Suchergebnisse

ALTHOUGH PEACE RESEARCH AS A DISTINCT ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE HAS NOW EXISTED FOR THREE DECADES, ITS STATUS AND ACHIEVEMENTS ARE STILL CONTROVERSIAL. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR THIS IS THE FAILURE OF WESTERN PEACE RESEARCHERS TO ASK, AND SERIOUSLY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER, SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING PEACE IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD. THE RELATIVE NEGLECT OF THE STUDY OF THE SOVIET UNION AND COMMUNISM BY WESTERN PEACE RESEARCHERS IS PARALLELED BY THEIR UNCRITICAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE CREDENTIALS OF SOVIET PEACE RESEARCH.

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.

Although peace research as a distinct academic discipline has now existed for three decades, its status & achievements are still controversial. Based on a content analysis of the main peace research journals (eg, Journal of Conflict Resolution & examination of other contributions to the 1981 UNESCO Yearbook on Peace and Conflict Studies (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1982), it is concluded that Western peace researchers have failed to investigate some of the most important questions concerning peace in the contemporary world. The relative neglect of the study of the USSR & communism by Western peace researchers is paralleled by their uncritical acceptance of the credentials of Soviet peace research. Modified AA

WE ARE FACED WITH AN EXTRAORDINARY SPECTACLE: TWO COMPLETE "UNIVERSES OF DISCOURSE" HAVE DEVELOPED FOR THE ONE TOPIC OF PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE NUCLEAR AGE, AND THE TWO UNIVERSES SCARCELY ENGAGE WITH EACH OTHER. THEY BEGIN FROM SUCH FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS THAT THEY TALK PAST EACH OTHER. A PROJECT OF EXPLICIT MODELING OF ASSUMPTIONS MAY CLARIFY THE SITUATION.

Intro -- Contents -- Figures and tables -- Preface -- List of contributors -- Part I The analytical and conceptual framework -- 1 Diasporas in international conflict -- 2 A neglected relationship: Diasporas and conflict resolution -- 3 Gender, diasporas and post-Cold War conflict -- Part II The case studies -- 4 The Jewish Diaspora and the Arab-Palestinian-Israeli conflict -- 5 The Palestinian diaspora -- 6 The Armenian diaspora and the Karabagh conflict since 1988 -- 7 A reluctant diaspora? The case of Colombia -- 8 The Cuban diaspora -- 9 The Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora: Sustaining conflict and pushing for peace -- 10 Kurdish interventions in the Iraq war -- 11 The mobilized Croatian diaspora: Its role in homeland politics and war -- 12 African diasporas and post- conflict reconstruction: An Eritrean case study -- 13 Political remittance: Cambodian diasporas in conflict and post conflict -- Bibliography -- Index.

Norms play a pivotal role in fostering peace. Yet, there is a dearth of compara-
tive empirical studies testing which norms exhibit the strongest connection.
Moreover, peace is usually only measured in terms of the absence of violent
conflict, neglecting its positive dimensions. This article uses fresh data from the
World Values Survey to assess how different norms correlate with negative and
positive measures of peace. It confirms that societal endorsement of democ-
racy, tolerance, and gender equality significantly correlate with reduced violent
conflict. However, only gender equality also correlates with interpersonal trust
as a key indicator of positive peace.