WAR IS OVER ! IF YOU WANT IT SO DREAM OF PEACE AND WORK FOR PEACE

PEACE: FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA LET THERE BE PEACE AND HARMONY

Interpretation of peacefulness

“It is not enough to win a war; it is more important to organize the peace.”

“Peace is not something you wish for, it is something you make, something you are, something you do and something you give away.”

“World peace must develop from inner peace. Peace is not just mere absence of violence. Peace is, I think, the manifestation of human compassion.”

From the beginning of time till the present, people have demonstrated a great desire for peace. Because “peace” denotes a lovely world and a peaceful civilization in addition to being a nice word. The most significant and loftiest goal or aspiration that everyone hopes to accomplish on a personal level and anticipates seeing brought about in society and the world is peace. Every effort has been made by people to bring about peace. Thus, in a sense, the history of humanity is the history of the search for peace. There are many different contexts in which peace has been talked, considered, taught, and researched.

Definitions of Peacefulness

One must first comprehend the subject’s essential meaning in order to acquire a complete understanding of it. Therefore, let’s first define what peace actually is before exploring its many components. What does peace entail? The definition of “peace” is wide. It seems as though the definition of peace changes according on the situation. The Latin term pax, from which the word “peace” is derived, originally meant to mean a contract, control, or agreement to end a war or other dispute and conflict between two people, two nations, or two opposed parties.

The basic definition of peace, according to American military history, is the absence of conflict. Because of this, armies think that they must either employ force to maintain peace or conduct wars to bring about peace. Peace is not seen as a means to an end, but rather as the ultimate or ideal goal in military doctrines.

According to American military history, peace is most frequently defined as the absence of fighting, both politically and historically. This is due to the fact that many different kinds of conflicts have been fought throughout human history.

People truly want peace when wars start. People demanded and wanted peace, which is the absence of hostilities and altercations. Many peace experts, however, think that peace should just be defined as the absence of fighting. They think that peace is more important, valuable, and necessary than that.

Peace, according to Albert Einstein, is not merely the absence of violence but also the existence of justice, law, order, and government in a community. Renowned human rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. took issue with the notion of peace, which placed too much emphasis on the absence of unpleasant circumstances. True peace, in his opinion, is not only the absence of conflict but also the existence of justice.

According to the 14th Dalai Lama, peace—which is merely the absence of conflict—means very little. Only when people’s rights are upheld, food is provided, and countries and individuals are free can peace be sustained. His perspective is that respect for human rights, people’s well-being, and individual and national independence are necessary for peace (more about the Dalai Lama’s human approach to peace is provided below).

Renowned philosopher of the second half of the 17th century Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) claimed that peace was not so much the absence of conflict as it was a virtue, a state of mind, and a propensity for compassion, confidence, and fairness. He placed a high importance on virtue and mental health.

Peace was emphasized by Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964) as a state of mind. He thinks that there is no national relation to peace. It is a state of mind brought on by spiritual calm. Peace is more than just the absence of conflict. It’s a mental state as well. Perpetual peace is only possible for those who are peaceful.

Peace and violence are synonymous, according to Norwegian peace scientist Johan Gultung. Since peace is the absence of violence, it ought to be a goal for society. Gultung continued, stating that peace has two sides—positive and negative peace—just like a coin. Positive peace is the absence of institutional violence and social justice, while negative peace is the absence of personal violence.

Peace experts assert that, depending on their specific viewpoints, the meanings of peace are blatantly different in some contexts and clearly identical in others. Now let’s examine how various literary works, including dictionaries and encyclopedias, define peace.

The Wikipedia encyclopedia’s definitions and explanations state that harmony or the lack of hostility might be prerequisites for peace. Another meaning of “peace” is a peaceful way of living.

Peace” signifies the conclusion of a bloody battle. A state of calm or tranquility that is devoid of disruption or agitation is referred to as peace.

Any interpersonal relationship characterized by decency, fairness, and kindness can also be referred to as peaceful. Calm, quiet, and tranquility are all parts of peace. The latter meaning of peace can also relate to how a person sees himself, for example, when they are “at peace” with their own thoughts.

The following is how the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines peace:

1. No war: a state in which there is neither hostilities nor warfare.

2. No noise or interruptions: you are in a peaceful, quiet environment without being bothered.

3. Calm/Not worried: a feeling of being calm, happy, and not worried.

The following are the definitions of peace provided by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

1. a calm or peaceful situation, such as the absence of civil unrest b: a community’s legally or customarily established state of safety or order.

2: the absence of unsettling or confining ideas or feelings.

3. concord in interpersonal relationships.

A truce or agreement to halt hostilities between persons who have been at war or in a state of enmity.

4: a state or period of mutual concord between governments.

5: used interjectionally to bid someone farewell or request quiet; at peace: in a harmonious or peaceful state.

According to a different website, peace is the condition in which there is no conflict, harmony among people, freedom from disputes, absence of anxiety or mental strain, general security in public areas, and a treaty ending hostilities.

All definitions and explanations of peace seem to be covered by encyclopedias, dictionaries, and similar sources. This is often the case with books and other sources that have to make an effort to communicate every meaning connected to peace.

Peace is defined and explained in a number of ways based on the definitions and explanations given above. Depending on the context, it can have a variety of meanings. For instance, it seems that peace is a tool or a way to put an end to conflict or war. The complete opposite of war is peace, whether it is desired and promoted during or after a conflict. It denotes the absence of conflicts, including war. In this case, the most important definition seems to be peace.

Nonetheless, this does not mean that people and society are at peace even in the absence of conflict. There are still issues or hostilities. For this reason, some specialists on peace are not content with only that interpretation.

By definition, peace is the absence of violence or the presence of more positive attributes like virtue, justice, order, good laws, good governance, positive relationships, well-being, freedom, respect for human rights, security, and so forth.

Peace could be characterized as quiet, serenity, tranquility, or peacefulness if we concentrate on the mental state. Furthermore, the word “peace” connotes quiet and calm when describing the condition of a place or atmosphere.

Groupings of peace

There are two types of peace: internal peace and external peace.

Calm of mind or spirit is also referred to as inner peace, or internal serenity. The lack of afflictions or mental disturbances, such as worry, anxiety, greed, want, hatred, ill-will, delusion, and/or other defilements, results in this state of mental quiet, peace, and tranquility.

Internal tranquility is a state of inner serenity that arises from one’s mental exercises or instruction. Sometimes, even in a chaotic or boisterous setting, a man can find and keep inner serenity.

Internal harmony is emphasized in religion, especially in Eastern religions.

According to poet Ravi S.

When you look for peace

then the peace lies within you

When you search for peace

then it is not hard to find

According to poet William Blake

To Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love

All pray in their distress

And to these virtues of delight

Return their thankfulness

It makes abundantly evident how inner serenity fosters outside peace. It resembles a massive structure that must be established or constructed from the ground up. Peace is constructed in a similar way. To achieve true internal peace in the human heart, we must first establish world peace and all forms of external peace.

In addition, the well-known UNESCO quote, “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed,” serves as a helpful reminder of the real reasons behind both conflict and peace. It highlights how crucial internal harmony is as the real cornerstone of societal harmony. Dalai Lama also made the following statement at this point:

External peace is a state of harmony that exists in societies, nations, and the entire planet. It is also a pleasant and peaceful coexistence between humans and the natural world. The following definitions apply to both positive and negative aspects of external peace: The absence of conflict, animosity, agitation, social disorder, disturbances, social injustice, social inequality, violence, human rights violations, riot, terrorism, ecological imbalance, etc. are examples of negative sense. Positive sense: a condition of peace, concord, public order and security, equality and fairness in society, friendship or amicable connections, respect for human rights, ecological balance, and so forth. In this sense, external peace is the absence of all social ills and the presence of all social virtues.

Peace on the inside and outside are connected. They both rely on and help one another. While exterior peace shows the tranquility of society, internal peace reveals the serenity of the individual.

It is common knowledge that society is a composite of its members. Society depends on each person’s nature. Culture has an impact on people, not the other way around. A great society aids people in raising their standard of living. We know that human life is impacted by environmental elements.

Peace is comparable as well. The essence, basis, and fundamental building block of external peace is internal peace. The latter is supported and ensured by the former. Since society is composed of all peaceful individuals, it can only exist if each person is at peace. A person can attain inner tranquility with the aid of external calm, such as that which is found in a tranquil or moral community.

That is, people in a society will live in peace with one another if there are no wars, conflicts, acts of violence, injuries, deaths, and so forth. The reason for this is that their minds are empty. They reside in a lovely neighborhood or setting where they are able to develop and discover inner calm. Thus, there is an unbreakable bond between internal and outward peace; they are mutually beneficial.

In contrast, peace is divided into nine subcategories by the World Council of Curriculum and Instruction:

Intrapersonal peace: When a person is at peace within themselves, their thoughts are free of conflict.
Interpersonal peace: When there is harmony among people, there are no disputes amongst them.
Intragroup peace: the absence of conflict between groups and the condition of harmony inside organizations.
Intergroup peace: the absence of intergroup conflict and the condition of harmony between groups.
Interracial peace: the absence of conflict between races; the condition of harmony within a race.
Inter-racial harmony: The lack of conflict between different ethnic groups.
Intranational peace: The absence of conflict in any nation or country; the condition of peace inside nations or countries.
International peace: the state of harmony existing between states; the lack of conflict on a global scale.
Global peace: harmony among all nations. It shows that there are no wars or conflicts, justice is served, and there is a balance of power among nations worldwide.

The World Council’s classification of curriculum and instruction elaborates on the sub-characteristics of internal and exterior peace. It clarifies the beginning and end of peace, as well as the relationship between internal and exterior peace.

Furthermore, peace is still classified into two sorts based on its aspect: negative peace and positive peace.

Negative peace is defined as the lack of war, conflict, hostility, agitation, disturbance, dispute or quarrel, struggle, violence, terrorism, civil strife or civil tumult, social disorder, and the absence of mental disturbances such as anxiety, concern, restlessness, etc.

Positive peace refers to a state of tranquility, calm, repose, silence, harmony, friendliness, amity, concord, peaceful or amicable relations, public order, pacification, spiritual content, reconciliation, serenity, security, social justice, and bliss.

Characterizing peace as positive or negative is an attempt to find a positive or creative meaning of peace. Because peace scholars argue that emphasizing the absence of war or conflicts is insufficient and limiting. Peace shown just on the negative side is not creative. Peace is a wonderful and valuable term, but it should also have a positive and creative side. This is because the absence of fighting does not imply the presence of peace. With the presence of peace (no war), what more can peace do to help establish a beautiful society? This is how the question of negative and positive peace came about.

Finally, peace is separated into two categories: internal peace and exterior peace, each with its own set of subcategories. Both internal and exterior peace are interdependent. Furthermore, peace can be classified as negative or positive peace, making its meaning and scope more broad, positive, and creative.

A brief history of Peacemaking and Peace movement

Peacemaking, in general, is a type of conflict resolution that focuses on establishing equal power relationships strong enough to prevent future conflict, as well as establishing some way of agreeing on ethical decisions within a previously conflicted group. However, in this context, peacemaking refers to peacemakers’ attempts to promote peace by any means necessary. The term “peace movement” has been given to a range of social movements, including pacifism, an antiwar movement, an anti-arm race movement, social justice, and human rights movements, all of which strive to bring about peace between two or more nations.

More exactly, a peace movement is a prolonged, organized effort by groups of people to prevent a war from breaking out, to stop an ongoing war, and to construct a peaceful and just society.

For the peace movement and peacemaking could complement each other. For this reason, the researcher will not state each one separately in order to obtain a history of peace movements from antiquity to the present.

Peace initiatives over time

A) Ancient Greece and Rome

The many distinct areas that made up Ancient Greece’s city-states. The city-states fought each other on a regular basis. Consequently, a few of them banded together to create an organization that spearheaded one of the first attempts to restrict fighting.

It was forbidden for any member of this organization, called the Amphictyonic League21, to damage or cut off another person’s water supply. The Olympic Games brought the city-states together every four years. The games were made possible by a truce that brought about a brief state of tranquility throughout Greece.

No one could carry a weapon or engage in combat for a month. A large portion of the world was at peace under the Roman Empire during the Pax Romana. From 27 BC to 180 AD, there was peace for more than 200 years. The Roman Empire ruled over most of Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa during the Pax Romana.

No other country at the time was powerful enough to oppose the Romans. The two guiding principles of government enabled this amazing achievement. The Greek idea of ruler generosity, which placed a higher priority on the well-being of the populace and the distribution of benefits, was carried over to the Roman Empire.

B) The Middle Ages

With the fall of the Roman Empire in the 400s A.D., little conflicts erupted throughout Europe. The Christian church rose to prominence as the most potent agent of peace. Religious tradition known as the Truce of God restricted private disputes to particular days of the week. Fighting was forbidden in places of worship, like churches and shrines, according to the Peace of God ruling. But the church approved of “just” wars—those fought to protect a people’s territory or Christianity, for example.

C) From the 1400’s to the 1700’s

Numerous strategies for establishing lasting peace have been put forth. For instance, French statesman Maximilien de Bethune, Duke of Sully, created a “Grand Design” for peace in Europe at the beginning of the 1600s. Sully’s plan called for the establishment of a council with representatives from every nation in Europe. The council would settle international issues.

Dutch statesman Hugo Grotius proposed universal standards of behavior in his 1625 book On the Law of War and Peace. States ought to, for instance, ensure that neutral countries who abstained from hostilities are granted certain rights. International law was founded on the ideas of Grotius.

The Treaty of Westphalia marked the end of the Thirty Years’ War, which took place between European nations between 1618 and 1648. This pact established a balance of power in an effort to bring about peace.

This paradigm makes sure that states have an equal share of economic and military power. Therefore, no nation or combination of nations is strong enough to vanquish another nation or group.

The English religious leader George Fox established the Society of Friends, who are now more often known as Quakers, in or around 1647. This sect believed that Jesus Christ’s teachings prohibited war. Quakers have supported peace initiatives and opposed war throughout history. The Quaker leader William Penn, who founded the colony of Pennsylvania, offered a peace plan modeled off Sully’s “grand design.” An Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe is a book that Penn wrote (1693). He suggested forming an international council to address domestic issues.

French clergyman Abbe Charles Irenee Castel de Saint-Pierre wrote The Project for Perpetual Peace, which was published in 1713. It suggested creating a “Senate of Europe” with 24 representatives from various European nations. The idea was rejected by the French philosopher Voltaire because it would have resulted in the member states becoming monarchs. Voltaire believed that unless every country adopted democracy, there could be no international peace.

D) The 1800’s and early 1900’s

Two American peace organizations were founded in 1815. David Low Dodge established the New York Peace Society in August, which was the first. It was theologically based, wholly pacifist, and opposed all forms of combat.

The Massachusetts Peace Society was founded in December by Noah Worcester. These are the first two peacekeeping groups in the country. There were also other pacifist groups that arose, such as the Universal Peace Union in 1866 and the American Peace Society in 1828. The Peace Society was established in Britain in 1816, just like the London Peace Society. Furthermore, the German Peace Society was established in 1892, after the French Peace Society in 1889.

Peacekeeping was the subject of several international accords throughout the 1800s. London hosted the first World Peace Conference in 1843. Subsequently, conferences were held in 1848, 1849, and 1850 in Frankfurt, Germany, Brussels, Belgium, and Paris.

Russian Tsar Nicholas II called an international conference in 1898 to discuss arms control. Consequently, in 1899 and 1907, peace conferences were convened in The Hague, Netherlands. The goal of limiting armament was not achieved by these agreements. Nonetheless, the Permanent Court of Arbitration was founded in order to settle disputes involving international law. Andrew Carnegie donated $1.5 million in 1899 to help build the Peace Palace in The Hague, which would house the Permanent Court of Arbitration in a suitable setting.

The inventor of dynamite, Alfred B. Nobel (1833–1896), a Swedish chemist, apologized on November 27, 1895, for the deaths and injuries caused by his invention during World War I.

He left a fund in his will that would be used to award prizes every year, one of which would be for exceptional efforts to advance world peace. The first Nobel Peace Prize was given in 1901 to Frederic Passy (French) for starting a French peace movement and to Jean Henri Dunant (Swiss) for creating the Geneva Convention and the Red Cross.

Jean De Bloch, a Polish-Russian businessman, founded the International Museum of War and Peace in Lucerne, Switzerland, in 1902 with the goal of promoting peace and showing the devastating effects of conflict.

Edwin Ginn’s inventiveness and good fortune led to the establishment of the World Peace Foundation in 1910 in Boston, America, with the goal of fostering global peace and collaboration. The Foundation works to promote wise action, analysis, and research in the sake of peace.

The start of World War I (1914–1918) was both a devastating blow to all peace campaigners and a driving force behind the creation of the contemporary peace movement. because the peace movement was severely divided by World War I. Current peace societies were either indifferent to or sympathetic to the Allied cause.

Restless pacifists, however, created a number of new peace movement organizations in an attempt to bring an end to the war: the American Union Against Militarism in 1916; the Fellowship of Reconciliation in 1914; the Women’s Peace Party in 1915 (which subsequently gave rise to the Women’s International Peace and Freedom, the first feminist-pacifist organization to emerge in the transnational drive for peace and justice) and so on.

The League of Nations was founded in January 1920 with its main office located in Geneva, Switzerland, as a consequence of the signing of the Versailles Peace Treaty on June 28, 1919, following the conclusion of World War I in 1918. The goal of this international organization was to uphold world peace.

The League Council would handle international disputes or resort to arbitration, which is a decision rendered by a third party. But the United States and a few other major powers’ refusal to join the League of Nations contributed to the organization’s lack of strength. Members of the League were also unable to collaborate well.

Recent energies to guarantee peace

Since the end of World War II in 1945, numerous initiatives have been made to guarantee international peace for the long term. I shall highlight only the year’s most important peace-related events in this piece.

The establishment of an international organization tasked with mediating national disputes peacefully was given new life after World War II.

Fifty nations came together in 1945 to form the United Nations (UN), the largest international organization in the world devoted to promoting peace. In 1946, the League of Nations was dissolved. International disputes are examined by the UN Security Council, which also makes recommendations for resolution.

The council has the authority to punish a country economically if it poses a threat to international peace. Member nations might, for instance, stop doing business with the offender. In the event that these initiatives fall short, the council can ask UN members to send forces to enforce its ruling.

In some cases, the UN has been successful in keeping the peace. It hasn’t, however, been able to stop regional strife in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa.

After World War II, peace studies became a popular academic subject. Manchester College, a small liberal arts college backed by the brethren church, in North Manchester, Indiana, launched the first academic program in peace studies in 1948.

Concurrently, scholars and academicians in India were endorsing Gandhian research as a means of imparting the concept of nonviolence to the youth. To formally acknowledge peace studies, the US government founded the Institute of Peace in the same year. In 1959, Galtung established the Oslo-based International Peace Research Institute (PRIO). The primary goal of PRIO, an international research institution, is to conduct studies on the prerequisites for amicable relations between states and parties.

John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps in 1961 as the independent foreign volunteer organization of the US government. In the Peace Corps, both men and women work to improve the lives of those living in developing countries. The main objectives of the corps include

(1) to assist the needy in obtaining basic necessities,

(2) to promote global peace, and

(3) to develop understanding between Americans and people from other countries.

From the 1960s through the early 1970s, a powerful coalition of American peace organizations opposed the war and advocated for peace during the Vietnam War (1957–1975). Many groups organized against the war, including traditional pacifists, clergy, university students, leaders of the civil rights movement, feminist activists, politicians, regular citizens, and Vietnam War veterans. Both the North and South Vietnamese governments, as well as Presidents Johnson and Nixon, were impacted by the movements.

It advocated for diplomacy, prevented the Pentagon from advancing the war as intended, and ultimately led to the US withdrawal from Vietnam. On May 16, 1967, Nhat Chi Mai, a Buddhist nun, self-immolated in Vietnam to demand peace.

Beyond the fight for peace inside each faith, there is an effort in the field of religion for peace to work together to help create world peace. The World Conference on Religions and Peace was the organization behind this endeavor. October 16–21, 1970, saw the International Conference Hall in Kyoto, Japan host the first World Conference on Religions and Peace. The former organization’s goal is carried out by the World Conference of Religions for Peace (WCRP).

An interfaith group devoted to religious dialogue and collaboration is called the World Conference of Religions for Peace. It is the largest international coalition of peace-promoting representatives from the major world religions.

Religious women’s organizations from Bahá’í, Buddhism, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Multifaith, Indigenous, Sikh, and Zoroastrian faiths are among the many faiths represented among its members. Every five years, the WCRP organizes an international conference to discuss contemporary issues.

In order to provide humanity with an international institution of higher education for peace and to foster the spirit of understanding, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence among all human beings, the United Nations established the University for Peace (UPEACE) in Costa Rica in 1980. The university’s name serves as a symbol of peace and recognition of Costa Rica as a nation that works to create peaceful atmospheres and conditions in a variety of ways. To promote initiatives that strengthen public awareness, strengthen peace defenses, and inspire individuals to work for peace, UNESCO established the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education in 1980.

The International Day of Peace, also known as Peace Day, was instituted by the United Nations in 1981 with the aim of fostering peace and offering a platform for individuals, groups, and countries to participate in constructive acts of peace on a shared day.

The following September, 1982, was the first Peace Day. Global peace movements were successful in designating their nations as nuclear-free zones in 1984. The Pacific region saw particularly great success with the nuclear-free zone initiative.

An international campaign against the Soviet Union and the United States deploying cruise missiles launched from the sea was spearheaded by the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement. The movement in New Zealand was so successful that, in spite of strong lobbying from US officials, it convinced a new government to forbid US ships from entering its ports.

The bulk of resources were directed toward local and national goals, even if some nuclear disarmament initiatives had global and transnational objectives.

A UN-sponsored agreement banning the development, deployment, transfer, and storage of chemical weapons was signed by 125 nations in 1993. Agreements go into force in 1997. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was ratified by the UN in 1996 with the intention of ending the testing of nuclear weapons.

In order for the agreement to take effect, all countries that own nuclear reactors—i.e., machines that produce nuclear energy—must have their legislatures approve it.

The agreement is opposed by India and Pakistan, two of these nations. The nations that have ratified the pact are expected to abide by it, even if Pakistan and India choose not to.

The chronology provided above demonstrates the various efforts people have made to promote global peace in society throughout history. Small groups of people founded the organization to stop war between Greek states.

By building a powerful kingdom, individuals tried to keep the peace during the Roman era. Under the auspices of the Truce of God, religion was employed by people in the Middle Ages to promote peace in Europe, where Christianity ruled.

Individuals and groups made various attempts to bring about peace: they came up with peace plans, wrote books about how to bring about permanent peace, established the Peace Prize and Peace Museum, established peace societies, started the World Peace Conference, which resulted in the creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the World Peace Foundation, and the League of Nations.

People have tried in many different ways to uphold and establish peace after the end of World War II. They established the United Nations, which continues to this day to carry out peacekeeping operations.

In terms of education, they started adding peace studies to the curricula of many colleges and universities, founded centers dedicated to peace research and study, and even constructed the University of Peace.

In an effort to foster interfaith harmony, the religious movement organized the World Conference on Religion and Peace. They drafted multiple accords restricting the spread and dissemination of general arms, nuclear weapons, and chemical weapons in an effort to eradicate dangerous weapons that pose a threat to societal peace.

Peace concepts

Peace is something that interests everyone. Everyone is aware of peace; if it had prevailed on Earth, it would have brought happiness and made our world a paradise for all people. Consequently, individuals contemplate serenity in great detail and endeavor to learn more about it before bringing it into reality.

There are many different peace ideas and ideologies as a result of the study and pursuit of peace. The researcher will discuss some of the most prominent peace ideas in addition to peace notions that have been studied in a variety of fields.

Since peace is a concept that is extensively researched and does not exist in a vacuum, various ideas and points of view regarding peace come to light. To aid readers in understanding peace and the fields that study it, the ideas of human rights for peace, justice for peace, nonviolence for peace, peace education, peace culture, gender, peace media, and peace environment are offered here.

1 The concept/notion of human rights for peace

Human rights are essential liberties and rights that belong to every person, irrespective of their gender, race, nationality, ethnic background, religion, language, or any other status. It is believed that all people have equal rights just by virtue of being human, and that human rights are universal and egalitarian. These rights may be recognized by national and international law as legal or natural rights.

Global public policy has been based on the doctrine of human rights, which is reflected in international practice, international law, global and regional institutions, state policies, and the work of non-governmental organizations. In international public discourse, human rights are frequently invoked as a common moral language during times of peace.

Following World War II and the Holocaust, a number of the core ideas that drove the movement surfaced. These culminated in the 1948 approval of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN General Assembly in Paris. The early modern era saw the secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics in Europe and the emergence of the modern idea of human rights.

The idea of natural rights, which originated in the medieval Natural law tradition and gained popularity during the Enlightenment with philosophers like John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, was the real precursor of the discourse on human rights. It also played a significant role in the political discourse surrounding the American and French revolutions.

In the latter half of the 20th century, this foundation gave rise to the present human rights movement.

Political debate and social action in numerous countries have elevated gelling to the top of the international agenda. By the twenty-first century, the human rights movement, according to Moyn, had moved beyond its core anti-totalitarianism to encompass humanitarianism and the social and economic advancement of Third World nations.

Human rights and peace are intrinsically related; without peace, human rights cannot be realized or safeguarded, and without peace, peace cannot be achieved. A peace devoid of human rights would be brittle and imperfect.

If someone’s human rights are violated, it is impossible to say that they are living in peace because institutional and systemic violence is the very reverse of peace. Similarly, without peace, human rights cannot be achieved; in addition to violating civilians’ and military personnel’s rights, war also breeds additional abuses including censorship, denial of civil freedoms, torture, rape, and summary executions.

Among the human rights that can be practically examined is the right to peace. In other words, everyone has the right to live in harmony and without fear of violence. In addition, the objectives of the peace and human rights movements coincide, and their approaches overlap. Peace and human rights are intrinsically intertwined and cannot be separated.

2 Concept of justice for peace

Moral correctness grounded in natural law, ethics, logic, law, religion, fairness, or equity is referred to as justice. The right people and things in the right sequence within a society are the focus of justice. This idea has been the subject of intellectual, legal, and theological study and discourse throughout history.

The majority of modern perspectives on justice hold that it is crucially vital. John Rawls argues that justice, like truth in cognitive systems, is the central virtue of social institutions.

One could argue that justice is more important and distinct from kindness, generosity, charity, and compassion. Justice has historically been associated with ideas like fate, rebirth, and divine providence, or living in accordance with the cosmic scheme. Because of this, the relationship between justice and fairness has been uncommon historically and culturally, and it may be essentially a modern invention (in Western civilizations).

Different types of justice exist. Punishment is future-focused in utilitarianism, a kind of consequentialism. An action’s moral worth is determined by its outcome, which is supported by the possibility of future social advantages like a decrease in crime.

Retributive justice ensures that punishment is applied justly and is viewed as morally just and completely justified by governing a proportionate reaction to crime that is shown by reliable evidence.

A military theory of retributive justice known as the law of retribution (lex talionis) holds that “life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe”—reciprocity must equal the harm inflicted. The two main objectives of restorative justice are:

(a) replenishing the victim’s energy and

(b) reintegrating the criminal into the community.

This tactic often reunites an offender and victim, enabling the offender to have a deeper understanding of the victim’s reaction to the offense. The equitable allocation of resources—wealth, power, respect, and rewards—among different groups of people is the focus of distributive justice.

Different cultures have different conceptions of justice; these conceptions are usually derived from shared mythology, history, and/or religion. The ethics of every culture produce values that mold the idea of justice. A sense of cohesive justice cannot be created by the universality of some justice ideas, which apply to all or most cultures.

Since justice is concerned with the proper arrangement of individuals and things within a community, it is crucial to establishing both domestic and international peace. There would be a lot of problems and no harmony in society without justice. If everyone is not treated equally, true peace will never be achieved.

This is the meaning behind the statement made by Pope Paul VI, “If you want peace, work for justice.” Seeking justice also means seeking peace. Gandhi also said that justice must be upheld by non-armed nations against insurmountable odds if peace is to be attained, not by a clash of weapons. The only way to bring about peace is via justice.

Since many peace experts define positive peace as the existence of justice, peace and justice are closely intertwined. Moreover, it is well acknowledged that justice and peace are two sides of the same coin. Because of this, we cannot expect peace unless we act justly first. One-sided peace is not possible. We have to seek justice if we are sincere about wanting peace. There is always tranquility when justice is served. As a result, peace and justice are linked. Serving one employer entails serving another.

3 Notion of non-violence for peace

Nonviolence has two closely connected meanings.

(1) It may have to do with the more general idea of abstaining from violence for ethical or spiritual purposes.

(2) It can be used to describe actions taken by people that don’t include violence. A large portion of the general concept of nonviolence is “active” or “activist,” acknowledging that struggle is necessary to bring about social and political change.

Gandhian ahimsa, for instance, is a philosophy and method of social transformation that opposes the use of violence while also seeing nonviolent action, sometimes referred to as civil resistance, as an alternative to either fighting armed tyranny head-on or accepting it passively. Adherents of an activist philosophy of nonviolence generally use a range of strategies in their campaigns for social change, such as nonviolent direct action, mass noncooperation civil disobedience, critical forms of education and persuasion, and social, political, cultural, and economic intervention.

Nonviolent acts are motivated by political analysis, religious or ethical principles, and both. While political nonviolence is referred to as tactical, strategic, or pragmatic nonviolence, religious or ethically based nonviolence is also known as principled, philosophical, or ethical nonviolence. Both of these traits are typically present in the minds of particular movements or people.

Philosophical nonviolence’s primary tenet is love for the enemy, or the acknowledgment of everyone’s humanity. Instead of defeating the enemy, this nonviolent approach seeks to win them over and promote mutual love and understanding.

These days, nonviolent action strategies grounded on the philosophy of nonviolence have shown to be a potent tool for social protest and revolutionary social and political change. There are a lot of instances where they are used. Mahatma Gandhi led a decade-long, nonviolent campaign in India against British rule, which eventually contributed to the country’s 1947 independence.

Martin Luther King achieved civil rights for African Americans by emulating Gandhi’s nonviolent strategy. In the 1960s, César Chávez organized nonviolent protests against the abuse of California’s farm laborers. One of the most important of the largely peaceful Revolutions of 1989 was the “Velvet Revolution” in Czechoslovakia, which led to the fall of the Communist regime.

Nonviolence has grown in importance as a problem-solving tactic since it has been shown to be a successful way to resolve social disputes in earlier ages. Nonviolence is linked to peace and seen as a path to peace when it is the only way to address issues and bring about social change.

For this reason, peace and nonviolence go hand in hand. Achieving peace requires nonviolence as a first step. Furthermore, nonviolence can be practiced through recognizing peace as a goal in and of itself. We refer to it as “peaceful means.” In several respects, peaceful methods are the same as peaceful strategies or actions. This point of view equates nonviolent strategies with peaceful measures.

4 Concept of peace tutoring

The word “peace education” is broad and may be challenging to define. In other words, peace education gives students the information, abilities, attitudes, and morals needed to put an end to injustice and violence and foster a culture of peace.

According to Ian Harris and John Synott, peace education consists of a sequence of “teaching encounters” that take into account people’s desire for peace, peaceful ways to resolve conflicts, and critical examination of the institutional arrangements that result in and justify injustice and inequality.

According to James Page, peace education entails “encouraging a commitment to peace as a settled disposition and enhancing the confidence of the individual as an individual agent of peace; as informing the student on the consequences of war and social injustice; as informing the student on the value of peaceful and just social structures and working to uphold or develop such social structures; as encouraging the student to love the world and to imagine a peaceful future.”

Rather than being explicitly stated, the ideology or philosophy of peace education is frequently inferred. Despite the clear need for one, Johan Galtung argued in 1975 that there was no theory for peace education. Attempts to create such a theory have been undertaken more recently.

Joachim James Calleja suggests that peace education could be grounded on the Kantian philosophy of obligation. James Page posits that there are several ethical frameworks that support peace education, including consequentialist ethics, virtue ethics, aesthetic ethics, and the ethics of care.

Programs for peace education have been around since the early 20th century, and their themes have included anti-nuclearism, understanding of other countries, environmental responsibility, non-violence, conflict resolution, democracy, awareness of human rights, tolerance of diversity, coexistence, and gender equality.

Some academics have also talked about the spiritual side of inner harmony or included some of the aforementioned difficulties into courses on global citizenship. The need for a more comprehensive and all-encompassing approach to peace education has been acknowledged in scholarly discourse; however, an examination of field-based initiatives indicates that conflict resolution training, democracy education, and human rights education are the three most prevalent forms of peace education.

Some of the theoretical underpinnings of the models that have been previously outlined are being called into question by novel techniques. Among these new approaches, the most prominent one highlights peace education as a means of changing one’s perspective.

5 Notion of a culture of peace

After the Cold War ended, the idea of a Culture of Peace began to take shape. For the first time, the end of war—the purpose for which the United Nations was established—seemed attainable.

Since its founding in the years following World War II, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, has been engaged in initiatives to develop a Culture of Peace and strengthen men’s and women’s mental defenses against violence.

The phrase “culture of peace” was first used at the International Congress on Peace in the Minds of Men, which was held in Africa. The Congress requested in its final resolution that UNESCO support the development of a peace culture founded on universal principles like equality for men and women, life, liberty, justice, solidarity, tolerance, and human rights in order to help create a new vision of peace. The goal of a culture of peace is to change people’s beliefs, attitudes, and actions so that peace, not violence or conflict, becomes the dominant force in the society.

Human security is included in the definition of security in a culture of peace, in addition to state security. Rather than wealth, power, and dominance, the goals and achievements of our leaders will be determined by peace, inclusivity, respect, integrity, and healing (of the individual, family, community, and nation). The country will have moved away from low levels of citizen political participation and toward strong non-democratic institutions like the military, the information industry, and corporations. Instead, it will have developed a global economy based on localism, regular, well-attended elections, a government code of ethics, a thorough justice system, civic engagement, public participation, and education for all.

By then, the value system will have changed from using power as a benchmark (combined with a lack of vision) to using community as a benchmark, where the welfare of all residents will be prioritized over the narrow interests of a select few. By then, the idea of community will have expanded to encompass all living things that are related, cooperative, mutually helpful, and in the air, water, soil, wind, fish, birds, plants, and soil.

A culture of peace is characterized by a persistent nonviolent attitude and a strong commitment to upholding human rights and dignity. There will always be a place for peace in the political system, the economy, and educational systems. Peace will be the foundation of relationships, sports, and the media. The norm will be one of morality, unity, hope, and endurance. Tolerance, open-mindedness, sustainability, democracy, and involvement are essential values.

This culture places a high importance on cooperation, a clear grasp of interconnectedness, and global knowledge and perspective. The foundation of a culture of peace is made up of the ideas of empowerment and liberation, as well as the values of accountability and sharing of knowledge.

Intercultural understanding is the foundation of a peaceful culture because it fosters sustained dialogue, cross-cultural interactions, and a shared desire for peace. Strong pillars of a peaceful society are empathy, mutual support, and unwavering respect for human rights and dignity.

The pursuit of justice, freedom, nonviolence, equity, equality, and a critical analysis of the status quo are the cornerstones of a culture of peace. Building a healthy culture requires respecting the value of history, the arts, and peoples’ personal experiences.

6 Notion of peace gender

One important area of study in modern peacebuilding is gender relations. For a considerable time, feminist academics have maintained that social relationships based on patriarchy and gender inequality are the primary causes of organized violence.

They note that organized communal violence has not been widespread in the few cultures where women have held significant cultural and spiritual dominance.

While historians, sociologists, and anthropologists may differ over the details of these claims, it is undeniable that women are often the unwitting victims of violence and war, suffering from rape, torture, murder, dehumanization, and homelessness.

Codes of chivalrous behavior in warfare, which in previous centuries sought to protect women’s lives during wartime, seem to have collapsed in the twentieth century due to technological mass-bombings, total warfare, holocausts, guerrilla and terrorist attacks, and fratricidal civil wars that blurred the lines between the home front and the battlefield. Men and women alike were dragged without distinction into the Auschwitz execution chambers.

While male aggression may have begun when the human species was securing its dominant place in the zoological food chain, many academics contend that this trait is now outdated and atavistic and should be directed toward socially and spiritually constructive endeavors.

Women’s studies, a relatively new academic field, has recognized that women have often pioneered nonviolent alternatives to violence and encouraged their male colleagues to pursue cultural and political goals. As such, it has made significant contributions to the history of women as peacemakers and peacebuilders.

Much of the work and accomplishments of the peace movement would not have been possible without the leadership of women pioneers in a variety of forms and capacities, such as Florence Nightingale, Bertha Von Suttner, Fannie Andrews, and official organizations like the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Several important studies on the horrifying violence that women frequently face at home have been conducted, underscoring the vital need to highlight the links between women’s rights issues and peacemaking concerns.

Researchers in the subject of men’s studies are making an effort to look at the dynamics and pressures that male behavior—whether in the form of structured military formations, dysfunctional family roles, armed gangs and vandalism, or covert fraternities of violent criminals—that result in violent behavior. The men’s movement contends that rather than violence and the desecration of the feminine, a new masculine self-image that seeks self-worth and gender fulfillment through creative co-partnership and responsibility between the sexes can be developed. This alternative ethic is one of nurturing and generative compassion.

In order to restore the capacity for love, creativity, compassion, and mutual respect—all of which are fundamental to gender relations and sexuality—and to heal the brokenness and abuse surrounding these issues, both men and women engage in this groundbreaking work in both formal academic settings and informal extracurricular workshop settings. Several creative organizations have focused on promoting peace between the sexes.

7 Notion of peace media

The mass media’s influence on how people view war, violence, and the process of establishing peace is a twentieth-century phenomenon. The two most significant mass media platforms are television and radio, both of which are byproducts of highly developed technological communications systems.

Modern warfare now includes using media control to disseminate propaganda against the adversary. This tactic was crucial to the Second World War and the Cold War that ensued on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Both democracies and dictatorships made considerable efforts, whether overtly or secretly, to exert intellectual and cultural hegemony over the views of the general people, realizing the importance of public opinion and the media in creating this new power.

Unsurprisingly, a lot of sensible people have also voiced their support for leveraging the vast knowledge and communication capabilities offered by contemporary media to advance peace. Television producers have not backed down from their obligation to show the horrors of war, whether in Vietnam or in other conflicts. Their powerful images have succeeded in creating a public consciousness that helped bring about the end of the Cold War as a whole with the Treaty of Paris in 1990.

The film industry has also had a significant impact on the formation of attitudes. It has produced countless violent and war-themed movies that merely serve to highlight the more aggressive aspects of human nature. It has also produced a small number of extremely important but rare movies that attempt to expose the horror and futility of war as well as the pressing need for peacebuilding in the contemporary era.

Films such as “Oh, what a Lovely War,” “Gandhi,” “Dances with Wolves,” “The Shadow makers,” “All the President’s Men,” and numerous others have utilized the medium’s capabilities to share with large audiences the inner workings of systematic violence and to demonstrate that alternative approaches to peacebuilding are attainable through human determination and creativity.

There is currently debate among academics, media experts, and legislators regarding the harmful effects of violent movies and videos on susceptible minds. Unquestionably, a far larger percentage of produced and broadcast movies, videos, and television shows promote violence and warfare than the reverse; those that actually try to demonstrate different strategies, praising peacemaking above conquest and victory, are few and far between. More successful colonization might benefit peacemakers and peacebuilders in this underdeveloped nation.

8 Notion of peace environment

178 nations signed the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It signifies the official recognition by the international community of states of the connection between environmental protection, human welfare, and peace. Investigations into the relationship between peace and development, which reached their zenith in the 1980s with the writings of Galtung (1989), Hettne (1983), and Sĸrensen (1985), as well as with initiatives like the Brandt Report (Independent Commission on International Development Issues (ICIDI) 1983) and the Palme Report (Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues (ICDSI) 1982), have provided a common intellectual and policy basis for environmental security and peace.

Concurrent with these procedures were attempts to include environmental concerns into development. This can be said to have started with the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) in Stockholm, which led to a number of intergovernmental summits and investigations that occasionally combined with separate studies into common security and development. These efforts culminated in the 1987 report Our Common Future by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was made possible by the WCED report, which also popularized the terms “sustainable development” and “environmental security.”

Even when it comes to rivers that are shared by several nations, environmental concerns have not and are unlikely to be the cause of international war. Instead, in countries where governance systems are changing, inequality is high, and socio-ecological systems are especially vulnerable to environmental change, there may be a greater chance of violent conflict and societal instability. Strong governments with high trade/GDP ratios are less dependent on natural resources for employment and revenue, less likely to experience internal conflict, and more capable of managing environmental degradation.

In resource-dependent civilizations overseen by weak states, environmental changes can impact the distribution of natural and economic capital among individuals and small groups, giving rise to grievances and ultimately to bloodshed. Pre-existing vertical (class), horizontal (spatial), and age-based disparities are usually the root cause of these problems. For instance, Bobrow-Strain has detailed how land conflicts emerged in a Chiapas district as a result of uneven effects from lower agricultural output brought on by shifting political and economic circumstances.

Timura has also argued that conflicts in Ghana’s Guinea Fowl War, Para, Brazil, and Mexico were caused by unequal access to political and economic resources. Thus, it has been fairly well demonstrated that environmental change can raise the risk of direct violence within, if not between, states; and if this is the case, then preventing environmental change or improving people’s ability to adapt to it is necessary to ensure freedom from direct violence, at least in societies with limited resources in weak states.

However, while environmental change does not raise the danger of violent conflict in isolation, it is critical to address other major social issues that are commonly connected with structural violence. Furthermore, there is an association between environmental transformation and positive peace.

The progressive removal of restrictions placed on individual and community security by local environmental variables has been one of the defining themes in the history of Western civilization. The use of fossil fuels, technology, trade, industrialization, occupational specialization, and higher levels of social organization mean that in modern societies, animals, droughts, floods, frosts, infections, storms, and other environmental perturbations have far fewer effects on mortality, morbidity, and social disruption.

This does not, however, lessen the risks that environmental change poses to public safety. Human security is threatened by factors such as declining primary forest cover, biodiversity losses, declining fish stocks, land degradation, water pollution and scarcity, coastal and marine degradation, radioactive and chemical contamination of people, plants, and animals, climate change, and sea level rise. However, developing countries are more vulnerable to these changes than developed ones.

There is now a wealth of evidence supporting the categorization of environmental change as a form of structural violence due to its effects on human well-being. The natural systems of the planet have never before been subjected to the historical pressures of advanced industrial capitalism, which has led to societal injustices of a scale and scope never seen before. Due to the resultant effects, people’s economic, cultural, spiritual, and social needs and values are in jeopardy due to environmental changes of such a size and magnitude, excessive consumption and waste generation in the industrialized world, and poverty and debt in the industrializing world. Environmental problems that societies are currently grappling with include deforestation, land degradation, water pollution and scarcity, loss of biodiversity, and climate change.

These modifications may make systemic violence—such as poverty—that already exists worse. For instance, a drop in fish abundance can harm small-scale fishermen’s income and nutrition, a change in soil moisture can negatively impact low-income subsistence farming households’ ability to feed their families, and a decline in surface or groundwater quality can endanger the health of mothers and children in areas without reticulated water supplies.

These kinds of environmental changes have been shown in numerous studies to have a significant effect on peaceful living. For instance, according to estimates from the World Health Organization, 154,000 deaths annually are already attributed to climate change (in 2002, by contrast, 155,000 people died in conflict). Case examples from the Pacific Islands, Ethiopia, the Niger Delta, South Asia, and Northern Pakistan demonstrate the effects of the environment.

As a result, peace and environmental security are interdependent, and none can be achieved without the other. The causes of environmental change must be addressed in order to prevent environmental insecurity since they expose communities to changes in the quantity, quality, and distribution of the resources they depend on. Furthermore, as both institutional and direct violence are major contributors to and drivers of environmental change vulnerability, they both need to be addressed.

Peace Philosophies

Peace theories are divided into two categories: those based on the name of the theory and those based on an individual’s point of view. Only a few notable theories are covered here, including the democratic peace theory and Johan Galtung’s Peace Theory.

1 The democratic peace theory

One of the most seductive, powerful, and divisive theories of our day is that representative liberal democracies may lessen the chance of violence. Scholars have maintained for decades that there would be peace in a world run by democratic governments. According to Immanuel Kant’s 1795 dissertation Perpetual Peace, democracies are less warlike. This idea has become more popular, especially in the US. This idea has been adopted by presidents like Woodrow Wilson, who has pushed for the establishment of democracies in order to reduce violence in the world. “Totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples…undermine the foundation of international peace and hence security of the United States,” declared Harry S. Truman.

The Democratic Peace Theory has multiple pillars supporting it. According to the first, voters will restrain elected officials in democracies. This is an attempt to make the case that, given the choice, individuals will choose not to bear the costs of battle in terms of both financial gain and human life. Second, a lot of people think that democracies would settle internal disputes through political institutions.

They will therefore be more inclined to use international institutions (such the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, G-8 Summits, and so on) to settle disputes with other democracies when they arise. Some contend that citizens of democracies are taught that violence is not an appropriate means of resolving disputes and that instead, democracies promote a political culture of discussion and conciliation. According to the notion, if a leader who is prone to war comes to power in a democracy, other institutions, like Congress, will act as cross-pressures, or in this case, checks and balances, to keep an aggressive head of state from pushing a nation into war.

Lastly, it is believed that citizens in democracies are more accepting and understanding of those of other democracies. Therefore, democracy is thought to be a solution to conflict, regardless of the cause—common laws, institutional restraints, respect for one another, or public will. In the 1970s, researchers started examining this concept using social science approaches, and they found a wealth of empirical data to support their findings. The Democratic Peace Theory has been the subject of scholarly writing by more than a hundred writers to date.

Only 12 of the 416 nation-to-nation battles that had place between democracies between 1816 and 1980 were found to be fought between them, according to one analysis. “Established democracies fought no wars against one another during the entire twentieth century,” claims Bruce Russett. One more proponent found that there is less than 0.5 percent chance that two democracies will fight each other!

That is not to say that democracies have never fought; rather, there are very few examples of war between pairs (or dyads) of democracies. Research conducted over the past 40 years has consistently provided considerable support for this claim. Moreover, the results hold true when the number of democracies worldwide rises. As Jack Levy puts it, Democratic Peace Theory is “as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations.”

Politicians and the public in the West are becoming more interested in and expectant that we should pursue peace negotiations. This idea has become close to conventional wisdom and formed the cornerstone of political and moral campaigns. Most American leaders were then, as they are today, persuaded, according to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, that America had a special duty to advance its values as part of its commitment to world peace.

The Democratic Peace Theory has garnered substantial criticism in addition to its supporters. An early rejection of this notion is expressed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 6: “All four cities—Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage—were republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, were commercial.” However, they were often engaged in both offensive and defensive wars at the same time as neighboring monarchs. Rome was never content with slaughter and conquest, while Sparta was little more than a disciplined military force.”

Finding correlations has shown to be rather easy in modern research, but proving causation is more challenging. Regarding the reason why democracies are more peaceful, most researchers can’t agree. Moreover, scholars have cast doubt on the study, pointing out that different definitions of democracy, violence, and peace affect the statistics. The Big Mac Peace hypothesis cleverly refutes the democratic peace hypothesis by emphasizing that there has never been a conflict between two McDonald’s-owning nations. The premise states that rather than evaluating democracy, the experts are evaluating economic development. It is said by some those members of the solid middle class, or those who are content with their current circumstances, will not back a fight that jeopardizes their way of life.

On the other hand, the major actors may be powerful economic elites who oppose any action against a country where they have financial connections and where a war would imperil their financial interests. Therefore, the Democratic Peace Theory is only relevant between two highly evolved democracies, according to an intriguing study.

The results show that poor democracies are more prone to conflict with one another. Therefore, rather than democracy, it may be economic growth, global capitalism, and the interdependence of international trade that prevent war. More ardent opponents claim that sound science produces harmful policies.

Some worry that the findings might be used to support nations’ campaigns for democratization. The notion that peaceful people are a byproduct of democracies is one problem they draw attention to.

The execution of the Democratic Peace Theory is arguably the most difficult aspect: how do you create a global democracy? Here, there are two schools of thought: the first advocates actively working toward a world free of democracies, while the other takes a more passive approach. Thomas Jefferson argued for a strong, just republican government that would set an example for others in his early writings.

Probably the most challenging part of the Democratic Peace Theory is putting it into practice: how do you establish a worldwide democracy? Here, there are two schools of thought: the first adopts a more passive stance while actively promoting the goal of a world devoid of democracies. In his early writings, Thomas Jefferson called for a robust, just republican government that would serve as a model for others.

They essentially perceive the rise of democracy as an attempt to impose a global standard on everything, disregarding regional customs, native institutions, and even popular preferences. Because of this, people and authorities in many non-democratic nations regard this policy mandate as pretentious rhetoric rather than as a sign of their own emancipation. This also addresses the contentious question of whether armed democracy would be functional or if it would run counter to the ideas of peaceful conflict settlement. The possibility that democratically elected governments may fail to defend nonviolent objectives is another troubling concern.

Ultimately, there is strong support from both sides of the argument. While some view the push for democratic universalism as a hazardous and incorrect foreign policy, others see it as a powerful means of resolving interstate conflict. The conversation does make clear how difficult and time-consuming it is to construct democracies.

It is not enough to merely erect polling booths, conduct elections, and emerge with centrist Democrats and Republicans. It may take years or even decades to build the rule of law, civic culture, a strong and committed middle class, and the legitimacy of a democratic government.

According to Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder’s book Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War, transitional governments or semi-democratic regimes can be highly risky and lead to war. There is no guarantee that democratic institutions will be implemented smoothly, permanently, or accepted by a country’s political leaders or the general public. In reality, some historians argue that in the majority of recently established democracies (third-wave democracies), political institutions are weak, fragile, and easily reversible.

Maybe it’s good to keep in mind that the United States, which is usually seen as the model democracy, took nearly 200 years, a civil war, a violent civil rights movement, and women’s suffrage before we achieved universal suffrage and gave the majority of the population the ability to vote. Therefore, in transitional nations, it can take decades or even generations to ingrain deeply ingrained norms of tolerance, compromise, and the importance of power sharing.

The subject investigation is fascinating, which gives the author hope. However, this is cautious optimism since the scholarship needs to be applied with a beautiful tool and a profound understanding. It may be ineffective and even incite bloodshed to simply transplant Western democracy into places where the soil may not be fertile, pulling the weeds of non-democratic regimes by their roots. Policymakers often forget that for the Democratic Peace Theory to be valid, democracy itself needs to be real, strong, stable, and supported by economic growth.

2 Johan Gultong’s peace theory

The fact that the Democratic Peace Theory demands democracy to be genuine, strong, durable, and supported by economic advancement is often overlooked by policymakers. Galtung bases his concept of peace on the fundamental tenet that violence never exists. Galtung’s thesis functions as a philosophy of peace as well as a definition of violence in this way. This duality between violence and peace reduces the ongoing nature of social conditions to binary opposites, which makes people less aware of the far more dialectical—or, to use Boulding’s 1977 terminology, evolutionary—character of social change. Therefore, a definition of peace rather than the antithesis of violence may serve as the foundation of a peace theory.

Galtung’s notion of violence thus shapes his philosophy of peace. According to him, violence is the line that separates possibility from actuality, or what could have been and what is. This is obviously acceptable in cases of crude violence that inflict bodily harm on individuals or psychological harm on children, but it eventually calls for some evaluations of what is feasible in order to determine the appropriate degree of aggression. For instance, when we compare the life expectancy of Japanese women and the income of Luxembourg men to determine what is possible for women, we find that almost all women are impacted by violence.

Moreover, the metrics could change because the applications of science, technology, and government determine what is eventually possible, and these factors have all enlarged the bounds of possibility in most civilizations over time. What then is possible? The greatest that humanity can achieve is represented by Galtung’s potential, and anyone who does not profit from this best effort is the object of aggression. All people, wherever, now and in the future, however, should be able to attain peace since it is a universal goal (live as long as a Japanese woman and be as wealthy as a Luxembourgish man).

In actuality, this seems impossible as not all civilizations have been able to replicate the accumulation process that results in the greatest degrees of achievement in a sustainable (or ecologically sound) manner. In order to reach a point of convergence, a sustainable set of options will require a decrease in the levels of attainment of the wealthy and healthy and an increase in those of the poor, given the current income and health inequalities (to keep with these two measurements). It suggests that actions taken in the direction of a universally sustainable range of possibilities may be seen as hostile toward those whose existing situation goes beyond what is sustainable.

This is not to say that there is no value in Galtung’s concept of violence. His goal is to merely uncover elements of violence that are conceptually significant; he recognizes that both his prospective criteria and the concept of peace in general are problematic (Galtung, 1985). Instead, it indicates that it is challenging to operationalize a theory of violence that is predicated on the difference between what is and what could be.

It also suggests that since a theory of violence based on differences between people now might be grounded in what is already feasible, it might be more insightful. Furthermore, given the resources at hand, such a theory needs to clearly assess what is sustainable for each and every person. Galtung’s theory discusses structures rather than individuals. As an attempt to break out from the actor-oriented paradigm present in a great deal of Western social science, he puts this in writing. For instance, his theory of violence allows for the military-industrial complex while saying very nothing about the choices that individuals inside these institutions make. For instance, is a jobless immigrant who enlists in the army because he has no other options for employment an agent of violence? Is the difference in life expectancy between what they could have if they hadn’t smoked caused by agency (personal choice) or structure (circumstance, environment, tobacco marketing)?

Though agents can alter structures just as much as structures influence them, these issues draw attention to the flaws in many theories of violence. As a result, it’s important to try and place people in relation to the processes and factors that both influence and are influenced by them.

Galtung (1969) distinguished between two types of violence: systemic and personal. When someone harms another person, whether by a physical action like domestic abuse or warfare, it is referred to as personal violence. This is in line with the common belief that peace is defined as the absence of conflict and other violations of individual autonomy. Galtung calls the absence of overt aggression “negative peace.” With the possible exception of the just war question, this is the most evident and least contentious aspect of his peace theory.

Galtung’s theory of peace holds that violence is not limited to the absence of physical harm. According to him, structural violence is produced by unfair power structures that build unequal life possibilities and impede people from realizing their full potential rather than by actual physical harm. Thus, obstacles to people’s ability to reach their full potential in life include famine, unemployment, malnourishment, decreasing trade terms, and discrimination based on race or sexual orientation. These practices, among many others, could be classified as forms of structural violence. These patterns form in diverse ways on different people and systems, and they have histories and geographical origins.

Therefore, social justice and equality—also referred to as positive peace—are at the heart of structural violence. One limitation of Galtung’s theory is that, although complete equality is the goal, it may not be desirable or practically possible. Perhaps a metaphor rather than a theory would help us better understand structural violence. Galtung defines structural violence as a maximalist “agenda,” emphasizing the detrimental effects of unequal distribution of power and resources and acknowledging these as largely preventable but highly destructive social processes.

Boulding (1977) suggests that Galtung’s silence on the matter and the fact that it leaves open the question of how to redistribute power and resources stem from the fact that addressing the nature of transformation requires some thought to steering, hierarchy, and recognition of capabilities inequality—all of which run counter to Galtung’s strong preference for equality. To be clear, Galtung’s definition of structural violence is not the only one that exhibits this disregard for structural alteration; in fact, it is even desirable, given that ideas may result in manifestos that in turn may result in violent acts. However, further theories of social change—particularly those associated with development studies—may provide further light on the structural shift toward peace.

According to Galtung’s definition, there is no longer any institutionalized or overt violence. He notes that recent research into the relationships between war (direct violence), absolute poverty and vertical and horizontal inequalities (structural violence), famine (structural violence), and famine relief (which affects another type of structural violence) demonstrates the inextricable link between negative and positive peace.

Nevertheless, Boulding (1977) believes that the positive/negative peace dichotomy restricts thinking about peace by reducing its complicated and situational character to another duality. Galtung’s theory of structural violence is grounded in the mid-1970s basic needs approach to development, which focuses on meeting fundamental human needs.

Galtung therefore thinks that development and peace studies can both benefit from a foundational understanding of structural violence. Given their striking similarities, one should consider them to be opposite sides of the same coin. This provides a framework for considering development-related peace-related challenges.

A humane approach to international peace by Tibet’s 14th Dalai Lama

The same gloomy news greets us when we wake up in the morning and turn on the radio or open the newspaper: conflicts, violence, crime, and natural disasters. There was never a day that passed that I can recall without hearing some terrible news somewhere. It is evident that one’s precious life is not safe, even in these modern times. No previous generation has had to deal with as much negative news as we do right now; this ongoing sense of unease and anxiety ought to cause any sensitive and caring individual to seriously doubt the advancement of our contemporary society.

It’s strange that the most industrialized societies experience the most serious problems. Although science and technology have made amazing advances in many fields, basic human problems still exist. Instead of fostering goodwill, universal education seems to have fostered mental unrest and discontent despite high reading rates. Without a doubt, technology and material progress have evolved, yet this is insufficient because we still cannot end suffering or arrive at a state of serenity and contentment.

All we can conclude is that something gravely amiss with our advancement and growth, and the consequences for the future of humanity will be dire if we do not confront it soon enough. I have nothing against science and technology because they have greatly enhanced human experience overall, providing us with material comfort and well-being as well as a deeper understanding of our surroundings. Human qualities like integrity and compassion may be lost as a result of placing too much emphasis on science and technology. Even if science and technology can bring us endless material comfort, they cannot take the place of the ancient spiritual and humanitarian ideals that have greatly impacted national and global civilizations as we know them today.

There is no denying that science and technology have brought about enormous material benefits, but our basic human problems still exist; we experience the same level of stress, anxiety, and suffering as before, if not more. Therefore, it is sense to try to strike a balance between the expansion of spiritual, human values and material achievements. We need to reaffirm our humanitarian beliefs in order to bring about this profound change.

I am confident that many people share my worry about the current global moral crisis and will join me in urging all humanitarians and religious practitioners to work together to make our communities more compassionate, just, and equal. I don’t speak as a Buddhist or a Tibetan. I do not claim to be an expert on foreign politics (but I unavoidably touch on these issues).

Instead, I speak simply in my capacity as a human being and as an advocate of the humanitarian principles that form the basis of all major world religions, including Mahayana Buddhism. Considering this, I would want to share with you my own viewpoint, which is:

1. Worldwide humanitarianism is critical to solving global challenges.

2. Kind-heartedness is the basis of global peace.

3. All world religions and all humanitarians, regardless of their philosophy, already support world peace in this way;

4. It is everyone’s responsibility to create systems that satisfy human wants.

The United Nations and peace

After seeing some of the worst natural disasters in history, men and women all over the world started to dream of a better, more tranquil future. In order to eliminate the fear of conflict from the world, 51 states ratified the United Nations Charter on October 24, 1945, not long after World War II. Thus, the UN was founded and given resources that its forerunner did not.

The UN started a number of programs with the aim of eliminating the factors that lead to conflict breakouts as much as possible. These initiatives addressed human rights, economic and social development, the struggle against world hunger and poverty, and peacekeepers who enter a war after it has already broken out. In fact, every one of these UN initiatives helps to prevent conflicts and, thus, promote world peace, whether directly or indirectly. While not everyone in the world has experienced peace in the last 50 years, it is gradually taking hold. The goal of world peace is starting to seem more feasible and reachable.

In my research, I look at how UN departments, organizations, and initiatives contribute to the avoidance and amicable settlement of global conflicts. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and regional groupings also have a role in maintaining world peace, in addition to these institutions. The goal of the organization is stated explicitly in the Preamble to the United Nations Charter.

The United Nations and conflict prevention

The Preamble states that the purpose of the United Nations’ founding was to prevent and manage international crises while simultaneously advancing the growth of a culture of peace on a worldwide scale. The UN’s numerous departments, agencies, and initiatives all reflect these goals. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), and many more specialized programmers and agencies are working to avert deadly conflicts under the direction of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

Anything that has the potential to spark conflict is the focus of the United Nations. As a result, there are numerous ways to promote peace and avoid violence. Due to the increased lethality of weaponry since World War II, this UN effort has become much more significant. The world’s wealth is not distributed fairly, even with increased income. There is a clear disparity between the rich and the poor in every country, and it is getting wider, particularly between “Northern” and “Southern” nations.

The UN Development Program was created to help find a solution to this problem. Conflict does, in fact, flourish in the fertile soils of poverty. The UNDP’s mandate includes environmental stewardship, women’s social mobilization, poverty reduction, and the development of democratic institutions. Oversight of elections is one instance of this. Thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) assist the UNDP in one way or another as it works to fulfill its mission.

Additionally, illiteracy encourages the formation of new conflicts. Low-education societies are less able to comprehend their leaders’ decisions or who is casting a ballot. As a matter of fact, ignorance often leads to a rift within a community between the educated and those under their authority.

It can also increase the distance between the people and the State if the people are easier to control since they don’t pay attention to social developments. The purpose of UNESCO is to advance and facilitate communication, science, education, and culture.130 In addition, regardless of a person’s ethnicity, gender, language, or religious affiliation, UNESCO is in charge of making sure that justice, the rule of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms are maintained.

The struggle for control of natural resources may also have contributed to the rise of contemporary warfare. Future disputes may be avoided with better management of these resources. For instance, pollution might have immediate effects that call for more international cooperation. Men’s limits are rarely taken into consideration by pollution.

A few of the many catastrophic events include acid rain in the United States and Canada, pollution from a chemical factory that ran down the Danube River across numerous European countries, and oil leaks in the ocean after a shipwreck. The Odyssey tanker was involved in Canada’s most recent oil disaster, which occurred in 1988 off the coast of Newfoundland. Often, governments’ disregard for standard safety and environmental rules leads to these ecological calamities. This incapacity prompts some countries to create lenient laws to attract businesses to conduct all or a portion of their operations there.

Still, the most common and significant oil spills happen in the straits that separate nations. For instance, there have been multiple significant spills in the English Channel and the Bosporus Strait in Turkey, which links the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Needless to say, these leaks lead to a lot of problems between governments. The United Nations Environment Program uses this paradigm to work with people all across the world to change their views toward environment.

It attempts to advance the global legal framework for environmental protection by initiating and coordinating multilateral environmental treaties. Hopefully, increased international cooperation will result in fewer natural disasters and, as a result, fewer possible environmental conflicts. Upholding human rights is a prerequisite for establishing world peace. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified and declared by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. All people are guaranteed fundamental rights under this declaration. Even though they are rarely upheld during times of war, human rights can keep trying situations from turning into bloody confrontations.

Therefore, encouraging respect for human rights is the UNHCHR’s mission. This organization has to show the world community’s commitment to upholding human rights by taking tangible steps in that direction. Additionally, it seeks the ratification and signature of international human rights conventions. The United Nations General Assembly, for instance, issued the “Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” on December 9, 1998.

The UNHCHR provides more for us than only educate us on the value of upholding human rights. It also provides police and military troops with technical support or training on the ground. There are other organizations outside the UN that support human rights. The International Federation of Human Rights (IFHR) and Amnesty International (AI) are just two of the numerous NGOs.

It should go without saying that having access to weapons, especially rifles, is necessary for every conflict. Atomic bombs detonated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 8, 1945 marked a significant advancement in weapons technology and nuclear explosives.

The UN must help promote disarmament, which is essential to maintaining peace. Together with other UN agencies, the UN’s department for disarmament affairs creates disarmament standards and objectives and reports on the world armament race. In addition to doing research on potential future safety measures, UNIDIR organizes conferences and seminars with the goal of achieving disarmament agreements.

The various United Nations agencies that support peace

The goal of other UN organizations is to foster a culture of peace. The mission of UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, is to uphold the rights of children. It does preventive work to improve education for kids in underdeveloped countries as well as protective work to help kids in wartime, when they are often the most susceptible targets. Indeed, it is imperative that children receive education and are not mistreated if the future is to be guaranteed.

Children safeguard the future of a nation. To the greatest extent possible, preventing child abuse also helps a nation build its capacity and reduces the likelihood of future wars. The United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA, offers informational programs for women, especially in the field of sex education, which helps to forward the cause of a peaceful society. It provides women in particular with access to all the resources and information they need.

As a result, they are more equipped to make decisions that will improve world population management. The World Health Organization (WHO) supports emergency aid requests from countries and encourages research collaboration in health-related fields. Providing treatment to populations in need reduces the incidence of many physical and mental disorders. The World Food Programme (WFP) supports improved nutrition by supplying food aid to advance social and economic advancement.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations contributes to this endeavor by initiating initiatives to encourage heightened agricultural output, thus tackling global poverty and hunger. Two main factors that contribute to the start of violence are hunger and poverty.

With the resources at their disposal, all of these UN initiatives aim to prevent wars and establish a violent-free world. It will take some time for us to reach this desired status on our planet, though. In light of this, the UN will have to keep stepping in through peacekeeping missions to keep combatants apart.

The United Nations and Peacekeeping

The main body in charge of peacekeeping and conflict resolution is the United Nations Security Council. It has fifteen members: ten are chosen every two years by the General Assembly, while the remaining five are permanent members of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The Security Council must make an effort to resolve a matter amicably before attempting to address one that might endanger international peace and security. The Security Council has acted as a peacemaker or advocated for a cease-fire in military engagements in the past. The Council may also support its decisions with sanctions. Sanctions, which might range from mild condemnation to armed action, are one way the Council can carry out its decisions, as stated in the paper “‘We the Peoples’…”

A weapons embargo, financial and commercial limitations, the suspension of air and sea travel, or diplomatic isolation are a few examples of sanctions. The council also has the authority to select actions that call for more personnel and resources. The Security Council can oversee the cease-fire and assist in establishing the prerequisites for peace thanks to peacekeeping operations.

The Security Council has occasionally given member nations permission to use any means, including collective military action, to keep the peace. Peacekeeping is defined as “the prevention, limitation, moderation, and cessation of hostilities between or within States due to the intervention of a third party, which is organized and directed at the international level and which calls upon military, police, and civilian personnel to restore peace.” General Indar Jit Rktye is a veteran of multiple peacekeeping missions and the former president of the International Peace Academy.

The UN only got involved in most conflicts involving two or more states until the end of the Cold War. This is known as the noninterference principle. More so than not so long ago, the idea of state sovereignty was “officially” maintained. 1948 saw the establishment of the first United Nations mission in Palestine, which is still there today. UNTSO, an acronym for United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine, was bestowed upon it. Since then, the missions have seen significant change. In fact, the only people in the UNTSO were observers whose job there was to make sure the truce was kept.

However, during the 1956 Suez Canal crisis, the first United Nations Emergency Force, UNEF I, was established at Lester B. Pearson’s request. It signified the beginning of official peacekeeping efforts backed by armed forces, law enforcement, and civilian personnel. Since the conclusion of the Cold War, peacekeeping has undergone tremendous change. More and more operations are happening inside a single nation. This is due to a number of factors.

Above all, governments and the general public around the world are more aware than ever of what is happening in a nation due to easier access to information. We no longer believe that such savage conflicts exist when we see pictures of extreme brutality, regardless of the origins of the conflicts—religious or ethnic—or whether they take place within a single nation.

As in East Timor, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and, most recently, Sierra Leone, this was the situation. We would not have known that hostilities were taking place within one nation not too long ago. The third reason is because in countries where they had not previously existed, former colonial powers created State models. Various ethnic groups were brought together by entirely arbitrary borders, some of which, because of their size and level of education, were able to force their will on others. The leaders of one state cannot be allowed to dictate to another minority by the UN.

For hostilities to stop and killings by belligerents to stop, the UN must either establish or enforce peace. But this calls for a more interventionist strategy that goes against the idea of non-interference and state autonomy. More capable peacekeeping missions are needed to accomplish this. They need to be able to disarm, rebuild, oversee elections, and guarantee the protection of human rights. It is no longer enough to intervene.

In order to guarantee equal rights for all citizens, democratic institutions that were either destroyed or never existed must be rebuilt after such missions. This kind of mission was executed in East Timor and Kosovo. It might be very challenging to bring about a lasting peace without first securing justice, though. A post-conflict nation often finds itself without an operational legal system. Therefore, in order to cover institutional gaps in post-conflict nations, the UN is working to outfit itself with the necessary institutions.

Post conflict, international justice and other organizations

The UN could close this gap with the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In fact, certain people’s wartime atrocities will never be prosecuted if this court is not established. Trials for crimes against humanity have been feasible with the creation of ad hoc tribunals, such as those for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, which were fashioned after the Nuremberg Tribunal established after World War II.

These courts have, on occasion, been charged of lacking complete objectivity, though. It is true that the purpose of these tribunals was to settle particular disputes. Perhaps these ad hoc tribunals will become outdated eventually, as the UN has been discussing the creation of the ICC for over 50 years. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) exists in addition to the International Criminal Court. While the ICC only addresses personal culpability, this court was created to resolve conflicts between nations.

But the institution has not made much of an impact because so few states are ready to accept the jurisdiction of this court and submit their disputes before it. In actuality, the Supreme Court of Canada hears at least ten times as many cases as it does—just twenty cases are brought before it annually.

All of the previously named UN organizations are obviously present in post-conflict situations, helping the local populace, repairing infrastructure, training public officials, and making an effort to protect human rights. Relocating refugees and managing field activities are under the purview of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to humanitarian causes also strive to promote peaceful coexistence in the surrounding communities. There are thousands of non-governmental groups of this kind, including the Canadian Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, OXFAM, Care Canada, and Ingénieurs sans frontière (engineers without borders).

The majority of international organizations support the growth of a peaceful culture since they aid in the avoidance and settlement of international conflicts. It is also important to note that effective efforts to avoid and resolve conflicts require collaboration between states, national organizations, and individuals. Important regional responsibilities in conflict prevention are played by organizations like the Organization of American States (OAU), the Organization of African Unity, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and many more. Even on a global scale, individuals have a significant impact on the promotion of peace.

It is true that both men and women work in national organizations and institutions to establish standards that can be modified to meet shifting needs.

It is each person’s responsibility to promote a culture of peace, beginning at home and working their way up to international institutions. It is possible to accomplish and is being achieved everywhere: world peace. To make sure that the peace process continues, though, we must all keep cooperating.

The necessity of a new international peace and conflict prevention system (an alternative perspective)

Significant occurrences bring about new challenges, perspectives, and the need for novel solutions. One such event that altered history and geography was the First World War. The League of Nations was established in order to control the war’s immense repercussions and prevent such tragedies from happening again (1920–1945). Promoting peace and preventing the start of war were the main objectives of the League of Nations.

But in 1939, the Second World War broke out, and the League of Nations was powerless to stop it. In addition, the League of Nations was powerless to stop the war’s expansion, which caused immense destruction.

Consequently, there was a great desire to create a new international organization with a wider scope and dissolve the League of Nations. The United Nations (UN) is the name of this organization that was founded in 1945. The winners established and established the United Nations, giving them the exclusive right to veto power in the UN Security Council and the ability to shape and control world affairs for their own benefit.

When they were involved in a Cold War, the UN System that had been put in place by the victorious forces of World War II continued to be slanted in their favor, encouraging proxy conflicts and an economically disastrous arms race. While the United Nations was unable to effectively control or prevent the development of regional conflicts or sub-conventional warfare, the nuclear deterrent and the threat of Assured Mutual Destruction prevented the start of another world war.

Major regional conflicts continued, some of which escalated into major wars, such the one involving Palestine and Kashmir. But the end of the Cold War brought in a new era of a Unipolar World, in which the US remained the only superpower. The UNSC, which will have an expanded three-year membership of eight members from Asia and seven members each from Europe and Africa, chosen on a rotational basis, shall be tasked with making routine decisions. There should be three representatives from each of North and South America on the UN Security Council. Australia and its neighbors have the option to send two delegates.

Decision-making and conflict settlement should be added to the UN General Assembly’s responsibilities, and decisions should be made in a more democratic way. The UN will progressively relocate its headquarters, with an equal number of organizations located in Switzerland and Turkey. The UNGA resolutions must be made mandatory for compliance; any disobedience will lead to an international boycott and UN-imposed economic sanctions.

The UN Secretary General will now be referred to as the Chief Executive Head (CEH), who will be in charge of seeing to it that decisions and resolutions are carried out. The United Nations, sometimes known as the Global Consensus of Nations (GCN), continues to carry out its economic, health, and educational missions with greater equity, efficacy, and attention to developing nations and areas hit by famine and poverty.

In order to provide sufficient funding, a certain percentage of each country’s GDP must be contributed to the IMF and World Bank. The other existing UN organizations, such as the World Bank and the IMF, must also be refocused to give debt relief and poverty reduction.

The persistence of postwar injustices and the global fallout from the end of the Cold War call for the creation of a new, fair, and efficient international conflict prevention and dispute resolution framework. The looting of world resources by colonial powers gave rise to an unequal economic order and development, with continents and islands of property existing alongside oceans and regions of poverty and starvation. The GCN must be established immediately in order to rectify imbalances.

Religions and Peace

Human nature is strongly influenced by religion, both individually and socially. It offers a chance to commemorate the institutional meeting. It is a point of reference for many situations in human existence that seem unclear and call for interpretation.

Religion plays a big role in society. It’s a philosophy. All religious doctrines are based on belief, including those that regard gods, goddesses, and other supernatural beings. This belief is reflected in religious conduct. Through this belief system, religion stressed the both the inner and outside elements of its followers. Religion sets certain expectations for oneself and other people’s conduct. He is supposed to respond appropriately and anticipates certain behaviors from other people.

Religion has always served as a catalyst for strife as well as a motivation for harmony. One of the great mysteries of history, according to Scott Appleby, is the ambivalence of the sacred. Many of the bloodiest and most unwinnable conflicts have been wrapped in religious guise. However, religion offers essential tools for fostering peace.

Every religion, in Appleby’s opinion, has a moral path that promotes kindness, pardoning, and harmony. Religious reconciliation may be motivated by this inward development. The value of loving others and abstaining from taking other people’s lives is emphasized in all major religions.

The abstinence from killing is the first of the Five Precepts of Buddhism. Hinduism holds that murdering living things does not lead to heaven. According to Jainism, murdering living things makes one more sinful and is therefore forbidden. “Do not slay the life that God has made sacred,” the Quran says. The Bible forbids murder. Mark Juergen Meyer, a theologian, identified three essential elements of nonviolence seen in all religions. The first is respect for life and an intention to avoid causing harm.

The second is the objective of social harmony and peaceful cohabitation, which is found repeatedly in the Quran and the Old Testament. Third, the Abrahamic religions are renowned for their willingness to suffer and make sacrifices in order to cleanse the sins of the past and keep people safe. All great faiths have as their primary message the call to care for others, especially those who are in need. The foundational ideas of Buddhism and Hinduism are empathy for the suffering of others and compassion. The Prophet’s insistence on bringing back the tribal ethic of social equality and ending the mistreatment of the underprivileged gave rise to Islam.

Hinduism and peace

The great majority of people in India continue to practice Hinduism, the oldest religion in the world. Hinduism did not originate from a particular place or with a certain founder.

The core texts of Hinduism are the Vedas, Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, and Atharvaveda. The primary attribute that sets Hinduism apart is its non-judgment of other faiths and ideologies. It gives everyone the freedom to reason and think for themselves. Hinduism does not hold those who reject God accountable.

It explains how to worship God in the way that each person finds most suitable. It gives someone the ability to choose between good and bad through research and experience, and if they so want, they can embrace the lessons. Hinduism allows people to select their god and religion according to what suits them best.

Hinduism accepts novel conceptions of god and is tolerant of various religions. This essence is found throughout all of the Vedas and Upanishads. Just as different colored cows give the same white milk, all routes lead to the same God. The Rigveda states that truth is a single thing with many names. The core texts of Hinduism are the Gita, the Upanishads, and the Vedas.

Christianity and peace

A number of scriptures in the New Testament explicitly outline the doctrinal foundation for Christianity’s pacifist stance: “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy,” goes the proverb. However, I advise you to pray for those who persecute you and to love your adversaries.

Refuse to submit to evil; instead, subdue it with virtue. Theologians and religious authorities have studied these and similar texts extensively throughout the ages, but for the early Christians and many others after, they represent an unwavering call to love everyone without exception and a ban on violence.

Even if it meant becoming martyrs, early Christians refused to carry weapons or participate in the military. Bainton claims that until 170-80 CE, there is no evidence of Christians serving in the emperor’s army. After Constantine converted in the early fourth century, Christians began to accept military duty more generally.

There are references to pacifism in the writings of Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, as well as in the martyrs’ testimonies of Justin, Maximilian, and Marcellus. In addition to rejecting violence because of Christ’s teaching on love, the early Christians also considered the soldiers’ oath to the emperor to be a form of idolatry.

Practically speaking, a lot of early Christians found it difficult to defend their military service in a force that persecuted followers of Jesus. As the Christian Church grew older and more established, its early commitment to nonviolence waned. The Church acknowledged military service as a civic obligation when Constantine declared Christianity to be the official state religion. Christianity changed from being a cult that was persecuted to becoming an accepted religion.

Augustine argued that war is a means of divine retribution against evil, drawing his support from the teachings of the Old Testament. He argued that the commandment of love is only relevant in interpersonal relationships, which helped him reconcile this with the obviously contradictory teachings of the New Testament.

Though it was restricted to the periphery of society, where small sects attempted to live by Jesus’ peaceful teachings, the pacifist legacy was nonetheless maintained. Included in this group were the Waldensians, who first emerged in 1170; St. Francis of Assisi (1181–1226) and his Franciscan order; the Lollards of England in the fourteenth century; and the Hussites and Taborites of the Czech Republic, along with their Moravian offspring. The Anabaptist and Quaker movements were the most significant of these minority groups. The Anabaptist tradition and the movement to recover the Irish ideals at the core of the Christian gospel were both born out of the Protestant Reformation, which also caused a wave of separatist violence and bloodshed throughout Europe. Conrad Grebel, Menno Simons, and other Christian reformers founded a religious community in the 16th century that adhered to a stringent interpretation of Christ’s admonition to resist evil and practiced adult baptism.

In his 1516 Complaint of Peace, Erasmus attacked war and the role that cardinals and bishops played in inciting the faithful to battle. Erasmus persuasively denounced war and defended Christ’s message of peace by combining religious analysis with rational humanism. As he himself said, Jesus’ life was an ongoing lesson in love and peace with one another.

The Mennonites adopted Erasmus’s New Testament translation and additions as their Gospel text because they were influenced by his depiction of Christ. The Anabaptists declined to enlist in the military or take part in war because they believed that all forms of armed violence were sins against God.

They considered state activities to be inherently evil and corrupt as they claimed that government authority was founded on coercion and the threat of violence. They saw little hope for secular society advancement and were extremely gloomy about human nature. Although they were against the current political system, they didn’t do anything to alter it. Most adopted a quasi-anarchist stance and left political life behind, relocating to mostly rural areas.

The Mennonites moved in huge numbers to North America in search of land and religious freedom after their development in northern Switzerland and southern Germany in the sixteenth century and the persecution they endured during the religious wars of the period. They meticulously upheld their pacifist beliefs and denied the state’s legitimacy to conduct war, continuing to exist as a distinct people over the years in both the United States and Canada.

While some became international conciliation programs’ mediators, others engaged in aggressive anti-war movements. Mennonites have become a major player in international efforts for peace and reconciliation in recent decades. Like the Mennonites, the Quakers, also called the Society of Friends, were committed to unwavering Christian love, but they desired change rather than seclusion from the outside world.

The Friends, who first appeared in mid-seventeenth-century England under Oliver Cromwell, stressed the inner light of personal revelation that is informed by the Christian Gospel and served as the basis for their opposition to violence and conflict. Their goals were to change society and bring moral principles into the public conversation.

The early Friends, such as George Fox, who founded the organization, imparted to his followers a unique theological tradition that featured a strong pacifist stance. The Friends embraced a biblically grounded emphasis on the Christian teachings of nonresistance and unwavering love in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Quaker pacifists once again emphasized the Inner Light as the main source of their opposition to armed conflict and bloodshed in the twentieth century. Quakers did not back down from confronting societal evil, in contrast to other pacifists.

They vocally opposed war and vigorously resisted the Crown’s military incursions. William Penn’s 1693 publication, Essay Toward the Present and Future Peace of Europe, was among the earliest treatises on international peace. Quakers established and ran the first peace clubs in the early nineteenth century, and they were among the first to promote peace and the avoidance of confrontation in both Britain and the United States. Almost all of the major peace movements in modern American and British history have been led by Quakers. They contributed to the creation of some of the earliest programs for conflict transformation and conciliation, making them pioneers in the field of peace research.

Islam and peace

The Arabic term salaam and the word Islam come from the same root. In Arabic, the word “silm” also refers to the religion of Islam; hence, “he entered as-silm (peace)” signifies “he entered Islam.” According to one Islamic understanding, achieving personal peace is surrendering one’s will to Allah’s will.

Dar as-Salam, which translates to “the house of peace,” is the ideal society, according to the Quran, which says that “And Allah invites to the ‘abode of peace’ and guides whomever He pleases into the right path.” A gracious God speaks the word of peace! (Quran, verse 36:58).

In Islam, peace is essential. Islam teaches basically two things. Islam places a strong emphasis on two essential steps following acceptance of Tawḥīd: submitting to Allah’s Will and sincerely following His commands, as well as exhibiting love, compassion, and devotion for all creation. Since God is the Creator of all and also our Creator, the two aforementioned characteristics of God may be summed up into one: LOVE.

Fundamentally, Islam is a religion of harmony and fraternity. It teaches that all of creation is related to Allah, and the most devoted member of this family is the one who looks out for others. Two things are the culmination and core of all Islamic teachings:

(i) Surrendering/conceding to the Godly Will which means giving due regard and respect to the orders of Allah i.e., acting upon them with extreme sincerity, and

(ii) showing greatest compassion, love and friendliness towards Allah’s creation.

Since everything is owned by the same God, these two qualities can be summed up as one: God’s love for the creation and for us. Thus, until a Muslim cherishes the rest of creation, he is not a real believer. Muslims show their love for people by wishing them well and extending a peaceful greeting (salām). This demonstrates how love between individuals can result in peace.

It is alarming to see that the deliberate tactic of misrepresenting and misinterpreting Islam in the international media to indoctrinate the public against Islam is catastrophic for humanity’s collective image, not just that of a particular set of people.

George Bernard Shaw is reported to have said:

“I have always held Muhammad’s (PBUH) faith in high regard due to its incredible vibrancy. “

It seems to be the only religion that can appeal to individuals of all ages and change with the phases of life. After doing some investigation, I think the gorgeous man is better known as the Savior of Humanity than the Antichrist.

In my opinion, if a man similar to him were to assume control of the current world’s dictatorship, he would be effective in finding solutions that would result in the much-needed peace and happiness.

I said that Muhammad’s faith will be accepted in tomorrow’s Europe, just as it is starting to be accepted in today’s Europe.

What characteristics of Islam appeal to modern people as much as those that have drawn millions of adherents in the past? The salient features of Islam are expounded upon in the ensuing paragraphs.

simplicity, reason, and usefulness. There is no mythology in the religion of Islam. Its lessons are simple and easy to comprehend. It is free of irrational beliefs and superstitions. The core tenets of its beliefs include Muhammad’s prophetic status, the unity of Allah, and the idea of life after death.

They are founded on rationality and solid logic. Islam’s teachings are all simple and straightforward, stemming from these fundamental beliefs. There is no priestly hierarchy, no fanciful abstractions, and no complex rites and ceremonies.

It is possible for everyone to directly approach the Qur’an and apply its teachings. Islam urges man to apply his reason and wakes his faculties. It motivates him to weigh things in the context of reality.

He is instructed to pray, “O my Lord!” by the Qur’an. Expand my understanding (20:1–14). It claims that those without knowledge are not equal to those with knowledge (39:9), that people who do not observe and comprehend are worse than cattle (7:179), that knowledge and understanding make the meanings of revelation evident (6:97, 6:98), that knowledge confers abundant good (2:269), and that knowledge and physical strength are among the prerequisites for leadership (2:247).

“Whoever leaves his home in search of knowledge walks in the path of Allah,” according to the Prophet (Tirmidhi and Darimi), and “It is the duty of every Muslim to seek knowledge,” according to Ibn Majah and Bayhaqi. Islam introduces man to the world of truth and light in this way, removing him from the realm of superstition and darkness.

Once more, Islam is a pragmatic faith that rejects meaningless and empty rhetoric. It asserts that faith is the fundamental source of life and not only a collection of beliefs. Moral conduct needs to come after faith in Allah. Religion is something that ought to be lived out, not just discussed. The Qur’an states that those who believe and behave morally will be happy and return to a lovely home. 13: 29

Conclusion

To sum it up, peace is essential to control the evils which damage our society. It is obvious that we will keep facing crises on many levels but we can manage them better with the help of peace. Moreover, peace is vital for humankind to survive and strive for a better future.

Naqash

Article: My Research on “Peacefulness”

Cell No. +13602553907

E-Mail [email protected]

PayPal Add: [email protected]

WAR IS OVER ! IF YOU WANT IT SO DREAM OF PEACE AND WORK FOR PEACE

PEACE: FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA LET THERE BE PEACE AND HARMONY

More From Author

A Moment of Renewal for the WPS Agenda in the Non-NATO Balkan States: Spotlight on Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo

Former Harriton High School teacher gets 30 years in prison for child abuse and exploitation

We must do more to stop online child abuse

Short series app My Drama takes over Character.AI with its new AI companions

Inter Milan hooligan leader stabs mafia heir to death, claims self-defense after being shot in the leg

You May Also Like:

A Moment of Renewal for the WPS Agenda in the Non-NATO Balkan States: Spotlight on Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo

Former Harriton High School teacher gets 30 years in prison for child abuse and exploitation

We must do more to stop online child abuse

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) – Singapore Police Force (SPF) Regional Forensic Child Interview Workshop 2024

Starmer and Meloni hold talks on restricting migrant boats reaching UK and Italy

Antimicrobial resistance: a rapidly growing threat to the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria – Videos

Hamas: Recruitment of African asylum seekers highlights deep moral crisis of ‘Israel’

Tennessee American Announces Recipients of 2024 Firefighting Support Grants – SValleyNow.com