Throughout history, people have desired peace. Whether it be peace after a war, or transitioning from a dictatorship to a democracy, sustainable peace is constantly needed. Not only does sustainable peace refer to the absence of war, it includes the absence of violence as well. In order to achieve reform with sustainable peace, participation from all citizens is necessary. Though most of the peace building occurs among the top political leaders, the middle and lower class citizens are an important piece of the puzzle. If all of the power is given to the political leaders, peace amongst the civilians cannot, and will not, occur due to the instability their lack of any power will bring. Without a reform in a country’s security sector, there will be no sustainable peace. In order to achieve stability, sustainable peace, and a successful reform in a country’s security sector, the relationship between citizens and government must be mended. In Sri Lanka, an island off the southern coast of India, the government spent three decades fighting a group of rebels known as the Tamil Tigers, finally defeating the rebels in May of 2009. On November 10, 2013, Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa announced that the country was trying to establish sustainable peace. (Zemin) Rajapksa believes that sustainable peace will also help redevelop the country and repair some of the suffering endured by the citizens during the thirty-year war. The president said that many of the youth were deprived life opportunities during the war because they were often forcibly recruited by the terrorists and had just recently been rehabilitated and sent back into society after surrendering. Issues among Sri Lanka’s security sector included the lack of a sufficient military system and corrupted judicial department. These issues led to a slightly disorganized government and citizens who found
For our government to function it must be able to resolve the conflicts that arise as a result of this ‘struggle’. The rule of law is the principle that enables reconciliation and its primacy to the successful implementation of our government cannot be understated. Simply stated t...
In countries where conflict has raged, but where the political will has developed to work towards a non-violent state of being, DDR has been a policy to aid the sustainable development of peace. Ana Cutter Patel writes that DDR is an integral part of peace building; it tries to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate former combatants in order to establish security which is one of the key components of peace. According to Sandra Pogodda et al. DDR is also part of a state building practice, for demobilization and disarmament of ex-combatants ensures the state's monopoly on the use of force. The intervening organizations that practice DDR, often but not exclusively the UN, are assisting the government to ensure security in the country. Should these interventions be considered political? This essay will argue that because DDR processes take on an important role in the political sphere of a country and influence the distribution of power by taking away the physical power of rebel groups, the DDR process should be considered political. Organizations conducting DDR will have their own interests, and directly influence political will in a country. Furthermore, lasting demobilization will likely depend on the distribution of political and socio-economic power, which will be assessed by DDR, being closely linked development processes.
It is impossible to maintain social order without the existence of law enforcement. The expectation of uniformity is unrealistic among everyone in any given society. The mixing of various nationalities, culture, religion, and especially socioeconomic backgrounds generate conflict. Conflict can only be remedied by a neutral entity. The current trends in the impact law enforcement has on minimizing crime globally and domestically proves law enforcement is necessary. Social order is integral in order to generate an environment free from terror and unpredictable chaos. We have learned from historical events that citizens, of any given society, to police themselves, results in constant violence among parties with incompatibilities in their relations with one another. Roufa, T. (2012)
This essay will answer this question through a variety of means. In order to measure the question posed, we must first define the concepts of democracy, international peace and security. After having defined these, we must apply the promotion of democracy, using examples from the past to consider whether this is a worthwhile endeavour, and if so, how should we approach it to ensure we achieve what we set out to. This essay will give reference to, but will not provide a comprehensive analysis of, the ‘Democratic Peace Theory’.
...two countries ought to realize that it is not about the one who shall win in this war. They should be focused on building their social institutions such as the economies in order to improve the lives of the civilians. Negative attitudes towards any of the two countries should be eliminated as this escalates the violence. Free movement of the people within the two nations is imperative not only for economic development but also for the purpose of interaction.
Some people believe that the use of violence is the best way of achieving substantial change. I argue that non-violence is the key to achieve lasting change, because some of the greatest acts of non-violence have led to changes which have not changed and have transformed the lives of many people. However, I understand that violence may have to be used in certain circumstances.
Over the span of recorded history, humankind has inflicted horrors upon itself. Attempts at ending these brutal conflicts usually involved a great deal of violence; problem solving entailed an “off with his head” approach. We would like to think that we are better than that today, but look no further than newspaper headlines to see that human behavior has not come very far since the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, there has been a positive development in modern day problem solving that Pruitt and Kim (2004) call “reconciliation” (p. 218). Simply put, this is the process of relationship repair. The importance of this theory cannot be understated. Reconciliation of divided people and societies is vital to preventing the reoccurrence of violence and building long-term, sustainable peace (Sustainable reconciliation, 2013). If people do not reconcile, conflicts will continue to arise time after time after time.
Engagement in peaceful and violent interactions, as well as the conflicts consequent from the, has changed greatly in the modern world. With the vast advancement in technology, our ability to communicate over long distances with various media devices has improved the ability to conduct peaceful conversations. This in itself decreases the chances of violence as all party members involved in a conflict of some sort are able to access and correspond with one another, if they so choose, without jumping the gun and heading straight into a violent solution. However, weapon technology develops simultaneously with modern technology, resulting in extreme weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons and the fact that these weapons are so easily accessible enables violent interactions. Both the “Conflict Resolution” and “Nonviolence” paradigms have not been able to keep up with the development of modern technology and are therefore not applicable in some instances. While the “Conflict Resolution” paradigm maintains its applicability for most situations, the “Nonviolence” paradigm becomes obsolete in regards to the nuclear weapons that play such a large role in modern day conflicts. Nevertheless, both paradigms are useful tools in international peacemaking – methods such as negotiation from the “Conflict Resolution” paradigm are independent from the type of conflict involved. Similarly, the “Nonviolence” paradigm has methods e.g. the creation of peace movements, which are applicable to all conflicts regardless of their nature. This shows that while they might be limited in some aspects, the “Conflict Resolution” and “Nonviolence” paradigms are still useful in conflicts nowadays and contribute tools to international peacemaking even tho...
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
DuNann Winter, D., & Leighton, D. C. (2001 ). Structural Violence . Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st. New York : Prentice-Hall.
Weak and failed states share many common characteristics. One of the most common features of a weak state is the presence of persistent violence. This violence is in the form of civil wars and civil unrest, this is an indicator that a government has lost legitimacy as well as control over some parts of territory. Other features include a weak bureaucracy that is very susceptible to corruption especially corruption from non-state actors such as terrorists and warlords. As the government’s power and influence continues to decline, citizens turn to these non-s...
IOs and states play a critical role in maintaining world peace and security. The United Nations (UN), in particular, is the centerpiece of global governance with respect to the maintenance of world peace. The UN provides general guidelines for all the states on how to solve potential conflicts and maintain international o...
Sri Lanka has also experienced a series of socio-political disturbances over the past several decades including...
The current challenges of democracy around the world should prioritize each encounter that should be addressed through networks, global gatherings, and various activities. As a continuous concern, the progress of democracy discusses various strategies and activities. These various strategies and activities lead to lessons that are learned in advancing democracy, making democracy deliver, strengthening democratic fundamentals, and more current challenges. Democracy faces threats from every spectrum as the threats surge the need to reinforce democratic forces through aid and greater international solidarity. Each country reflects on a certain assessment towards the current status of democracy.