Search results

This chapter will look at how peace-entrepreneurs are crucial in conflict and post-conflict environments to address peace challenges, and how the use of ITC can scale up the outputs of peace-oriented business in a particular region. Indeed, when technology is used effectively it can amplify voices for peace and empower local communities and entrepreneurs looking for alternatives to violence through a market-oriented business approach. The chapter will also argue that a peace-driven local business network can be as powerful as the post-conflict international aid typically provided by international donors. The chapter will focus in particular on an analysis of the PeaceStartup initiative developed in Colombia. This initiative is aimed at promoting peace-entrepreneurs through a co-innovation process among relevant actors based on a specific methodology grounded in traditional Silicon Valley start-up weekends.

Purpose – This paper aims to explain the concept of post-conflict peace education that has been implemented in East Aceh.

Design/Methodology/Approach – This research used the qualitative method where data were gathered by deep interview and study of documents.

Findings – The results show that the Aceh government education agency has not yet developed a standarized concept of peace education to be implemented throught out the schools in East Aceh. However, non-governmental agencies both national and international have stepped ahead and implemented it in formal and non-formal educational institutions. UNICEF and AusAID had facilitated the preparation of a peace education textbook which was written by academicians at UIN Ar-Raniry in 2005. It has been applied to many schools in East Aceh by incorporating peace education in to Aqidah Akhlak subject.

Research Limitations/Implications – The paper does not examine students’ understanding of peace education that can be learnt by incorporating concepts of peace education.

Practical Implications – The concept of peace education is feasible to be adopted at whole senior high school in Aceh.

Originality/Value – This paper offers a new concept of peace education, the liberal peace, religious peace, and traditional values that have been integrated in one subject to be taught at once.

Tourism does not flourish in areas subject to armed conflict and strong, violent sociopolitical instability. This axiom has obvious implications on the debate in tourism studies on the risks associated with armed conflicts. The question therefore remains as to how (and if) tourism can contribute to the reduction of global conflicts. This chapter reflects on how the men and women perceive tourism (from both supply and demand side) in this specific period of ‘End of History’ (Fukuyama, 1992). Does tourism reflect the Kantian idea of hospitality in the context of a Perpetual Peace – thus a force for good – or is it just another instrument at the service of neo-liberalism and unbridled economism? Finally, a possible alternative is proposed for the use of tourism in reducing structural and cultural violence.

Guided by Ericson’s counter-law analytic, the focus of this paper is how peace bonds erode traditional criminal law principles to govern uncertainty and provide applicants with a “freedom from fear” (Ericson, 2007a). Peace bonds permit the courts to impose a recognizance on anyone likely to cause harm or “personal injury” to a complainant. This paper conducts a critical discourse analysis to answer the question: how and to what extent are peace bonds a form of counter-law? Facilitated by the erosion of traditional criminal law principles and rationalized under a precautionary logic, proving that a complainant is fearful through a peace bond can result in the expansion of the state’s capacity to criminalize and conduct surveillance.

Purpose – The chapter reports on an attempt to compute the size of gross world product (GWP) under the assumption that all violence ceases.

Methodology/approach – Spreadsheet-based simulations, given seed values taken from extensive literature review; this is done, for 2007, in nominal foreign exchange–based US dollars (USD) as well as in purchasing power parity (ppp)–based dollars (international dollars).

Beneficial economic effects from more internal peace (nonviolence within countries) as well from external peace (nonviolence between and among countries) are calculated for each of 140 countries. In addition, we compute sectoral economic effects for the United States.

Findings – For 2007, the simulations suggest that in a state of nonviolence the world economy could have been larger by 4.8 trillion dollars, or 8.7 per cent of actual GWP, when measured in nominal, foreign exchange–based USD, or by 6.0 trillion international dollars, or 9.2 per cent of GWP, when measured in purchasing power parity values.

Limitations – The simulations are based on disparate values found in the literature to seed the spreadsheet calculations; various assumptions are made that would need to be confirmed through country- and sector-specific studies.

Practical implications – Knowledge of the potential size of forgone economic benefits due to violence can assist to set out global violence reduction goals in order to achieve measurable economic results.

Originality/value of chapter – To our knowledge this is the first attempt to calculate the size of the worldwide economic benefits forgone due to violence.

My framework is based upon a grounded analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of a review of the existing social science and education literature regarding globalization and peace from approximately 1960 to the present. My review consisted of identifying emergent themes in the literature and from these identifying conceptual categories and the relationships among them that could explain some of the ways in which globalization, peace, and educational processes are linked. I approached the literature as a “cache of documents” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), that is, as bodies of literature reflecting certain sensibilities regarding globalization and peace. My framework is based upon an analysis of how these sensibilities have influenced the reproduction of inequalities through the education sector as a socialization and policy context.

UNI Global Union’s General Secretary, Philip Jennings, delivered the Movement for the Abolition of War Remembrance Day Lecture at the Imperial War Museum on November 12th 2017. On a day when we remember the millions who died in the First World War and subsequent wars, Jennings called for renewed collective action to tackle the threats to peace. During the lecture, Jennings explored the ties that have bound the trade union movement to the peace movement over the last century or more and its relevance today to the struggle for social justice.

The purpose of the chapter is to explore peace economics in the perspective of an organic worldview. Peace economics are discussed on two levels – the level of individual economic actor and the macro level related to the systemic interplay between economic actors. The main argument is that a change from shallow authenticity and competition towards deep authenticity and cooperation presupposes a paradigmatic shift from a mechanical to an organic worldview. Such a change in mindset should be supported by introducing peace economics in the curriculum on different levels of education. In an education for peace-building there should be a focus on what constitutes true personal development in the sense of obtaining more ‘inner’ peace as well as more peaceful interpersonal interactions. On the ‘outer’ spheres, the need for equity and joint projects is fundamental. The concept of equity emphasizes mutuality, equality and co-creative responsibility.

Capitalist peace theory asserts that economic freedom or capitalism, contract-intensity, trade, foreign investment, financial openness, or the avoidance of state property ownership promote peace. But the capitalist peace also includes the democratic peace. If democracy itself is an effect of economic freedom or the prosperity generated by it, then the democratic peace is no more than a mere component of the capitalist peace. Then capitalism and economic interdependence promote peace by two or even three routes, directly and indirectly, through democracy and, possibly, by common memberships in intergovernmental organizations, too. Admittedly, this argument relies on compiling lots of diverse pieces of evidence, some of which are still debated in the scientific community. The idea that capitalism might be more important as well as more beneficial for peace than democracy rests on two reasons. First, without capitalism or the prosperity it promotes, democracy might no longer be viable. Under capitalism, nations may enjoy prosperity and peace together. Better still, poor nations benefit from the existence of more advanced ones that are sources of technology, models for emulation, and markets for labor-intensive products. Second, democratic peace theory has invited the dangerous idea that one might or even should promote democracy by war. The consequences of the financial crisis of 2008 and the political responses to it, however, threaten to undermine globalization. That is why the capitalist peace faces an uncertain future at a time when we need it. The rapid economic rise of Asia, in particular of China and somewhat later probably of India to great power status, is likely to undermine the global pecking order and to imply some power transitions. In the past, power transitions have been related to increased risks of war. That is why we need a capitalist peace between China and the West.