace?
Questioning why conflict resolution processes fail can help make effective peace. See more blogs. April 5, By Siddharth. Like Post Submit a post.
Image Credit. Touch of Modern. Islami City. View the discussion thread. Other people may answer that yes, peace is possible. Many of these activists would say that war is a conscious choice of politicians, and if decision makers were to reject military force as a tool of public policy then war would end.
Both of these perspectives are rooted in individual analysis, interpretation of history, and the decision-making process that leads to war. They ultimately treat the question of whether a world without war is possible as a philosophical question: a question of human nature and how decisions are made. There is another way of thinking about this question, however. Moreover, the social trends and pressures that are contributing to peace — or potentially undermining it — can be uncovered and addressed by research.
One Earth Future is interested in the connection between research and practice, and we wanted to explore whether this perspective on peace and security was a legitimate way to think about peace.
In , we held the first of our OEF Forum series on peace and security to bring together researchers, activists, members of the military, and government decision-makers for a two-day discussion. Peace, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is the absence or the end of war. So on one level, peace is a negative concept. It cannot exist without war, just as death is a meaningless concept without life.
There is plenty of authority for the view that, in a chaotic and bloodthirsty world, war and the threat of violence are the essential building blocks for peace and stability. Thinkers in the ancient world, from China to Greece to Rome, regarded military might as essential for the maintenance of international order.
Nor is it simply a question of the use of the threat of force as a deterrent in order to avert war and safeguard peace. At the beginning of the 20 th Century G K Chesterton was one of the strongest voices in the UK arguing for a robust response to the spectre of German militarism.
Resort to war was justified if it was waged for a just cause and with just intentions, if other options had proved useless, if the force used was proportionate to the danger, and if there was a reasonable prospect of success. In such circumstances, just war may be the only right and feasible path open to us to restore a just peace. By contrast, appeasement or surrender does not preserve peace but rather enables injustice to rule. More recently Mahatma Gandhi propounded the superiority of non-violent resistance using the concepts of ahimsa and satyagraha , and his commitment to non-violence was only strengthened by the destructive potential of atomic weaponry.
0コメント