Suchergebnisse

Is there a dictatorial peace that resembles the democratic peace? This paper uses a new data set compiled by Barbara Geddes to examine the conflict behavior of three types of autocratic regimes—personalist, military, and single-party dictatorships—in the post-World War II era. We find some evidence that specific types of authoritarian regimes are peaceful toward one another. No two personalist dictators or two military regimes have gone to war with each other since 1945. These dyads were not less likely to engage in militarized interstate disputes than were mixed dyads, however. Although single-party regimes were the only homogeneous dyad in this study to have experienced war, multivariate analyses of participation in militarized interstate disputes suggest that single-party states are more peaceful toward one another than are mixed dyads. Thus, while we have found no unambiguous evidence of a dictatorial peace to match the robustness of the democratic peace, there is substantial interesting variation in the conflict behavior of specific types of authoritarian regimes. The analysis presented here demonstrates that studies of the impact of regime type on conflict behavior must work from a more sophisticated conception of authoritarianism.

The idea that democracies do not fight each other is explored. Although this observation has been empirically substantiated by numerous studies, it was not until the 1990s that it became widely accepted. Reasons given for this delayed acknowledgement include professional jealousy, differing methodologies, the simplistic nature of the observation, fewer democratic states in the past on which to test the hypothesis, & fear that such a statement would appear propagandistic in a cold war environment. 40 References. E. Mortenson

Contemporary peace negotiations in Africa reflect perceived changes in the nature of warfare in the post-Cold War, neo-liberal era. 'New wars' are characterised as predominantly civil warfare that is non-ideological, fuelled by identity-politics and driven by greed or grievance. Neo-liberal approaches to conflict resolution involve a multiplicity of state and non-state actors, both protagonists and mediators, and promote universally-applicable solutions, such as power-sharing and the extension of market-based economic systems. These have had limited success in Africa because they have been unable to transform the social system within which violence and inequalities are embedded. Through an examination of the Burundi peace process, particularly, the Arusha peace negotiations – their origins, actors, debates, agreements and recommendations – this article highlights the discursive practices of neo-liberal peace-making and exposes its inherent limitations in creating any meaningful transformation of the political space. It is argued here that peace negotiations can be perceived as political struggles, beyond that envisaged between the belligerents, due to the prevalence of a multitude of supporting actors seeking to promote vested interests. Consequently, the resulting peace agreement is not necessarily consensual or reflective of a compromise for the sake of peace; it marks, essentially, a temporary stalemate in the power play between international, regional and local actors and their competing visions of peace. This explains why the 'liberal' peace that is attained through these manoeuvrings is one that appears to uphold the sovereignty of the state, but is not transformative with regards to the security of the people.

Zartman reviews 'Nurturing Peace: Why Peace Settlements Succeed or Fail' by Fen Osler Hampson.

Peace stands for a state of mind in tranquillity where one is free from all sorts of worry. We say a man is at peace when a kind of satisfaction exists in his mind, body and soul. An element of joy, happiness and fulfilment thrills his life. Peace is needed for his creative work. Peace is the purpose for which he exists. Peace is the law of nature where everything functions smoothly. Peace is a concept peculiar to man, for it is taken for granted elsewhere in the creation. Man is the only entity that disturbs peace, but man alone is the entity that is conscious of peace. Peace is an abstract subjective experience so far as individuals are concerned. It becomes an objective condition of life when collectively it is applied to society. If family members quarrel, peace is gone, creating a scene. If groups clash, peace is gone, causing social tension. If nations fight, peace is gone, resulting in destruction. Peace is central to all, a condition for any social good, whether it be for individuals, societies, states, nations or the world. When the question of peace is discussed in a Journal of Religious Studies, it is an inquiry into how peace is viewed in different religions; how is it attained; what has been the contribution of each religion to the establishment of peace, either at the individual, social, regional, national or global level; and where does Islam stand in respect of these queries. An answer to these questions would form the substance of this essay.

Abstract
This article presents four case studies in which peace was negotiated between governments and political opposition parties, and in which major armed groups involved in the conflict were excluded from some or all of the negotiations. The inclusion of opposition political parties and exclusion of some armed actors in these cases derived from the desire of mediators and some of the parties to foreground political concerns (at the expense of military considerations). Opposition political parties were able to play a role in bringing armed groups into peace settlements under some conditions, although strong international pressure and support helped to create the preconditions for this role. This evidence suggests a challenge to arguments that major armed groups must be included in peace negotiations if they are to abide by the resulting peace settlement.

THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE IDEALISTIC DREAMS OF NAIVE AND UNINFORMED PACIFISTS ARE DANGEROUS. WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS WISE PREPAREDNESS, IF NUCLEAR WARFARE IS TO BE PREVENTED. THE AUTHOR ALSO ANALYZES MANKIND'S FUTURE NEEDS FOR ENERGY AS A WAY OF PROMOTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE THIRD WORLD.