Non-state’s role for a Peaceful world

Abstract

Throughout all time, human beings have tried hard to limit war as one of the worst evils in the world. Philosophers and theologians, as well as politicians, have developed detailed ethical concepts either to prevent war or to limit its awful consequences. In religions, particularly, you can find theories of just war all over the world with remarkable congruence between individual postulates. Contemporary concepts highlight aspects of humanity and responsibility in decisions involved in making war. These are alluded to in euphemistic terms, such as human intervention and responsibility to protect. In practice, these concepts legitimize military violence and its performance. Peace Studies appreciates the benevolent attempts of the military representatives but holds fast to the postulate of the abolition of war as soon as possible and to alternative nonviolent concepts of defense. In the debate regarding the best solution for the global community, Peace Studies expects its discussion partners to possess at least minimal knowledge about alternative policies and strategies. If we are really interested in finding the best solution for solving conflicts, we cannot ignore any of these. Politicians and military top brass, who are not informed about the possibilities of nonviolent prevention and intervention or who block strategies of nonviolent conflict resolution, are acting irresponsibly. Vice versa, the representatives of nonviolent strategies need to be informed about military ways. Political systems that lack the facility for the continuous integrated realignment of policies and built-in assessment processes will gradually decay into a repressive system. Without inspiration from the outside, a political system doesn’t simply remain the same but tends to become increasingly unjust because it is liable to perpetuate entrenched relationships (often conserving personal privileges in the process) in accordance with the status quo. Governmental policy-making, administrative departments, and legislative and executive bodies, such as the economic, legal and educational systems, need a framework of strategies and procedures that allows critical constructive reflection of the system under conditions of freedom and independence. There are four major influences involved in developing this: Firstly, the scientifically-based think tanks that are universities facilitate the transcending of conventional systems. Secondly, religions help to reflect ethical principles and offer higher perspectives and dimensions of humanity’s future. Thirdly, journalism can function to maintain fairness and justice. And lastly, an independent judicial system supports society in resolving difficult issues. Additionally, the arguments for conducting a “humanitarian” intervention in principle follow those of the ancient theory of just war. From the perspective of Peace Studies, the argument that in such a situation nonviolent means are inefficient ignores the potential of “social transformation” in contrast to a so called “humanitarian intervention”. Conversely, “humanitarian interventions” of the kind that are used as a military alternative are top-down, elitist and hierarchic. Consequently, they involve high costs and require special resources from society and the use of purpose-oriented action. A true “humanitarian intervention” is a form of nonviolent “social transformation”.