Agenda
Besides, it is not difficult to see that our own epoch is a time of birth, and a transition to a new period. Spirit has broken with the previous world of its existence and its ways of thinking [Vorstellens]; it is now of a mind to let them recede into the past and to immerse itself in its own work at reshaping itself. (Hegel, Preface, The Phenomenology of Spirit, 1807, emphasis added) 1
The above words derive from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), who wrote them in the preface to his most influential and discussed book, The Phenomenology of Spirit, to express the transition (between the old and the new order of things) of his time when only men and women can determine the further path of human civilization. This quote was not accidentally borrowed from Hegel; although it refers to the beginning of the nineteenth century, its significance has a direct bearing on the present time, which requires the formulation of its own transformation.
In the twenty-first century, it becomes more and more obvious that the existing (unipolar) world order is changing toward a new system, the distinctive feature of which, perhaps, is the formation of various regional organizations and regionalisms and the wide dissemination of integration processes around the world. According to Amitav Acharya , the leading scholar of international relations, these emerging regionalisms, which he called “multiplex” inside-out processes (in contrast to the outside-in imposed politics of neoliberal order), especially challenge the system of unipolarity. In his notable book, The End of American World Order (2014), Acharya first used the term “multiplex” to describe the new world order to happen after the decline of the existing unipolar system. At the turn of the twenty-first century, he argued, the new world order will be “multiplex”, consisting of multitude of regional worlds, rather than multipolar, comprised of several global powers (Acharya 2014: 106). For him, a “multiplex” international system is “the political order of a culturally diverse world that rests on political and economic interconnectedness, as well as institutional arrangements, relying not on the power or purpose of a single actor or mechanism, but of a range of actors” (Acharya 2014: 113).
The modern international system is a product of Western civilization, originating from the Peace of Westphalia, a treaty concluded between European empires at the end of the Thirty Years War in 1648. The international system, based on the principles of noninterference and sovereign immunity of states , was extended to the rest of the world, since the “imperialism and colonialism that characterized international relations more than three centuries after 1648 were perfectly consistent with the tenets of the Peace of Westphalia” (Hall 2010). The American sociologist and political scientist Samuel P. Huntington even went further, believing that, “If non-Western societies are once again to be shaped by Western culture, it will happen only as a result of the expansion, deployment, and impact of Western power. Imperialism is the necessary logical consequence of universalism” (Huntington 2017: 659). Thus the international system that emerged from the early modern period as a result of Western territorial expansion, colonization, and imperialism throughout the world was no less than the product of Western political culture, possibly projected as the first universalist campaign. But the Westphalian order is currently facing a great test and is gradually undergoing a transformation.
On the one hand, the growth of globalization (often defined as the intensification of social relations that deviate from the interstate relations of the Westphalian system ), international law (with its international criminal courts, tribunals, and norms such as humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect that also challenge the Westphalian principles of noninterference and sovereignty ) and emerging regionalisms (which are a new international phenomenon but arising in reaction to the postmodern globalization ) pose serious problems for the existing Westphalian order and the post-Cold War American hegemony .
Another distinctive feature of the current transition is that international institutions, civil society , and the private sector are also attracting increasing attention in the sphere of peace and its promulgation. This trend reflects the idea put forward by some theorists (Dillon and Reid 2009; Mearsheimer 2014; Miller 2007; Weiss 2011; Weiss and Wilkinson 2013), who argue that the importance of nation-states is acutely diminishing in an era of postmodern globalization along with awareness that an individual nation plays only a limited role in world affairs, particularly in areas concerned with international peace and security . The denationalization of international relations (which began more profoundly in the past decades) has made a significant contribution to the integrated presence and growing role of international and regional organizations, civil society and the private sector in global and domestic affairs.
During the transition between old and new world orders, it is very important to build a framework paradigm for different (in this case “global”) approaches to peace . The transition to a post-industrial, multipolar, or multiplex world order and the further development of society especially requires new ways of thinking, greater knowledge, and better understanding of the theoretical and practical goals of peace from different perspectives and conditions in which they can be realized and expanded. One of the pressing questions facing the international community at all times is, “how can we achieve and maintain peace and security in the world?”
This chapter therefore seeks to outline what could be the groundwork to build a framework for global approaches to peace . It also analyzes the major areas of relevant research that exists, to provide a hint for future investigations, drawing from the thoughts of the influential scholar of international relations theory , Kenneth Waltz , who wrote in his no-less-famous book, Man, the State and War, first published in 1959:
Peace is one among a number of ends simultaneously entertained. The means by which peace can be sought are many. The end is pursued and the means are applied under varying conditions. Even though one may find it hard to believe that there are ways to peace not yet tried by statesmen or advocated by publicists, the very complexity of the problem suggests the possibility of combining activities in different ways in the hope that some combination will lead us closer to the goal. (Waltz 2001 [1959]: 2)
There are certain promises regarding the framework of global approaches to peace that allow a better understanding of how the global international system works, or at least should work, and how various actors (nonstate and state) interact and evolve in the complex structures of world politics. The word “global” denotes more than just the expansion of geographical boundaries or spaces. It can be a specific, distinct tool to analyze integration and structured global transformations, and foster multiplicity of views on past and present issues of peace and security. No units or subjects of global affairs, such as peace, development, or peacebuilding, can now be researched and understood in isolation. The concept of peace is not an Eastern or Western invention; it is rather, universal, with its conceptual and practical origins stemming from the early human civilizations, and thus needs to be investigated in a global configuration.
While international relations traditionally focuses on the interstate level of analysis, peace and conflict studies (hereafter referred to as peace studies) tends to emphasize the importance of social relations from the individual, domestic to global levels of analysis. The Palgrave Handbook of Global Approaches to Peace intends to focus on the intersections and entanglements of peace studies and international relations, in the hope to create a more inclusive research agenda that respects the diversity of the epistemological and ontological traditions of scholars, practitioners, and those who seek alternative knowledge. To this end, the Handbook contains original contributions that will combine conceptual, domestic, regional, systemic, and alternative approaches to facilitate additionally the integration of methodological orientations (theoretical and empirical) extended across geographical and intellectual circulations beyond the usual limited spaces. The field of research that we seek to present is precisely the international and transnational dimensions of peace, explored through ideas, institutions, and processes that have been implemented at different levels and in a global configuration. The contributors to this Handbook, coming by origin and/or institutional affiliation from nearly thirty countries of the world, diversely approach peace; they examine the political, social, economic, cultural, gender , individual, and other aspects of doing, promoting, making, and building peace globally.
But we should also not forget about various pitfalls when attempting to frame peace globally. Central to the problem is perhaps the difficulty of determining and agreeing on the “true” meaning of peace. Some scholars (Ishida 1969; Galtung 1981) argue that different cultures and/or different political orientations...