|
| |
The following extract by Lothar Brock draws attention to some of the
problems associated with defining the term peace and goes on to suggest that the objective should be to strive towards a "non-aggressive international community",
which, while being unachievable, does provide a ideal on which actions can be
based:
"- Peace means that the weapons remain still. But for how
long? Does peace only exist when the last war has been fought? Should everything else be regarded as quiet before the storm and as nothing more than a
cease-fire?
- When there's peace, the lives of individuals and entire peoples are protected from the use of military
aggression; but what about other forms of aggression? Can there only be peace when there's
justice?
- War seems to have been overcome in Western Europe. But can peace here be lasting when conflict and aggression rage
elsewhere? Is peace divisible or can it only be achieved when there is peace in the
world?
(...) Both in everyday life and in academic circles attempts are made to define the meaning of peace more clearly by using
attributes: People talk about 'real', 'positive' and 'lasting' peace or about 'negative',
'imperfect' and even 'graveyard peace'. At best, however, this serves in bypassing the problem not solving it (...).
It might be better to stick with the term
peace, then, and all the difficulties involved with making a concept out of it. This leaves us with three main
challenges: It's important that our definition of peace doesn't itself create an ideological path to new wars
(as a war against war), that it frees itself from exploitation for legitimating existing rule
(as the realization of peace) and that it takes in real developments in history and in the present time so as to make sure that it
doesn't remain a fantasy. |
|
"There are two lines of traditional
argument: Peace is either understood as a cosmic organizing principle, that
is, as an extra-historical concentrated expression of a world order that first seeks its
legitimization in God and then, secondly, as a consequence of the secularization
of political thinking following the Reformation, in the natural reason that is given to all people.
Or peace is understood as an expression of people's will, as a product of political culture that can be rationally
founded, which needs to find expressly its foundation in contractual agreements
(peace agreements between cantons, social contract) and protection by the
state. Connected to these two arguments is the question about the relationship between peace and
justice, pax and iustitia: Either justice comes before
peace, with peace being regarded as its natural fruit, or peace in society first has to be established and secured by the ruling powers of the
state; in this instance justice is seen as a legitimizing principle of a given social order that provides everyone with their share and which is subordinate to
peace, although peace has to exist before it can be realized.
And: as far as the context of the first argument is
concerned, war appears as an interruption, as a disturbance in the natural growth of
peace: bellum ruptura pacis. In the second traditional line of argument war - as the consequence of human failure and sinful freedom of will - is the normal state both within society and between
societies. Peace is non-war: pax absentia belli."
[Taken from: Reinhard Meyers: Grundbegriffe, Strukturen und theoretische Perspektiven der Internationalen Beziehungen, in: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (Hrsg.): Grundwissen Politik, 2. Aufl., Bonn 1993, p. 285-286, 291] |
|
These requirements serve in illustrating that peace should not be seen as a given state in a social system, but as an
'eternal process of progress' (...) towards a goal, the actual substance of which is fluid and also linked to the progression of history and for which, therefore, a
finalized definition cannot be given. It is, however, possible to address existing issues as they stand and to identify specific starting points from where changes for the good of peace can be made (...).
As the objective 'of our
dreams', we can help to shape a non-aggressive world society, which, while not a world free of
conflict, is a world in which conflicts are resolved without the threat or use of collective
aggression."
[Taken from: Lothar Brock: "Frieden". Überlegungen zur Theoriebildung; in: Volker Rittberger (Hg.): Theorien der internationalen Beziehungen, PVS-Sonderheft 21/1990, p. 72]
|
Ecological balance is just as important as the sum total of survival + well-being + freedom + identity for the fundamental preservation of people. The definition of "peace" is the sum of all five.
[Taken from: Johan Galtung, Kulturelle Gewalt; in: Der Bürger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 107] |
[Back to top of page]
|
