The Study of Peace and the main theoretical perspectives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2022.1.11Keywords:
peace; peace building; orthodox theories of peace; liberal-idealist tradition; realism; the English School of International Relations; neo-Marxism; critical theories; constructivism; Peace and Conflict StudiesAbstract
The article attempts to outline the main theoretical perspectives in the study of peace. The author analyzes the dynamics of the characteristics of peace in international relations and identifies the role of different theoretical approaches and scientific schools in shaping the concept of peace. It is emphasized that in the modern world order it is important to develop a common understanding of peace, the values of conflict resolution and effective approaches to peacebuilding. Given these challenges, the theoretical basis for building peace needs to be reconsidered and rethought in order to identify the most promising areas of research. It is noted that theoretical issues of peace theory are rarely the subject of scientific research of domestic researchers. The main theories of peace have been formed and developed mainly by foreign scholars, but there is a contradiction of images of peace, serious discussion and criticism of most concepts of peace, which gives rise to new approaches and comprehensive research, opening the way for Ukrainian scientists.
The author of the article acknowledges that the liberal-idealist paradigm is dominant in the understanding of peace, so its analysis is given considerable attention. However, the article describes the realistic vision of the problem of peace, which forms the basis of the framework of peace research with the liberal-idealist tradition and is the so-called «orthodoxy». Unorthodox theories are described in detail, including the English School of International Relations, Marxists and Neo-Marxists, critical theories, constructivism and post-constructivism, and interdisciplinary research, the most important of which is Peace and Conflict Studies.
The article analyzes and compares these scientific approaches and schools, identifies the strengths and weaknesses of research, the main discussions and the reasons for criticizing each of them. It is suggested that the debate on international conflicts and wars in the era of globalization and posttruth is erroneous and inexpedient, and instead the emphasis in the theory of international relations is shifted towards the formation of a modern concept of peace and peaceful coexistence.The author emphasizes that each theory and approach has its own concept of peace, but this variability allows to develop a broad discussion of peace, propose new methodologically compatible approaches and develop a modern comprehensive understanding of peace, principles and mechanisms for its development.
References
Багінський А. Ліберальний мир» як концепція та практика врегулювання конфлікту. Вісник НТУУ «КПІ». Політологія. Соціологія. Право. 2019. Вип.3 (43). С.15-19.
Бжезинский З. Великая шахматная доска (господство Америки и её геостратегические императивы) / пер. с англ. Москва: Международные отношения, 1998. 112 с.
Кант И. К вечному миру. Москва: «РИПОЛ Классик», 2018. 430 с.
Коротков Д.С. Вплив ліберально-ідеалістичного напрямку на традиційну гегемонію реалістів у теорії міжнародних відносин. Філософія та політологія в контексті сучасної культури. 2020. Т. 12. № 2. С. 87-93.
Окунева Е.С. Критика теории «демократического мира»: от реализма к конструктивизму. Сравнительная политика. 2015. №4(21). С.6-9. URL: https://www.comparativepolitics.org/jour/article/view/328.
Паніна І.Г. Ліберально-ідеалістична традиція в дослідженні миру. Політичне життя. 2021. №3. С. 132-140.
Парахонський Б. О., Яворська Г. М. Онтологія війни і миру: безпека, стратегія, смисл : монографія. Київ : НІСД, 2019. 560 с.
Тодд Э. После империи. Pax Americana – начало конца. Москва: Международные отношения, 2004. 240 с.
Хантингтон С. Столкновение цивилизаций / пер. с англ. Т. Велимеева, Ю. Новикова. Москва: АСТ, 2005. 571 [5] с.
Adorno T. Negative Dialectics / translated by E.B. Ashton. New York : Seabury Press, 1973. XXI, 416 p. URL: https://cutt.ly/sOo3CBE.
Aron R. Peace and war: a theory of international relations/ translated by R. Howard, A. Baker Fox. New York: Garden City, Doubleday, 1966. XVIII, 820 p.
Buzan B. Rethinking Security after the Cold War. Cooperation and Conflict. 1997. No. 32 (5). PP. 5-28.
Buzan B., Lawson J. Capitalism and the emergent world order. International Affairs. 2014. No.90 (1). PP. 71-91.
Doyle M. W. Democratic Peace. Security Studies: a reader/ Ed. by C. Hughes and L. W. Meng. London, New York: Routledge, 2011. PP. 176-183.
Farber, H., Gowa J. (1995). Politics and Peace. International Security. 1995. Vol.20. No.2. PP. 123-146.
Francis D. Rethinking War and Peace. London: Pluto Press, 2004. 177 p.
Galtung J. A Synthetic Approach to Peace Thinking. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1967. 238 p.
Galtung J., Webel C. Peace and conflict studies. Looking back, looking forward. Handbook of peace and conflict studies / edited by Charles Webel and Johan Galtung. London, New York: Routledge, 2007. PP.397-399.
Gray C. S. War, peace and international relations: an introduction to strategic history. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2007. 321 p.
Herrera H. On Peace: Peace as a means of Statecraft. URL: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/102503/Peace_Statecraft_june09.pdf
Howard M. The invention of peace and the reinvention of war London: MacGuru Ltd, 2002. 126 p.
Keohane R. Neoliberal Institutionalism. Security Studies: a reader/ Ed. by C. Hughes and L. W. Meng. London, New York: Routledge, 2011. PP. 167-175.
Keohane R., Martin L. The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. International Relations. Summer 1995. Vol.20. No.1. PP.39-51.
Layne C. Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace. International Security. 1994. No. 19. Autumn. PP. 5-49.
Levy J.S. The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace. Annual Review of Political Science. 1998. No. 1. PP.139-165.
Morgenthau H. Politics among Nations : the Struggle for power and peace. 5ª ed. rev. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. XX, 650 p.
Mueller S. F. Peace, War and Modernity in International Relations. Theory Transcience Journal. 2010. Vol. 1. No 1. PP.33-46.
Ohlson T. Understanding Causes of War and Peace. European Journal of International Relations. 2008. Vol. 14. N 1. P. 133-160.
Oren I. The Subjectivity of the “Democratic” Peace. International Security. 1995. Vol. 20. No. 2. PР. 147–184.
Owen J.M. How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace. International Security. 1994. Vol. 19. No. 2. PР. 87–125.
Patomaki H. The Challenge of Critical Theories: Peace Research at the Start of the New Century. Journal of Peace Research. 2001. Vol. 38. No. 6. PP. 723–737.
Richmond O. P. Peace in international relations / Routledge studies in peace and conflict resolution; series editors T. Woodhouse and O. Ramsbotham. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008. 218 p.
Russet B. Neo-Kantian Perspective. Security Studies: a reader/ Ed. by C. Hughes and L. W. Meng. London, New York: Routledge, 2011. PP. 184-189.
Theories of international relations / Scott Burchill … [et al.]. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 310 р.
UN Charter: [full text] / United Nations. URL: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
Waltz K. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia University Press, 2001. 263 p.
Webel C. Introduction: toward a philosophy and metapsychology of peace. Handbook of peace and conflict studies / edited by Charles Webel and Johan Galtung. London, New York: Routledge, 2007. PP. 3-13
Wendt A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 429 p.
Zakaria F. The United States and China are locked in a Cold Peace. The Washington Post. August 5, 2021. URL: https://cutt.ly/xIdlZ5d.
