Search results

Cross‐cultural studies show that most, but not all, human societies engage in warfare. Some non‐warring societies cluster as peace systems. The existence of peace systems, and non‐warring societies more generally, shows that warfare is not an inevitable feature of human social life. This article considers three peace systems in some detail: Brazil's Upper Xingu River basin tribes, Aboriginal Australians, and the European Union. A primary goal is to explore features that contribute to peace in each of the three non‐warring systems. What do these peace systems suggest about how to prevent war? Provisionally, key elements would seem to be the promotion of interdependence among the units of the peace system, creation of cross‐cutting links among them, the existence of conflict resolution procedures, and belief systems (including attitudes and values) that are anti‐war and pro‐peace.

The purpose of this paper is to critique several studies that claim to show that nomadic foragers engage in high levels of inter-group aggression. This is done through exploring four myths: nomadic foragers are warlike; there was a high rate of war mortality in the Pleistocene; the nomadic forager data support the “chimpanzee model” of lethal raiding psychology; and contact and state influence inevitably decrease aggression in nomadic forager societies.

Using exact criteria, a sample of 21 nomadic forager societies is derived from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. This sampling method minimizes the chance of sampling bias, a shortcoming that has plagued previous studies. Only the highest quality ethnographic data, those classified as Primary Authority Sources, are used, which results in data on 148 cases of lethal aggression. The specifics of the lethal aggression cases are then discussed vis-à-vis the four myths to demonstrate the disjuncture between the data and the myths.

All four myths are found to be out of step with actual data on nomadic forager war and peace. Overall, the default interaction pattern of nomadic foragers is to get along with neighbors rather than make war against them. The findings contradict both assertions that there was a high level of war mortality among nomadic foragers of the Pleistocene and the chimpanzee model's proposal that human males have a tendency or predisposition to form coalitions and make lethal attacks on members of neighboring groups.

Consideration of nomadic forager war and peace should be contextualized in terms of social organization, contact history (including ethnocide, displacement, and other factors), and the current situation faced by extant forager populations. As in other contexts, the introduction of alcohol at contact or subsequently has increased nomadic forager aggression.

Propositions as to the aggressiveness of nomadic foragers should be viewed with skepticism because they are contradicted by data and a contextual view of nomadic forager social organization and ethnohistory.

The debate over nomadic forager war and peace is connected to larger debates in modern society about the nature of human nature and has real-world implications regarding foreign policy and political approaches toward war and peace.

A critique of sampling, methodology, and theory is provided in this area.

The deeply embedded perception that human beings are violent by nature is a worldview that becomes instrumental for justifying armed conflict. Prominent authors in multiple scholarly disciplines have challenged the myth of the violent human being. This article approaches the complexity of challenging political violence by identifying common ground among different disciplines and putting scholarly research in dialogue with recent developments in war and peace across the globe. This article describes the cultural, political and institutional dimensions that sustain violence, and suggests a specific approach for addressing these three strands.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate interstate warfare and its association with foreign direct investment (FDI) and multinational enterprise (MNE) strategy by integrating insights from international business (IB) and international political economy (IPE) literature.

This paper identifies economic and regulatory mediators for the relationship between war and FDI, laying the groundwork to evaluate strategies the MNE would undertake in the event of war in the host country.

The effects of war on MNE strategy can be separated into short‐term and long‐term effects. Specifically, the MNE may be influenced by war in its: initial investment decision; factors of significant importance for running the company's local operations; and critical factors for future foreign investments.

Studies using actual firm‐level data can look at whether MNEs from non‐warring states conduct business as usual elsewhere or leverage war in the host country to their advantage. Further investigation is also needed to determine the power that MNEs in the home country have over foreign policy to assert their own strategies in a particular host market.

This paper has implications for managers of MNEs in warring host countries or contemplating the expansion of their operations overseas to a war zone with regard to the likely impact of war on firm operations.

Current paradigms of IB, in failing to account for the macro‐level and contingent nature of warfare, leave a gap in the business literature: specifically, how the international political context affects firms' activities, strategies, and decision‐making processes. This paper attempts to incorporate warfare, together with firm‐specific, industry‐specific, and other country‐specific determinants to inform the question: what determines the international success or failure, and in turn the long‐run competitiveness, of firms in turbulent times?

The scarcity of literature related to the PPP (public-private partnership) barriers in construction projects within war areas, and hence the dearth of information to deliver viable and effective strategies to those barriers, are the primary causes for the failures of PPP schemes in such areas, particularly in Palestine. Financial and non-financial investments are more problematic in war zones than non-war nations and may escalate barrier for projects' success. The investigation purposes to discover proper answers to the barriers of PPP infrastructure schemes and highlight the execution of barrier reactions.

Specialists were asked to deliver approaches to alleviate 21 barriers and recommend the period needed for applying them. Later, the relevance of alleviation events was examined through prioritization according to the results attained from three elements, i.e. the impact of every barrier and the strategy's viability and efficacy.

While the most unfavorable barrier was finalized to be the unfeasibility of delivering physical security, the most valid answer was associated with the lack of government cohesiveness and responsibility to perform its duties. The discovered barriers are typical within warring nations, but the paper concentrated on Palestine.

This study is an initial effort to examine PPP barriers in Palestinian infrastructure projects. The presented strategies can be applied as a novel set for barrier reaction improvement in occupied nations such as Palestine. Moreover, the results can develop the usage of PPP and enhance the barrier sharing in this scheme.

This article is primarily concerned with nuclear armament and its relationship to the social economy. Nuclear armament is only a part, though clearly an important part, of the defence issue. The article begins with an introduction to the defence problem. It then moves on to the issue of ethical conduct and defence policy. The article then concludes with an analysis of the problems created by the relationship of defence decision makers to the anti‐nuclear arms movement.

Considers the relations between warfare, gender and marketing, and asks “Are we witnessing the feminization of marketing?” Draws on Deleuze and Guattari’s (1988) conception of warfare to illustrate contemporary patriarchal organization of society, war and marketing. Some might argue that a shifting balance of power in society and in marketing is reflected in developments such as relationship marketing and postmodern marketing which signal a shift away from “male” values, and that we are currently witnessing the resurgence of more “feminine” values. Concludes that despite these grand claims, prevailing “patriarchal” relations of power are still intact.One could argue that such developments are further acts of appropriation of the “female” space. That said, this space can never be totally appropriated. To locate the “female” principle, one must look beyond the regulating structures of society and the academy to the fringe, for this is the domain of the war machine, a territory which cannot be fully occupied by the forces of the social.

When considering an agreeable development a realistic attitude towards presumed options is to be taken. Two prerequisites in particular prove necessary: first, a realistic model of man in his world, and second, a pragmatic philosophy to evaluate the given facts towards an appropriate, sustainable strategy of action. Mere tradition, wishful thinking, emotion, just hopeful illusions or escapism will not help. A responsible, guided attempt to control change is needed. Man, the dominant factor for the evolution of the life sphere has no other choice than consciously using his capacity to understand and to decide responsibly on his future.