Suchergebnisse

Explores the notion of Just Peace, demonstrating the validity of three propositions. First, the implications of religion for the topic are significant & intricate: significant due to religion's vital role in today's international system & vital because religions at times differ in their doctrinal understandings of justice & peace. Second, the concept of Just Peace should be regarded as a rubric, an "umbrella term" that encompasses a host of sub-problems. Third, despite the complexity of the issues at hand, the enduring significance of internationally acknowledged human rights constitute one major unifying theme for the diverse considerations of peace & justice. K. Coddon

Contends that the concept of Just Peace is both unnecessary & potentially injurious; thus, it is wisest to avoid invoking it. An "unjust peace" is an oxymoron, not peace but rather another kind of resolution. Historically, the concept of peace was employed to characterize a state of non-war, or to identify agreements of territoriality among leaders. The concept of peace is passive, ie, the absence of violence, akin to a coerced peace where territories are divided. The first is a circumstance, the second a remedy. Just Peace vastly lessens the value of peace, & its ramifications are not solely conceptual & theoretical. K. Coddon

Examines geographers' treatment of war & peace since the establishment of modern Western academic geography in the late 19th century, drawing on a review of the literature, particularly from scholarship in political geography & geopolitics. Ways that geographers have conceptualized & analyzed processes of war & peace are analyzed, along with the application of geography to & geographers' roles in these processes. The place of academic geography in war & peace is considered in the context of international relations during the two halves of the 20th century, demarcated by the dropping of the first nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945. Whether geography has been or can be transformed from a discipline for war into one for peace is evaluated; suggestions for the development of geographies of peacemaking, peacekeeping, & war avoidance are delineated. References. K. Hyatt Stewart

This volume attempts to challenge the contention of Nicholas Spykman (1944) that "geography is the most important factor in foreign policy because it is the most permanent," arguing instead that (1) physical geography is far from permanent, but fluid, volatile, & constantly shifting; And (2) there are political geographies beyond the physical that shape & are shaped by processes of war & peace. The mutually constituted & social constructed nature of war & peace & their geographies are compared. Several key geographic themes in the study of war & peace are investigated: territoriality, borders, regionalization, scale, & network relationships between places across space. References. K. Hyatt Stewart

After outlining some general characteristics of peace movements, an attempt is made to explore their geographic dimensions from a historical perspective. The development of organized peace groups is traced from their origins in the 19th century to the present (focusing on Europe & the US), & their changing geopolitical & societal contexts are illuminated. Theoretical concepts drawn from the recent social movement literature are utilized to examine the places & spaces of mobilization in contemporary peace movements. Several key reasons for the endurance of peace movements despite temporal disjunctures & setbacks are identified. The utility of a geographic approach is demonstrated via a case study of the 1980s peace movement against nuclear armaments. References. K. Hyatt Stewart

Holds that a Just Peace cannot be realized by opposing liberal cultural "neutrality" against culturalists' belief in the "principle of recognition." & contends that it is possible to move past this academic dispute by situating the Just Peace concept in a language-oriented process. The objective is to offer an accommodation process whereby negotiators strive to reach consensus on a just & enduring peace by constructing it in a way accepted as just by all significant participants. Peace reached in this manner is just because it requires of the negotiators gradual recognition of four conventions: thin recognition, thick recognition, renouncement, & a common rule. Unlike the Just War concept, these conventions engage a process & not merely a series of mandates. K. Coddon

Seeks to demonstrate that it is impossible to clarify what does -- or what does not -- constitute a Just Peace unless we attend more closely to the intellectual context that gave rise to international law. If we acknowledge the historical overlap between the establishment of international society & European expansionism, then international law is confronted with the dilemma of resolving some conflicts, especially those in which divergent cultures are engaged. Assuming that modern theories of international law participated in the destruction of indigenous cultures, questions arise about whether international law can enact a peace viewed as just by culturally diverse bodies & whether international law is capably of conceptualizing such a peace, which first suggests the acceptance of a clear, common language by all parties involved in the dispute. K. Coddon

Introduces the volume's topic, the concept of a Just Peace (as opposed to a Just War). The book provides complementary treatments of Just Peace & conceptualizes the notion as a language-oriented process. It is just due to its foundation in conventions negotiated & agreed upon by the interested parties. To this extent, the Geneva Accord embodies some of these criteria. The volume ends up questioning a liberal model of peace based on arguably universal norms. This liberal conception has problems resolving such disputes as civil wars typically marked by basic conflicts between unlike communities. Liberalism's assumption of "cultural neutrality" is often insufficient to particular identity-defining cultural demands. K. Coddon

Outlines an international environment in which a bellicose justice is regarded as a last-resort rationale for violence. In this context, justice is no longer metaphorized by a scale but rather by a sword-wielding warrior. Absent an omnipotent arbitrator to mediate international conflicts & enact objective justice, self-defense should remain an option. The absence of an international judicial regime also mandates that leaders attend to perceptions of injustice that their discourses may provoke. All remedies will thus be understood as subjective, with conflicts erupting over dissimilar understandings. Thus, to keep from germinating large-scale resentment, it is imperative to include emotions & perceptions in political assessments lest conflict resolution be determined by conventional practices of power. K. Coddon