North America: Peace Studies versus the Hegemony of Realist and Liberal Methods

  • Henry F. Carey


The many North American understandings, applications and goals of peacemaking, keeping and building, as well as mediation, sustainable peace, preventive diplomacy, mediation, conflict resolution, sustainable peace and the like, have many different conceptualizations, compounded by their paradigmatic variants. This chapter focuses on how the concept of peace is understood in North American scholarship and policy making; the author has undertaken to represent the dominant analytic approaches. This means that international politics and relations research, all of which discuss peace using both quantitative and qualitative methods, overshadows the influence of peace studies.1 As the editors solicited a chapter that would explain how the term ‘peace’ is actually used in North American theory and praxis, I have the fortunate consolation that peace studies and education and its precursors, such as the World Order Models Project,2 have been well documented.3 While the discussion will regrettably be cursory here, notwithstanding the large size of the peace studies section in the International Studies Association, for example, the large majority of North American academics, and an even larger share of practitioners, analyse peace from realist and liberal interpretive frameworks. Moreover, most North American academics are unfamiliar with the critiques of realism and liberalism, whether from perspectives of Gramscian hegemony, Foucauldian governmentality and/or imperialism.


Foreign Policy Global Governance International Politics Peace Research Peace Movement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Richard A. Falk, The End of World Order: Essays on Normative International Relations (New York: Holmes and Meier Publications, 1983);Google Scholar
  2. Richard Falk and Saul Mendlovitz, eds, Regional Politics and World Order (San Francisco: Freeman, 1973).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See, for example, Carolyn Stephenson, ‘Peace Studies’, in International Studies Compendium, ed. Robert Denemark (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2010), 5579–5603;Google Scholar
  4. George A. Lopez, ‘An University Peace Studies Curriculum for the 1990s’, Journal of Peace Research 22, no. 2 (1985): 117–128;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Marie A. Dugan, ‘Peace Studies at the Graduate Level’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 504 (July 1989): 72–79. For debates and critiques, see, for example,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. James G. Blight, ‘Peace and Security Studies: Should We Seek Professorships or Apprenticeships?’ Political Psychology 9, no. 3 (September 1988): 539–543;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. George H. Quester, ‘International Security Criticisms of Peace Research’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 504 (July 1989): 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 4.
    David Austen-Smith, ‘Interest Groups: Money, Information, and Influence’, in Perspectives of Public Choice, ed. Denni. C. Mueller (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 296–321;Google Scholar
  9. Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  10. 5.
    James Meernik, Rosa Aloisi, Marsha Sowell and Angela Nichols, ‘The Impact of Human Rights Organizations on Naming and Shaming Campaigns’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 56, no. 2 (2005): 233–256;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. James Ron, Howard Ramos and Kathleen Rodgers, ‘Transnational Information Politics: NGO Human Rights Reporting, 1986– 2000’, International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 3 (2005): 557–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 6.
    John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (New York: Mentor Books, 1965).Google Scholar
  13. 7.
    Kenneth Boulding, ‘Twelve Friendly Quarrels with Johan Galtung’, Journal of Peace Research 14 (1977): 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 8.
    Saul Mendlovitz and John Fousek, ‘A UN Constabulary to Enforce the Law on Genocide and Crimes against Humanity’, in The International Legal System in Quest of Equity and Universality, eds, Laurance Boisson de Chazournes and Vera Gowlland-Debbas (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2001), 449–461.Google Scholar
  15. See Onora O’Neill, ‘A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics’, in Matters of Life and Death, ed. Tom Regan (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986);Google Scholar
  16. Thomas W. Pogge, ‘Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty’, Ethics 103, no. 1 (October 1992): 48–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 9.
    Henry F. Carey, ‘Naturalism vs. Positivism: Debates over Coercive Protection of Human Rights in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo’, Civil Wars 5, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 25–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 10.
    Michael E. Brown et al., eds, Primacy and Its Discontents: American Power and International Stability (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008).Google Scholar
  19. 11.
    Fareed Zakharia, From Wealth to Power (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  20. 12.
    Irving and William Kristol, Fred Barnes, Robert Kagan and President George W. Bush have epitomized this neo-conservative turn. See, for example, Douglas Murray, Neo-Conservativism: Why We Need It (New York: Encounter Books, 2006). The Weekly Standard is the standard-bearer for this normative ideology and political movement.Google Scholar
  21. 13.
    John J. Mersheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008).Google Scholar
  22. 14.
    Hans Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960).Google Scholar
  23. 15.
    Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).Google Scholar
  24. See Robert O. Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  25. 16.
    For a summary, see Steven E. Lobell, ‘Structural Realism/Offensive and Defensive Realism’, in International Studies Compendium, ed. Robert Denemark (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2010), 6651–6669.Google Scholar
  26. 17.
    Jack Snyder, Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  27. 18.
    Robert Gilpin, ‘A Realist Perspective on International Governance’, in Governing Globalization, eds, Ahony McGrew and David Held (Oxford: Polity, 2002), 237–248.Google Scholar
  28. 19.
    John J. Mersheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001).Google Scholar
  29. 20.
    Felix Rösch, ed., Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations: A European Discipline in America? (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2014).Google Scholar
  30. 22.
    Herz is sometimes credited with the development of the security dilemma concept. John H. Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1951).Google Scholar
  31. 23.
    E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939 (London: Macmillan, 1939).Google Scholar
  32. 24.
    Raymond Aron, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2003).Google Scholar
  33. 25.
    Ernst B. Haas, Beyond the Nation State: Functionalism and International Organization (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964).Google Scholar
  34. 26.
    G. John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000);Google Scholar
  35. John G. Ruggie, ‘Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution’, in Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form, ed. Ruggie (Princeton, NJ: New York: Columbia University Press, 1993);Google Scholar
  36. Ann Kent, Beyond Compliance: China, International Organization and Global Security (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
  37. 27.
    Hans Reiss, ed., Kant: Political Writings (Cambridge University Press, 1990);Google Scholar
  38. Michael W. Doyle, ‘Liberalism in World Politics’, American Political Science Review 80, no. 4 (1986): 1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 28.
    For one analysis of neo-conservativism, see Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001). The movement was started by ex-Stalinist intellectuals like Irving Kristol and has been influenced by political theory students of Leo Strauss.Google Scholar
  40. 29.
    Part of the confusion is that the term ‘liberal’ in non-academic contexts in the US connotes left-of-centre orientations. Almost no one identifies themselves as neoliberal in US public life, yet most non-US critiques of foreign policy have been of neoliberalism. Neo-conservatives have remained the main alternative to either realism or liberalism in US public discourse, and have not lost much prestige, despite the discredit that would have accompanied US efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Critiques of neo-conservatism include Josh Rogin, ‘James Baker: Realists Have Been Successful Stewards of Foreign Policy’, 9 August 2012,;Google Scholar
  41. Andrew Bacevich, American Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002);Google Scholar
  42. David P. Forsythe, The Politics of Prisoner Abuse: The United States and Enemy Prisoners after 9/11 (Cambridge University Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 30.
    Karl Deutsch, Political Community in the North Atlantic Area (Princeton University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
  44. 31.
    Dianne Otto, ‘Rethinking the Universality of Human Rights Law’, Columbia Human Rights Law Review 29, no. 1 (Fall 1997): 1–46;Google Scholar
  45. see also the contributions by Nathaniel Berman, David Kennedy, Celina Romany, Angela Harris, et al. in On Violence, Money, Power and Culture: Reviewing the Internationalist Legacy, ed. Jonathan Lawrence Hargrove (Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Meeting) (Washington, DC: American Society for International Law, 2000, Vol. 93). Some of these US-based scholars are Europeans,Google Scholar
  46. such as Francois Debrix, Re-Envisioning Peacekeeping: The United Nations and the Mobilization of Ideology (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999);Google Scholar
  47. Maku Mutua, ‘Hope and Despair for a New South Africa: The Limits of Rights Discourse’, Harvard Human Rights Journal 10 (Spring, 1997): 63–114; see also, Vasant Kaiwar and Michael West, eds, Divergent Modernities: Critical Perspectives on Orientalism, Islamism, and Nationalism, Special issue of Special Issues: Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 15.1 (Fall 1996).Google Scholar
  48. 33.
    Matei Dogan, How to Compare Nations (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1991);Google Scholar
  49. John Mueller, Capitalism, Democracy, and Ralph’s Pretty Good Grocery (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001);Google Scholar
  50. Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996); John Mueller, ‘The Perfect Enemy: Assessing the Gulf War’, Security Studies 5, no. 1 (August 1995);Google Scholar
  51. Andrew J. Bacevich and Eliot A. Cohen, ‘Introduction: Strange Little War’, War over Kosovo: Politics and Strategy in a Global Age (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  52. 35.
    This is in distinction to the sense given to the term ‘liberal peace’ by Mark Duffield and Oliver Richmond, which, in my view, characterizes a ‘realist peace’ or a ‘neoliberal peace’. Oliver P. Richmond, ‘Reclaiming Peace in International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 36, no. 3 (2008): 439–470;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mark Duffield, Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security (London: Zed Books, 2001).Google Scholar
  54. 36.
    Instead of his thesis in The End of History and the Last Man (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1991), Francis Fukuyama has offered State-Building: Governance and World Order in the Twenty-First Century (London: Profile Books, 2005). For a critique of his original view of the rise of liberal hegemony,Google Scholar
  55. see John J. Mersheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability after the Cold War’, International Security 15, no. 1 (1990): 5–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 37.
    David M. Malone and Fen Osler Hampson, eds, From Reaction to Conflict Prevention, co-edited by Fen Osler Hampson (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002). For a realist critique of liberalism,Google Scholar
  57. see John J. Mersheimer, ‘The False Promises of International Institutions’, International Security 19, no. 3 (1994–1995): 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 38.
    Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Matthew, ‘Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Different Strands’, in Controversies in International Relations, ed. Charles W. Kegley (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1995);Google Scholar
  59. Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, ‘The Power of Liberal International Organizations’, in Power in Global Governance, eds, Barnett and Raymond Duvall (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 40.
    James Sheehan, Where Have All the Soldiers Gone? The Transformation of Modern Europe (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2008).Google Scholar
  61. 41.
    Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr, The Imperial Presidency (Mariner Books, 2004).Google Scholar
  62. 42.
    Eric A. Posner, The Perils of Global Legalism (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 43.
    Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  64. 44.
    Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye, Power and Inter-Dependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little Brown, 1977);Google Scholar
  65. Bruce Russett and John O’Neal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organization (New York: W. W. Norton, 2011).Google Scholar
  66. 45.
    A. Claire Cutler, Virginia Haufler and Tony Porter, eds, Private Authority and International Affairs (Albany: State University of New York, 1999);Google Scholar
  67. Thomas Biersteker and Rodney Hall, eds, The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  68. 46.
    Aaron Rapport, Waging War, Planning Peace: U.S. Noncombat Operations and Major Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 47.
    Chadwick F. Alger, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 504 (July 1989): 117, 117–127.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Henry F. Carey 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry F. Carey

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations