Suchergebnisse

This paper outlines a program of needed research on principled nonviolence as a conflict and conflict resolution strategy in international relations. A multi‐pronged program of research is proposed, including, conceptual analyses and model generation, hypothesis and variable development: psychological analyses, laboratory simulation, and analyses of current ongoing, international conflict situations.

The term "nonviolent resistance" is frequently assumed to refer to a single and coherent theory about the proper way to manage conflict. There are, however, two quite different theories subsumed by this general term. One assumes a basic human harmony and denies the morality of or necessity for either coercion or violence. The second regards conflict as normal, even healthy; nonviolence is perceived as an economic way of testing strength and the only limit set upon means is that of threatening or using physical force. Because activists, advocates, and observers often fail to distinguish these views, the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance is frequently impaired. This is because resisters of differing views fail to find a common basis for cooperation and because the spectator is confused by apparently contradictory professions and actions.

Compares principled (Gandhian) & pragmatic (moderate Machiavellian) nonviolence & assesses their meanings for achieving peace. It is argued that the differences between the two concepts are irreconcilable, & confusing them frustrates understanding of the theory & practice of nonviolence in public & private life. Drawing on Jacques Maritain's distinction between absolute & moderate Machiavellianism & the works of Mohandas Gandhi, the ideas & goals of each concept are discussed. Focus is on the weaknesses of the pragmatic view & the inherent destructiveness of Machiavellianism, which sees nonviolence as simply another tool for success. It is shown how this embedded separation between means & ends in pragmatic nonviolence does not ensure the goal of a more humane world. It is concluded that this can only be achieved through a complete break with Machiavellianism & a principled approach to nonviolence that integrates morality into politics. T. Arnold

Front Matter -- Copyright Page -- Notes on Contributors -- Introduction /Michael Patterson Brown and Katy Gray Brown -- Nonviolence and Positive Peace -- The Practice of Peace: Thinking, Speaking, Acting /William C. Gay -- Can You Hear Me Now? The Element of Listening in Positive Peace /Elizabeth N. Agnew -- The Ethics of Care and Violence /Andrew Fitz-Gibbon -- Freedom, Oppression, and the Ethics of Ambiguity /Douglas Lewis -- Nonviolence and International Structures -- The Impotence of Moral Arguments in the Debate Over Nuclear Deterrence /John Kultgen -- The U.S. Constitution, Human Rights, and Iraq /Joseph C. Kunkel -- Questioning Combatant's Privilege in Unjust Wars /Harry van der Linden -- The International Criminal Court: Progressing Despite U.S. Opposition /Ronald J. Glossop -- Nonviolence and Peace Education -- A Philosophic Framework for Peace Education /Ian M. Harris -- Perspectives from a Catholic, Marianist University on Teaching Peace /Danielle Poe -- Dewey's Political Ethics as Applied Philosophy that Advances International Peace /William C. Gay -- Back Matter -- Index.