Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peace in Peace Studies: Beyond the ‘Negative/Positive’ Divide

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Visions of Peace of Professional Peace Workers

Part of the book series: Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies ((RCS))

  • 584 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the academic debate on peace and peacebuilding. It starts with a discussion of classical concepts of peace, such as the well-known dichotomy between positive and negative peace, stable peace, peace as process and the democratic peace thesis. Along the way, seven dimensions are introduced along which these concepts differ from one another.

The second half of the chapter is devoted to the peacebuilding literature, specifically the liberal peace debates. It argues that these debates are not just about the best way to achieve lasting peace in (post-) conflict societies, but more fundamentally about different visions of what constitutes such a peace. Besides the liberal peace itself, four other visions can be distilled from the literature: hybrid peace, agonistic peace, welfare and everyday peace. Using the dimensions identified earlier in the chapter, these visions are compared to one another in order to disentangle what is at stake for the different sides.

We cannot be adequate problem solvers or social scientists if we cannot articulate a definition of or the conditions for peace.

(Patrick M. Regan, Presidential address to the Peace Science Society (Regan 2014: 348))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These were the two names that came up most frequently in response to the background question whether an interviewee was familiar with the academic literature on peace and could name any authors that had influenced his or her thinking. See the interview guide in Appendix E.

  2. 2.

    For a similar approach, but focused on International Relations (IR) theory, see (Richmond 2008a).

  3. 3.

    This discussion does not cover even more classical visions of peace, such as those espoused by, e.g., Saint Augustine (Augustine 2010: 212–220), Thomas Hobbes (Hobbes 2003 [1651]: 101–102) or Immanuel Kant (Kant 1976 [1796]). Although present-day peace researchers may cite those visions in support of their own, the primary purpose of this chapter is to establish a conceptual framework for present-day visions of peace, rather than giving a full historical overview of thinking about peace. For that, see, e.g. (Adolf 2009; Dietrich 2012; Hassner 1994).

  4. 4.

    It should be noted that this reading depends on a constructivist account of International Relations, as Rasmussen himself acknowledges (Rasmussen 2003: 4).

  5. 5.

    Although, to be fair, there are also quite some political scientists who are interested in the economic underpinnings of peace (e.g. Gartzke 2007; Hegre et al. 2010).

  6. 6.

    See especially Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2, Chap. 7, Sect. 7.3.3 and Chap. 9, Sect. 9.3.2 in the conclusion.

  7. 7.

    In a recent appraisal of the ‘hybrid turn’ in peacebuilding literature, Mac Ginty and Richmond even speak of hybridity as an ‘emergent social construct’ (Mac Ginty and Richmond 2016: 221).

  8. 8.

    Clausewitz’s original maxim being that war is the continuation of policy—or (depending on the translation) of politics—with other means (Von Clausewitz 1984 [1832]: 87).

  9. 9.

    For a brief overview of the classical arguments, in an interstate context, but equally valid for intrastate conflicts, see, e.g. (Gartzke 2007: 169–170).

  10. 10.

    In a seemingly largely forgotten essay, German peace scientist Ivan Illich called this ‘vernacular peace’ or Vride, after the medieval German word for this kind of peace. He contrasted the notion with the Roman word Pax that denoted the peace between rulers (Illich 1992).

  11. 11.

    According to Millar, the same is true for authors who want to prescribe a hybrid peace.

  12. 12.

    Interestingly, care and empathy also feature heavily in feminist approaches to IR. Feminist authors such as Carol Gilligan and Sara Ruddick contrast a male perspective of domination with a female perspective of care for others, arguing that the latter is inherently more peaceful than the former (Gilligan 2009; Ruddick 1995). Likewise, Christine Sylvester proposes ‘empathetic cooperation’ as a feminist method for IR (Sylvester 1994), raising empathy to a concern at the international level as well.

  13. 13.

    A point that will be developed in Chap. 8 on the Mindanaoan visions of peace.

  14. 14.

    Or, using Giddens’s terminology, in structures or in agents (Giddens 1979).

References

  • Adolf, A. (2009). Peace. A world history. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Advisory Group of Experts (2015). The challenge of sustaining peace. Report of the Advisory Group of Experts for the 2015 Review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggestam, K., F. Cristiano, et al. (2015). “Towards agonistic peacebuilding? Exploring the antagonism–agonism nexus in the Middle East peace process.” Third World Quarterly 36(9): 1736–1753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. (2004). “A definition of peace.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 10(2): 101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augustine, S. (2010). The city of god, books XVII–XXII (The Fathers of the church, volume 24). CUA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, A., M. Fischer, et al. (2013). Transforming ethnopolitical conflict: The Berghof handbook. Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autesserre, S. (2010). The trouble with the Congo: Local violence and the failure of international peacebuilding. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autesserre, S. (2014). Peaceland: Conflict resolution and the everyday politics of international intervention. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Babo-Soares, D. (2004). “Nahe Biti: The philosophy and process of grassroots reconciliation (and justice) in East Timor.” The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 5(1): 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, M. (1987). “Four conceptions of peace.” In Conflict management and problem solving: Interpersonal to international applications. D. J. D. Sandole and I. Sandole-Staroste (Eds.). London: Pinter: 259–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basabe, N. and J. Valencia (2007). “Culture of peace: Sociostructural dimensions, cultural values, and emotional climate.” Journal of Social Issues 63(2): 405–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begby, E. and J. P. Burgess (2009). “Human security and liberal peace.” Public Reason 1(1): 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, C. (2008). On the law of peace: Peace agreements and the Lex Pacificatoria. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belloni, R. (2012). “Hybrid peace governance: Its emergence and significance.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 18(1): 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berents, H. and S. McEvoy-Levy (2015). “Theorising youth and everyday peace (building).” Peacebuilding 3(2): 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björkdahl, A., K. Höglund, et al. (2016). Peacebuilding and friction: Global and local encounters in post conflict-societies. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boege, V. (2011). “Potential and limits of traditional approaches in peacebuilding.” In Berghof handbook II: Advancing conflict transformation. B. Austin, M. Fischer, and H. J. Giessmann (Eds.). Berlin: Barbara Budrich Publishers: 431–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boege, V. (2012). “Hybrid forms of peace and order on a South Sea Island: Experiences from Bougainville (Papua New Guinea).” In Hybrid forms of peace: From everyday agency to post-liberalism. O. Richmond and A. Mitchell (Eds.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 88–106.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, K. E. (1977). “Twelve friendly quarrels with Johan Galtung.” Journal of Peace Research 14(1): 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, K. E. (1978). Stable peace. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutros-Ghali, B. (1992). An agenda for peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992. New York: UN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigg, M. and P. O. Walker (2016). “Indigeneity and peace.” In The Palgrave handbook of disciplinary and regional approaches to peace. O. P. Richmond and S. Pogodda (Eds.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 259–271.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brusset, E., C. De Coning, et al. (2016). Complexity thinking for peacebuilding practice and evaluation. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, J. W. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and prevention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caedel, M. (1987). Thinking about peace and war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Call, C. T. (2008). “Knowing peace when you see it: Setting standards for peacebuilding success.” Civil Wars 10(2): 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Call, C. T. (2012). Why peace fails: The causes and prevention of civil war recurrence. Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Call, C. T. and E. M. Cousens (2008). “Ending wars and building peace: International responses to war-torn societies.” International Studies Perspectives 9(1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, T. (2007). “The “sequencing” fallacy.” Journal of Democracy 18(1): 12–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2004). “The responsibility to protect? Imposing the ‘liberal peace’.” International Peacekeeping 11(1): 59–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2006). Empire in denial: The politics of state-building. London: Pluto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2010). “The uncritical critique of ‘liberal peace’.” Review of International Studies 36(S1): 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2017). Peacebuilding: The twenty years’ crisis, 1997–2017. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charbonneau, B. and G. Parent, Eds. (2013). Peacebuilding, memory and reconciliation: Bridging top-down and bottom-up approaches. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chigas, D. (2014). “The role and effectiveness of non-governmental third parties in peacebuilding.” In Moving toward a just peace. Springer: 273–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, J. and T. Hohe (2004). “Participatory intervention.” Global Governance 10(3): 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, D. J. (2006). “What is peace psychology the psychology of?” Journal of Social Issues 62(1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cisnero, M. R. L. (2008). “Rediscovering olden pathways and vanishing trails to justice and peace: Indigenous modes of dispute resolution and indigenous justice systems.” In A sourcebook on alternatives to formal dispute resolution mechanisms. A publication of the Justice Reform Initiatives Support Project. C. Ubarra (Ed.). N.P.: National Judicial Institute of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, P. T. and M. Deutsch, Eds. (2012). Psychological components of sustainable peace. Peace Psychology Book Series. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, P. and A. Hoeffler (2004). “Greed and grievance in civil war.” Oxford Economic Papers 56(4): 563–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, W. E. (2002). Identity, difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, N., M. Turner, et al. (2011). “The end of history and the last liberal peacebuilder: A reply to Roland Paris.” Review of International Studies 1(1): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dafoe, A. (2011). “Statistical critiques of the democratic peace: Caveat emptor.” American Journal of Political Science 55(2): 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daxecker, U. E. (2007). “Perilous polities? An assessment of the democratization-conflict linkage.” European Journal of International Relations 13(4): 527–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Coning, C. (2018a). “Adaptive peacebuilding.” International Affairs 94(2): 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, W. (2012). Interpretations of peace in history and culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, W. and W. Sützl (1997). A call for many peaces. Peace Center Burg Schlaining.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donais, T. (2009). “Empowerment or imposition? Dilemmas of local ownership in post-conflict peacebuilding processes.” Peace & Change 34(1): 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. (2005). “Three pillars of the liberal peace.” American Political Science Review 99(3): 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. and N. Sambanis (2000). “International peacebuilding: A theoretical and quantitative analysis.” American Political Science Review 94(4): 779–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. and N. Sambanis (2006). Making war and building peace: United Nations peace operations. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, M. R. (2001). Global governance and the new wars: The merging of development and security. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabbro, D. (1978). “Peaceful societies: An introduction.” Journal of Peace Research 15(1): 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firchow, P. (2018). Reclaiming everyday peace: Local voices in measurement and evaluation after war. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R. and K. Hanke (2009). “Are societal values linked to global peace and conflict?” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 15(3): 227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortna, V. P. (2004). “Does peacekeeping keep peace? International intervention and the duration of peace after civil war.” International Studies Quarterly 48(2): 269–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (2006). The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1964). “An editorial.” Journal of Peace Research 1(1): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1967). “On the future of the international system.” Journal of Peace Research 4(4): 305–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1969). “Violence, peace, and peace research.” Journal of Peace Research 6(3): 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (2000). Conflict transformation by peaceful means: The transcend method. UN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (2007). “Introduction: Peace by peaceful conflict transformation—The transcend approach.” In Handbook of peace and conflict studies. C. Webel and J. Galtung (Eds.). London and New York: Routledge: 14–32.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (2010). “Peace studies and conflict resolution: The need for transdisciplinarity.” Transcultural Psychiatry 47(1): 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartzke, E. (2007). “The capitalist peace.” American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 166–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (2009). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, N. P., J. Nordkvelle, et al. (2014). “Peace research—Just the study of war?” Journal of Peace Research 51(2): 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassner, P. (1994). “Beyond the three traditions: The philosophy of war and peace in historical perspective.” International Affairs 70(4): 737–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heathershaw, J. (2008). “Unpacking the liberal peace: The dividing and merging of peacebuilding discourses.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 36(3): 597–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heathershaw, J. (2009). Post-conflict Tajikistan: The politics of peacebuilding and the emergence of legitimate order. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heathershaw, J. (2013). “Towards better theories of peacebuilding: Beyond the liberal peace debate.” Peacebuilding 1(2): 275–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegre, H. (2014). “Democracy and armed conflict.” Journal of Peace Research 51(2): 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegre, H., T. Ellingsen, et al. (2001). Toward a democratic civil peace? Democracy, political change, and civil war, 1816–1992. American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegre, H., J. R. Oneal, et al. (2010). “Trade does promote peace: New simultaneous estimates of the reciprocal effects of trade and conflict.” Journal of Peace Research 47(6): 763–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilhorst, D. and M. Van Leeuwen (2005). “Grounding local peace organisations: A case study of Southern Sudan.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 43(4): 537–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. (2003 [1651]). Leviathan: or The matter, forme, & power of a common-wealth ecclesiasticall and civill. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illich, I. (1992). “The de-linking of peace and development. Opening address on the occasion of the first meeting of the Asian Peace Research Association, Yokohama, 1 December 1980.” In In the mirror of the past: Lectures and addresses, 1978–1990. I. Illich and V. Borremans (Eds.). London: Marion Boyars Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute for Economics and Peace (2013). Pillars of peace: Understanding the key attitudes and institutions that underpin peaceful societies. IEP Reports. Sydney: Institute for Economics and Peace, 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarstad, A. K. and R. Belloni (2012). “Introducing hybrid peace governance: Impact and prospects of liberal peacebuilding.” Global Governance 18(1): 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, R. (2013). Peacebuilding: From concept to commission. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. and M. L. Hutchison (2012). “Hybridity, political order and legitimacy: Examples from Nigeria.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(2): 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, M. (2006). New and old wars. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1976 [1796]). Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf. Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. (1944). Peace through law. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krijtenburg, F. (2007). Cultural ideologies of peace and conflict: A socio-cognitive study of Giryama discourse (Kenya). Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krijtenburg, F. and E. de Volder (2015). “How universal is UN ‘peace’?: A comparative linguistic analysis of the United Nations and Giryama (Kenya) concepts of ‘peace’.” International Journal of Language and Culture 2(2): 194–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühn, F. P. (2012). “The peace prefix: Ambiguities of the word ‘peace’.” International Peacekeeping 19(4): 396–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kustermans, J. (2012). Democratic peace as practice. PhD thesis, Faculteit Politieke en Sociale Wetenschappen, Departement Politieke Wetenschappen, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J. P. (2015). Little book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-C., Y.-C. Lin, et al. (2013). “The construct and measurement of peace of mind.” Journal of Happiness Studies 14(2): 571–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, H. (1991 [1947]). Critique of everyday life. Volume 1: Introduction. London and New York: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonardsson, H. and G. Rudd (2015). “The ‘local turn’ in peacebuilding: A literature review of effective and emancipatory local peacebuilding.” Third World Quarterly 36(5): 825–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, K. (2007). ‘What is the ethics of peacebuilding?’ Lecture prepared for the kick-off meeting of the Liberal Peace and the Ethics of Peacebuilding project. Peace Research Institute Oslo, January 18, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidén, K. (2009). “Building peace between global and local politics: The cosmopolitical ethics of liberal peacebuilding.” International Peacekeeping 16(5): 616–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2006). No war, no peace: The rejuvenation of stalled peace processes and peace accords. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2008). “Indigenous peace-making versus the liberal peace.” Cooperation and Conflict 43(2): 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2010). “Hybrid peace: The interaction between top-down and bottom-up peace.” Security Dialogue 41(4): 391–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2011). International peacebuilding and local resistance: Hybrid forms of peace. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2012). “Routine peace: Technocracy and peacebuilding.” Cooperation and Conflict 47(3): 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2013). “Indicators+: A proposal for everyday peace indicators.” Evaluation and Program Planning 36: 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2014). “Everyday peace: Bottom-up and local agency in conflict-affected societies.” Security Dialogue 45(6): 548–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and G. Sanghera, Eds. (2012b). Special issue: Hybridity in peacebuilding and development. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(2): 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and P. Firchow (2016). “Top-down and bottom-up narratives of peace and conflict.” Politics 36(3): 308–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and O. P. Richmond (2013). “The local turn in peace building: A critical agenda for peace.” Third World Quarterly 34(5): 763–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and O. Richmond (2016). “The fallacy of constructing hybrid political orders: A reappraisal of the hybrid turn in peacebuilding.” International Peacekeeping 23(2): 219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, J. (2003). “Beyond the separate democratic peace.” Journal of Peace Research 40(2): 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. D. and J. Snyder (1995). “Democratization and the danger of war.” International Security 20(1): 5–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. D. and J. Snyder (2007). Electing to fight: Why emerging democracies go to war. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeown Jones, S. and D. J. Christie (2016). “Social psychology and peace.” In The Palgrave handbook of disciplinary and regional approaches to peace. O. P. Richmond, S. Pogodda, and J. Ramovic (Eds.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (2014). “Disaggregating hybridity: Why hybrid institutions do not produce predictable experiences of peace.” Journal of Peace Research 51(4): 501–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (2016). “Local experiences of liberal peace.” Journal of Peace Research 53(4): 569–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. London and New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (1999). “Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?” Social Research 66(3): 745–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münkler, H. (2005). The new wars. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadarajah, S. and D. Rampton (2015). “The limits of hybridity and the crisis of liberal peace.” Review of International Studies 41(1): 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagle, J. (2014). “From the politics of antagonistic recognition to agonistic peace building: An exploration of symbols and rituals in divided societies.” Peace & Change 39(4): 468–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, E. (2009). “‘Liberal’ peacebuilding debates.” In New perspectives on liberal peacebuilding. E. Newman, R. Paris, and O. Richmond (Eds.). Tokyo: United Nations University Press: 26–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, H. and R. Ponzio (2007). “Building democracy in Afghanistan: The statebuilding agenda and international engagement.” International Peacekeeping 14(1): 26–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noma, E., D. Aker, et al. (2012). “Heeding women’s voices: Breaking cycles of conflict and deepening the concept of peacebuilding.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(1): 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oneal, J. R., F. H. Oneal, et al. (1996). “The liberal peace: Interdependence, democracy, and international conflict, 1950–85.” Journal of Peace Research 33(1): 11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, J. M. (1994). “How liberalism produces democratic peace.” International Security 19(2): 87–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paarlberg-Kvam, K. (2018). “What’s to come is more complicated: Feminist visions of peace in Colombia.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 21(2): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paffenholz, T., Ed. (2010). Civil society & peacebuilding: A critical assessment. Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paffenholz, T. (2014). “International peacebuilding goes local: Analysing Lederach’s conflict transformation theory and its ambivalent encounter with 20 years of practice.” Peacebuilding 2(1): 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paffenholz, T. (2015). “Unpacking the local turn in peacebuilding: A critical assessment towards an agenda for future research.” Third World Quarterly 36(5): 857–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, R. (2004). At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, R. (2010). “Saving liberal peacebuilding.” Review of International Studies 36: 337–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. (2013). “Forward to the future? The democratic peace after the Cold War.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 30(2): 178–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polat, N. (2010). “Peace as war.” Alternatives 35(4): 317–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, M. (2005). “The political economy of peacebuilding: A critical theory perspective.” International Journal of Peace Studies 10: 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, M. (2010). “Welfare in war-torn societies: Nemesis of the liberal peace?” In Palgrave advances in peacebuilding: Critical developments and approaches. O. Richmond (Ed.). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 262–273.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, M., N. Cooper, et al., Eds. (2008). Whose peace? Critical perspectives on the political economy of peacebuilding. New Security Challenges. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puljek-Shank, R. (2017). “Dead letters on a page? Civic agency and inclusive governance in neopatrimonialism.” Democratization 24(4): 670–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsbotham, O. (2010). Transforming violent conflict: Radical disagreement, dialogue and survival. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randazzo, E. (2016). “The paradoxes of the ‘everyday’: Scrutinising the local turn in peace building.” Third World Quarterly 37(8): 1351–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A. (1992). Peace: An idea whose time has come. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, M. V. (2003). The west, civil society and the construction of peace. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rausch, C. (2015). Speaking their peace. Personal stories from the frontlines of war and peace. Berkeley: Roaring Forties Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. M. (2014). “Bringing peace back in: Presidential address to the Peace Science Society, 2013.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 31(4): 345–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, D., A. C. Stam, et al. (2016). “A revised look at interstate wars, 1816–2007.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 60(5): 956–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2005). The transformation of peace. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2008a). Peace in international relations. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2008b). “Welfare and the civil peace: Poverty with rights?” In Whose peace? Critical perspectives on the political economy of peacebuilding. M. Pugh, N. Cooper, and M. Turner (Eds.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 287–301.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2009a). “A post-liberal peace: Eirenism and the everyday.” Review of International Studies 35: 557–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2011). A post-liberal peace. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2013). “Peace formation and local infrastructures for peace.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(4): 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. and J. Franks (2009). Liberal peace transitions: Between statebuilding and peacebuilding. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. and R. Mac Ginty (2015). “Where now for the critique of the liberal peace?” Cooperation and Conflict 50(2): 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. and A. Mitchell, Eds. (2012). Hybrid forms of peace. From everyday agency to post-liberalism. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). “Democratic peace—Warlike democracies? A social constructivist interpretation of the liberal argument.” European Journal of International Relations 1(4): 491–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röling, B. V. A. (1973). Polemologie. Een inleiding in de wetenschap van oorlog en vrede. Assen: van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddick, S. (1995). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B. (1994). Grasping the democratic peace: Principles for a post-Cold War world. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B. and J. Oneal (2001). Triangulating peace. Democracy, interdependence and international organizations. New York and London: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabaratnam, M. (2011). “The liberal peace? A brief intellectual history of international conflict management, 1990–2010.” In A liberal peace? The problems and practices of peacebuilding. S. Campbell, D. Chandler, and M. Sabaratnam (Eds.). London: Zed Books: 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabaratnam, M. (2013). “Avatars of Eurocentrism in the critique of the liberal peace.” Security Dialogue 44(3): 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambanis, N. (2008). “Short- and long-term effects of United Nations peace operations.” The World Bank Economic Review 22(1): 9–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schia, N. N. and J. Karlsrud (2013). “‘Where the rubber meets the road’: Friction sites and local-level peacebuilding in Haiti, Liberia and South Sudan.” International Peacekeeping 20(2): 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. (2008 [1932]). The concept of the political: Expanded edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selby, J. (2013). “The myth of liberal peace-building.” Conflict, Security & Development 13(1): 57–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senghaas, D. (2004). Zum irdischen Frieden: Erkenntnisse und Vermutungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinko, R. E. (2008). “Agonistic peace: A postmodern reading.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 36(3): 473–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stensrud, E. E. (2009). “New dilemmas in transitional justice: Lessons from the mixed courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia.” Journal of Peace Research 46(1): 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suurmond, J. and P. M. Sharma (2012). “Like yeast that leavens the dough? Community mediation as local infrastructure for peace in Nepal.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(3): 81–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester, C. (1994). “Empathetic cooperation: A feminist method for IR.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 23(2): 315–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadjbakhsh, S. (2009). “Conflicted outcomes and values:(Neo) liberal peace in central Asia and Afghanistan.” International Peacekeeping 16(5): 635–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadjbakhsh, S., Ed. (2011). Rethinking the liberal peace: External models and local alternatives. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasew, B. (2009). “Metaphors of peace and violence in the folklore discourses of South-Western Ethiopia: A comparative study.” In Department of social and cultural anthropology. Amsterdam: VU University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomz, M. and J. L. Weeks (2013). “Public opinion and the democratic peace.” American Political Science Review 107(4): 849–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tongeren, P. v., M. Brenk, et al. (2005). People building peace II, Successful stories of civil society. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, M., W. Verkoren, et al. (2012). “Thinking beyond the liberal peace: From utopia to heterotopias.” Acta Politica 47(3): 292–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tongeren, P., M. O. Ojielo, et al. (2012). “The evolving landscape of infrastructures for peace.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(3): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Clausewitz, C. (1984 [1832]). On war. Indexed edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallensteen, P. (2015a). Quality peace: Peacebuilding, victory and world order. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webel, C. (2007). “Introduction: Toward a philosophy and metapsychology of peace.” In Handbook of peace and conflict studies. C. Webel and J. Galtung (Eds.). London and New York: Routledge: 3–13.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zelizer, C. and R. A. Rubinstein (2009). Building peace: Practical reflections from the field. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zizek, S. (2009). Violence: Six sideways reflections. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Gijsbert M. van Iterson Scholten

Authors
  1. Gijsbert M. van Iterson Scholten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gijsbert M. van Iterson Scholten .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van Iterson Scholten, G.M. (2020). Peace in Peace Studies: Beyond the ‘Negative/Positive’ Divide. In: Visions of Peace of Professional Peace Workers. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27975-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation