Suchergebnisse

THIS ARTICLE APPROACHES THE "NEW FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AND ITS DYNAMICS. " THE NEW FRAMEWORK IS PRESENTED AS THEORETICALLY FAR ADVANCED OVER AMERICAN PEACE RESEARCH, STATING THAT IT IGNORES CONFLICT PATTERNS OF THE WORLD. INSTEAD IT REPRESENTS LOCAL FEUDALISM AND RESTRICTED, STRUCTURAL EXAMPLES OF VIOLENCE.

Few words are so often used & abused as the word ,peace.' Thus, when efforts are made to plead almost any kind of policy, then it is often asserted that that policy, in addition to other merits, will also serve the cause of peace. This practice is not necessarily harmful. By projecting an image of harmony of interests, the term 'peace' may also help bring about such a harmony. One may object that frequent use of the word gives an unrealistic image of the world, but leaving aside this ` major argument for the moment, it is obvious that some level of precision is necessary for the term to serve as a cognitive tool. To discuss the idea of peace, one may start from 3 simple principles: (1) The term 'peace' shall be used for soc goals at least verbally agreed to by many, if not necessarily by most. (2) These soc goals may be complex & difficult, but not impossible, to attain. (3) The statement 'peace is absence of violence' shall be retained as valid. Everything now hinges on making a definition of 'violence.' However, it is not so important to arrive at anything like the definition, or the typology, for there are obviously many diff types of violence. More important is to indicate theoretically signif dimensions of violence that can lead thinking, res &, potentially, action, towards the most important problems. IPSA.

The Secretary General of the International Peace Research Association (IPRA) responds to one of the most frequently asked questions in the field of peace studies: "What are the challenges facing peace researchers in the 21 century?" In the first section he notes that, in some ways, the world is more peaceful now than at in any time in the past century, but then adds three sobering observations about the very high levels of manifest & potential violence, the predominantly reactive nature of most conflict prevention efforts, & the strong feelings of relative deprivation in the era of globalization. In the second section he states that if peace researchers want to make a greater difference, then they must challenge the ways & means of the current practice of peace-making, peace-keeping & peace-building. The first challenge is not to lose sight of the big picture. The macro-perspective gives an overview of the necessary peace building efforts & allows the peace builders to oversee & coordinate what they are doing. The second challenge is to get a better understanding of the sustainable peace building architecture. Winning a war can sometimes be relatively easy -- or at least rapid -- ,but winning the peace can be a far more complex & time consuming enterprise. The third challenge concerns the slow learning process. There is a need to build structures that support a better exchange of knowledge between the decision-makers, the practitioners in the field, & the research community. The fourth challenge is to deal more effectively with the peace building context, which is characterized by uncertainty, unpredictability, competing values & interests, & the struggle for power. The article ends with a plea for reflecting on the meaning of professionalism in peace building. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

Quantitative methods are an important component of peace research, since many of the issues addressed are inherently quantitative - the frequency and intensity of conflict, or the determination of military expenditures, for instance. This article argues that quantitative peace research could be improved if authors put more emphasis on the substantive issues and less on the mechanical application of rule-based, statistical techniques. After some methodological discussion, seven questions are posed that quantitative researchers might ask themselves; an attempt is made to show why these questions are important. If quantitative peace researchers asked themselves these questions more often, the substantive contribution of quantitative peace research could be increased.