Suchergebnisse

Der Beitrag geht der Frage nach, ob Gerechtigkeit im Zuge von Vereinbarungen der Kriegsparteien zum Frieden führt. Die Ausführungen zeigen auf, dass diese Frage zustimmend zu beantworten ist - Voraussetzung dafür ist jedoch, dass Gerechtigkeit und Friede gleichzeitig angestrebt werden, in einem Dialog zwischen den Konfliktparteien, in dem jede Partei die Identität der andern anerkennt, und in dem alle Parteien durch den Verzicht auf zentrale Forderungen - zumindest auf symbolische Art - Opfer erbringen. Im ersten Schritt wird zunächst ein allgemeines Konzept des gerechten Friedens vorgestellt und es werden fünf Prinzipien diskutiert: (1) dünne Anerkennung, (2) dicke Anerkennung, (3) Verzicht, (4) gemeinsame Regeln sowie (5) der Prozess des gerechten Friedens. Im zweiten Schritt werden drei weitere Konzepte vorgestellt und in ihren Unterschieden zum Konzept des gerechten Friedens dargestellt: (1) der aufgezwungene Friede, (2) der stabile Friede und (3) der positive Friede. Der Durchgang durch diese Begrifflichkeiten liefert ein genaueres Verständnis vom Konzept des gerechten Friedens. Im dritten Schritt wird abschließend der Begriff des gerechten Friedens gegenüber liberalen Gerechtigkeitskonzepten sowie gegenüber kulturalistischen Perspektiven auf die Thematik konturiert. (ICG2)

Attempts to describe international ethics in its diverse miens by developing an international moral scale. In addition to theorizing the concept of Just Peace, such a scale also fosters normative comparison between distinct international entities, ie, measuring international ethics. An ethical, or moral, scale is presented that ranges from pure contentment for everyone to absolute misery. Predominantly stressing the international over the individual, this scale categorizes the malfeasances & benevolent actions of a nation-state, community, or social group, not personal unhappiness or contentment. Above all, it is concerned with the matter of the diverse types of peace & war, & with their frequently intricate relationship. Tables, Figures. K. Coddon

Including contributions from some of the world's leading scholars, this book provides a carefully considered analysis of what constitutes a just peace. A cross-section of conflicting viewpoints from political, historical and legal perspectives are brought together to demonstrate how just peace has to be a mediated peace

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

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