Suchergebnisse

The bargaining theory of war and peace has emerged as an important research framework in the social sciences for understanding why wars occur and why opportunities for peace sometimes fail. Close to a dozen distinct "rationalist" sources of war have been theoretically modeled in the bargaining literature, empirical studies of war and peace are increasingly drawing upon bargaining models for theoretical guidance, and "nonrationalist" sources of war based on insights from psychology and sociology can be incorporated into the theory. This article briefly surveys key elements and results of the bargaining theory of war and it emphasizes the untapped potential for the framework to serve as a theory of peace in both research and teaching.

3.3 What factors influence manifestations of a mental space in the locus of civilization?Conclusion of chapter three; Chapter Four; 4.1 The definition of war and peace; 4.2 The causes of endless localisation of Earth's space, or otherwise -- the causes of war; 4.3 The causes of the endless localisation of Earth's space, or otherwise -- the causes of peace; 4.4 The theory of war and peace. The main assertions; Conclusion of chapter four; Chapter Five; 5.1 Comprehension of war and peace in Plato's line; 5.2 The theory of war and peace in philosophical comprehension

This study strives to elucidate some fundamental problems of war and peace from the Marxist viewpoint. War and peace are understood exclusively as social phenomena, not manifestations of any super-natural power outside human society. The study emphasizes the explication of concepts used, and points out confusions on some terms in Marxist literature. The author examines the problems of war and peace, both in terms of relations among states and of national liberation and civil wars. Here he attempts to elucidate the relationship of war and revolution, notably the Marxist attitude to the so-called 'export of revolution' and the Marxist conception of peaceful and non-violent forms of revolution. He further deals with the avoidability and unavoidability of wars in our times and the problems relating to peaceful coexistence. The author points out that the tremendous changes in today's world make impossible any solution of these problems in terms of timeworn attitudes. The study also emphasizes the role of thermonuclear weapons in the structure of social phenomena. The emergence of nuclear missile war techniques has changed the social function of wars. Only non- nuclear wars have in essence retained their original social function; but even these involves new elements, and can easily grow into nuclear missile wars. The author concludes that peace and peaceful co-existence among states is not only possible, but a historical necessity. He outlines the views held by various groups in the international Communist movement on some basic issues and also confronts the Marxist conception of war and peace with the views of some non-Marxist scholars.

Partly as a challenge to biologically naive social scientists & partly as a response to the current vogue of Lorenzian ethology, several political scientists have already issued pleas on behalf of biologically oriented research in political science. An uncritical application of Lorenzian technology to the social sciences in general, & to peace research in particular, is misleading & may even be dangerous. The writings of K. Z. Lorenz & some of his followers are examined with special reference to aggression & war. The Lorenzian theory of aggression is critically evaluated on conceptual, methodological, & substantive grounds against a background of theoretical, empirical, & experimental studies in animal & human aggression, & is examined in terms of its relevance & usefulness for peace research & its applications for public policy. Given the present conceptual & empirical status of the Lorenzian theory of aggression, there is no reason to believe that peace research can profit from its application. The cavalier use of operationally ill-defined terms & concepts, the almost exclusive reliance on casual anecdotes, the disregard of empirical studies contradicting the monocausal paradigm, the inductive/extrapolative leaps to solve the level-of-analysis problem, the cross-species generalizations based on the uncritical merging of human & animal behavior, & the recurring tendency to advance arguments in finalistic terms with little supporting evidence--are weaknesses discussed at length. In spite of these conditions, it cannot be denied that an ethological/biological approach to the problems of the social sciences could make a positive contribution to peace research. 1 Figure. Modified HA.

Lewis Fry Richardson was a pioneer of peace research. His brilliant, groundbreaking studies, Arms and Insecurity, and Statistics of Deadly Quarrels, showed how mathematical modeling techniques and statistical analysis could be applied to quantitatively investigate questions relating to war and peace. These studies and his database on "deadly quarrels", that is quarrels in which humans died, have influenced many peace researchers and continue to be a rich source of ideas. In this paper we begin by giving a brief background sketch of Richardson's life. We then proceed to introduce some of the basic ideas of his peace research. Richardson's work indicates a number of areas of difficulty and limits to our understanding, both in regards to theory and to data, and it raises questions that still need to be addressed. It also demonstrates the need for an interdisciplinary approach.

The work of Immanuel Kant has been foundational in modern democratic peace theory. His essay Toward Perpetual Peace gives three prescriptions for attaining peace between democracies: republican institutions, a pacific union between states, and an ethos of universal hospitality. Contemporary democratic peace theory, however, has warped the Kantian framework from which it draws inspiration: the third prescription has been gradually substituted for commerce and trade. I argue that this change in emphasis produces tensions between Perpetual Peace and the body of democratic peace theory literature it spawned. Moreover, I contend that a look back at Kant's essay sheds light on why this transformation occurred. Finally, I use this new look back at Perpetual Peace to reformulate the relationship between peace, democracy, and commerce so as to offer a new perspective on the democratic peace theory/capitalist peace theory debate.

"Theory of Regional War and Peace" published on by Oxford University Press.

Wars cause unconscionable damage and are universally condemned as a scourge of humanity. Yet most of the philosophical literature, in a tradition stretching back at least to Augustine, focuses on its justification, either as a form of national defense or as a means of securing a future peace. And this tradition, which has now crystallized into just war theory, continues to dominate our thinking about war and peace. Because we use the concepts and principles of just war theory, we are very limited in the range of questions we ask. The dominant concerns have to do with whether there is just cause for war, and what kinds of violence it is permissible for soldiers to use, both against each other and against civilians. Questions of peace rarely enter into the frame, and when they do, it is only in the context of ending or preventing a war. In this dissertation, I bring peace to the forefront. I argue that war cannot be justified either as a form of national defense or as a means of pursuing peace. Rather than understanding peace primarily in contrast to war, I offer an independent account of peace, as a kind of trusting relationship between political communities. Since peace is a relationship of trust, it cannot be secured by force or threat of force. And so if we seek to live together in peace with our adversaries, under conditions of justice and goodwill, war will be an impossible means. I conclude by considering the question of how, in a world that is marked by so much violence, suspicion, and fear, we can turn away from war and towards peace, and suggest that the answer lies in hope.