Peace
View on WikipediaThis article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2025) |

Peace is a state of harmony in the absence of hostility and violence. In a societal sense, peace is commonly used to mean a lack of conflict (such as war) and freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.[2]
Promotion of peace is a core tenet of many philosophies, religions, and ideologies, many of which consider it a core tenet of their philosophy. Some examples are: religions such as Buddhism and Christianity, important figures like Gandhi, and throughout literature like "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" by Immanuel Kant, "The Art of Peace" by Morihei Ueshiba, or ideologies that strictly adhere to it such as Pacifism within a sociopolitical scope. It is a frequent subject of symbolism and features prominently in art and other cultural traditions.
The representation of peace has taken many shapes, with a variety of symbols pertaining to it based on culture, context, and history; each with their respective symbolism whose nature can be very complex. An example, being during post-violence, in contexts where intense emotions, these symbols can form to evoke unity and cooperation, described as to fill groups of people with pride and connection, yet the symbolism could also possibly form to convey oppression, hatred, or else.[3] As such, a universal definition for peace does not concretely exist but gets expanded and defined proactively based on context and culture, in which it can serve many meanings not particularly benevolent in its symbolism.
"Psychological peace" (such as peaceful thinking and emotions) is less relatively well-defined, yet perhaps[further explanation needed] a necessary precursor to establishing "behavioural peace". Peaceful behaviour sometimes results from a "peaceful inner disposition". It has been argued by some that inner qualities such as tranquility, patience, respect, compassion, kindness, self-control, courage, moderation, forgiveness, equanimity, and the ability to see the big picture can promote peace within an individual, regardless of the external circumstances of their life.[4]
Etymology
[edit]
The term 'peace' originates from the Anglo-French pes, and the Old French pais, meaning "peace, reconciliation, silence, agreement" (11th century).[5] The Anglo-French term pes itself comes from the Latin pax, meaning "peace, compact, agreement, treaty of peace, tranquility, absence of hostility, harmony."
The English word came into use in various personal greetings from c. 1300 as a translation of the Hebrew word shalom, which, according to Jewish theology, comes from a Hebrew verb meaning 'to be complete, whole'.[6] Although "peace" is the usual translation, it is an incomplete one, because shalom, which is also cognate with the Arabic salaam, has multiple other meanings in addition to peace, including justice, good health, safety, well-being, prosperity, equity, security, good fortune, and friendliness, as well as simply the greetings, "hello" and "goodbye".[7]
On a personal level, peaceful behaviours are kind, considerate, respectful, just, and tolerant of others' beliefs and behaviors – tending to manifest goodwill. This understanding of peace can also pertain to an individual's introspective sense or concept of her/himself, as in being "at peace" in one's own mind, as found in European references from c. 1200. The early English term is also used in the sense of "quiet", reflecting calm, serene, and meditative approaches to family or group relationships that have an absence of quarreling, disturbances and agitation; but seek clarity of conversation, and tranquility.
In many languages, the word 'peace' is also used as a greeting or a farewell, for example the Hawaiian word aloha, as well as the Arabic word salaam. In English the word peace is occasionally used as a farewell, especially for the dead, as in the phrases "rest in peace" or "peace out".
History
[edit]
Peace was forged through diplomacy in the form of royal marriages, both in the distant past and in modern times. Two early examples of royal marriages being used to establish diplomatic relations are Hermodike I, who married the king of Phrygia around 800 BCE,[8] and Hermodike II, who married the king of Lydia around 600 BCE.[9] Both marriages involved Greek princesses from the house of Agamemnon and kings from what is now Turkey.[10] The marriages between the Greek princesses and the kings of Phrygia and Lydia had a significant impact on the region, leading to the transfer of important technological innovations from Anatolia to Greece. In particular, the Phrygians introduced the Greek alphabet, while the Lydians pioneered the use of coinage as a form of currency. Both inventions were rapidly adopted by surrounding nations through further trade and cooperation.
Peace has not always been achieved through peaceful means; in many cases, it has been enforced by the victors of war, often through the use of violence and coercion. In his work Agricola, the Roman historian Tacitus, writes passionately and critically about the greed and arrogance of the Roman Empire, portraying it as a ruthless and self-serving power. One, that Tacitus says is by the Caledonian chieftain Calgacus, ends with: "Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." ("To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace." —Oxford Revised Translation).
Discussion of peace is therefore at the same time an inquiry into its form. Is it simply the absence of mass organized killing (war), or does peace require a particular morality and justice? (just peace).[11] Societal peace can be seen at least in two forms:
- A simple silence of arms, absence of war.
- Absence of war accompanied by particular requirements for the mutual settlement of relations, which are characterized by justice, mutual respect, respect for law, and good will.
Since 1945, the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council have operated under the aim to resolve conflicts without war. Nonetheless, nations have entered numerous military conflicts since then.
Organizations and prizes
[edit]United Nations
[edit]
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achieving world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue.
After authorization by the Security Council, the UN sends peacekeepers to regions where armed conflict has recently ceased or paused to enforce the terms of peace agreements and to discourage combatants from resuming hostilities. Since the UN does not maintain its own military, peacekeeping forces are voluntarily provided by member states of the UN. The forces, also called the "Blue Helmets", who enforce UN accords are awarded United Nations Medals, which are considered international decorations instead of military decorations. The peacekeeping force as a whole received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988.
Police
[edit]The obligation of the state to provide for domestic peace within its borders is usually charged to the police and other general domestic policing activities. The police are a constituted body of persons empowered by a state to enforce the law, to protect the lives, liberty and possessions of citizens, and to prevent crime and civil disorder.[12] Their powers include the power of arrest and the legitimized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with the police forces of a sovereign state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. Police forces are often defined as being separate from the military and other organizations involved in the defense of the state against foreign aggressors; however, gendarmerie are military units charged with civil policing.[13] Police forces are usually public sector services, funded through taxes.
National security
[edit]The national security apparatus of a nation is responsible for providing peace and security against foreign threats and aggression. National security can be threatened by a range of factors, including actions by other states (such as military or cyber attacks), violent non-state actors (such as terrorist attacks), organized criminal groups (such as narcotic cartels), and natural disasters (such as floods and earthquakes).[14]: v, 1–8 [15] Systemic drivers of insecurity, which may be transnational, include economic inequality and marginalisation, political exclusion, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.[15] In view of the wide range of risks, the preservation of peace and the security of a nation state have several dimensions, including economic security, energy security, physical security, environmental security, food security, border security, and cyber security. These dimensions correlate closely with elements of national power.
League of Nations
[edit]The principal forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations. It was created at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and emerged from the advocacy of Woodrow Wilson and other idealists during World War I. The Covenant of the League of Nations was included in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and the League was based in Geneva until its dissolution as a result of World War II and replacement by the United Nations. The high hopes widely held for the League in the 1920s, for example amongst members of the League of Nations Union, gave way to widespread disillusion in the 1930s as the League struggled to respond to challenges from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Japan.
The prominent scholar, Sir Alfred Eckhard Zimmern, who is widely regarded as one of the most influential intellectuals of the League of Nations, drew inspiration for his studies from the classics, along with other British scholars such as Gilbert Murray and Florence Stawell. This group of scholars is often referred to as the "Greece and peace" set, due to their shared interest in ancient Greek civilization and the promotion of peace.
The creation of the League of Nations, and the hope for informed public opinion on international issues (expressed for example by the Union for Democratic Control during World War I), also saw the creation after World War I of bodies dedicated to understanding international affairs, such as the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House in London. At the same time, the academic study of international relations started to professionalise, with the creation of the first professorship of international politics, named for Woodrow Wilson, at Aberystwyth, Wales, in 1919.
Olympic Games
[edit]The late 19th century idealist advocacy of peace which led to the creation of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Rhodes Scholarships, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and ultimately the League of Nations, also saw the re-emergence of the ancient Olympic ideal. Led by Pierre de Coubertin, this culminated in the holding in 1896 of the first of the modern Olympic Games.
Nobel Peace Prize
[edit]
Since 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has been the world's most prestigious honor given to individuals or organizations who have made significant contributions to peace. The prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a group of five individuals chosen by the Norwegian parliament. Nominees for the prize come from around the world, and are often those who have worked to end conflict, protect human rights, or promote humanitarian efforts. It is awarded annually to internationally notable persons following the prize's creation in the will of Alfred Nobel. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to the person who "...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."[16]
Rhodes, Fulbright and Schwarzman scholarships
[edit]In creating the Rhodes Scholarships for outstanding students from the United States, Germany and much of the British Empire, Cecil Rhodes wrote in 1901 that 'the object is that an understanding between the three great powers will render war impossible and educational relations make the strongest tie'.[17] This peace purpose of the Rhodes Scholarships was very prominent in the first half of the 20th century, and became prominent again in recent years under Warden of the Rhodes House Donald Markwell,[18] a historian of thought about the causes of war and peace.[19] This vision greatly influenced Senator J. William Fulbright in the goal of the Fulbright fellowships to promote international understanding and peace, and has guided many other international fellowship programs,[20][21] including the Schwarzman Scholars to China created by Stephen A. Schwarzman in 2013.[22]
Gandhi Peace Prize
[edit]
The International Gandhi Peace Prize, named after Mahatma Gandhi, is awarded annually by the Government of India. It was launched as a tribute to the ideals espoused by Gandhi in 1995 on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of his birth. This is an annual award given to individuals and institutions for their contributions towards social, economic and political transformation through non-violence and other Gandhian methods. The award carries Rs. 10 million in cash, convertible in any currency in the world, a plaque and a citation. It is open to all persons regardless of nationality, race, creed or sex.
Student Peace Prize
[edit]The Student Peace Prize is awarded biennially to a student or a student organization that has made a significant contribution to promoting peace and human rights.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize
[edit]The Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize, is awarded annually "in recognition of an individual's or an organisation's contribution for the advancement of the cause of peace". The prize was first launched in 2009 by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize Committee under the directive of the caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Mirza Masroor Ahmad.
Culture of Peace News Network
[edit]The Culture of Peace News Network, otherwise known simply as CPNN, is a UN authorized interactive online news network, committed to supporting the global movement for a culture of peace.

Sydney Peace Prize
[edit]Every year in the first week of November, the Sydney Peace Foundation presents the Sydney Peace Prize. The Sydney Peace Prize is awarded to an organization or an individual whose life and work has demonstrated significant contributions to:
The achievement of peace with justice locally, nationally or internationally
The promotion and attainment of human rights
The philosophy, language and practice of non-violence
Museums
[edit]A peace museum is a museum that documents historical peace initiatives. Many provide advocacy programs for nonviolent conflict resolution. This may include conflicts at the personal, regional or international level.
Smaller institutions include the Randolph Bourne Institute, the McGill Middle East Program of Civil Society and Peace Building and the International Festival of Peace Poetry.
Religious beliefs
[edit]Religious beliefs often seek to identify and address the basic problems of human life, including conflicts between, among, and within persons and societies. In ancient Greek-speaking areas, the virtue of peace was personified as the goddess Eirene, and in Latin-speaking areas as the goddess Pax. Her image was typically represented by ancient sculptors as a full-grown woman, usually with a horn of plenty and scepter and sometimes with a torch or olive leaves.
Christianity
[edit]Christians, who believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the Jewish Messiah called Christ (meaning Anointed One),[23] interpret Isaiah 9:6 as a messianic prophecy of Jesus in which he is called the "Prince of Peace".[24] In the Gospel of Luke, Zechariah celebrates his son John: "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the forgiveness of their sins. By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."[25]
As a testimony of peace, Peace Churches in the Anabaptist Christian tradition (such as the Mennonites and Quakers), as well Holiness Methodist Pacifists (such as the Immanuel Missionary Church), practice nonresistance and do not participate in warfare.[26]
In the Catholic Church, numerous pontifical documents on the Holy Rosary document a continuity of views of the Popes to have confidence in the Holy Rosary as a means to foster peace. In the Encyclical Mense maio, 1965, in which he urged the practice of the Holy Rosary, and as reaffirmed in the encyclical Christi Matri, 1966, to implore peace, Pope Paul VI stated in the apostolic Recurrens mensis, October 1969, that the Rosary is a prayer that favors the great gift of peace.
Hinduism
[edit]Hindu texts contain the following passages:
May there be peace in the heavens, peace in the atmosphere, peace on the earth. Let there be coolness in the water, healing in the herbs and peace radiating from the trees. Let there be harmony in the planets and in the stars, and perfection in eternal knowledge. May everything in the universe be at peace. Let peace pervade everywhere, at all times. May I experience that peace within my own heart.
— Yajur Veda 36.17
Let us have concord with our own people, and concord with people who are strangers to us. Ashwins (Celestial Twins) create between us and the strangers a unity of hearts. May we unite in our minds, unite in our purposes, and not fight against the heavenly spirit within us. Let not the battle-cry rise amidst many slain, nor the arrows of the war-god fall with the break of day
— Yajur Veda 7.52
A superior being does not render evil for evil. This is a maxim one should observe... One should never harm the wicked or the good or even animals meriting death. A noble soul will exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or cruel deeds... Who is without fault?
The chariot that leads to victory is of another kind.
Valour and fortitude are its wheels; Truthfulness and virtuous conduct are its banner; Strength, discretion, self-restraint and benevolence are its four horses, Harnessed with the cords of forgiveness, compassion and equanimity...
Whoever has this righteous chariot, has no enemy to conquer anywhere.
— Valmiki, Ramayana
Buddhism
[edit]Buddhists believe that peace is attained by ending pain and suffering. They regard pain and suffering is stemming from cravings (in the extreme, greed), aversions (fears), and delusions and suffering is attachments to outcomes. To eliminate such pain and suffering and achieve personal peace, followers in the path of the Buddha adhere to a set of teachings called the Four Noble Truths — a central tenet in Buddhist philosophy.
Islam
[edit]Islam derived from the root word salam which literally means peace. Quran states "those who believe and whose hearts find comfort in the remembrance of Allah. Surely in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find comfort."[27] and stated "O believers! When you are told to make room in gatherings, then do so. Allah will make room for you ˹in His grace˺. And if you are told to rise, then do so. Allah will elevate those of you who are faithful, and ˹raise˺ those gifted with knowledge in rank. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do."[28]
Judaism
[edit]The Judaic tradition associates God with peace, as evidenced by various principles and laws in Judaism.
Shalom, the biblical and modern Hebrew word for peace, is one of the names for God according to the Judaic law and tradition. For instance, in traditional Jewish law, individuals are prohibited from saying "Shalom" when they are in the bathroom as there is a prohibition on uttering any of God's names in the bathroom, out of respect for the divine name.
Jewish liturgy and prayer is replete with prayers asking God to establish peace in the world. The שמונה עשרה, a key prayer in Judaism that is recited three times each day, concludes with a blessing for peace. The last blessing of the שמונה עשרה, also known as the Amida ("standing" as the prayer is said while standing), is focused on peace, beginning and ending with supplications for peace and blessings.
Peace is central to Judaism's core principle of מָשִׁיחַ ("messiah") which connotes a time of universal peace and abundance, a time when weapons will be turned into plowshares and lions will sleep with lambs. As it is written in the Book of Isaiah:
They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift sword against nation and they will no longer study warfare.
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
This last metaphor from Tanakh (Hebrew bible) symbolizes the peace by which a longed-for messianic age will be characterized, a peace in which natural enemies, the strong and the weak, predator and prey, will live in harmony.
Jews pray for the messianic age of peace every day in the מָשִׁיחַ, in addition to faith in the coming of the messianic age constituting one of the thirteen core principles of faith in Judaism, according to Maimonides.[citation needed]
Ideological beliefs
[edit]Pacifism
[edit]
Pacifism is the categorical opposition to the behaviors of war or violence as a means of settling disputes or of gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should all be resolved via peaceful behaviors; to calls for the abolition of various organizations which tend to institutionalize aggressive behaviors, such as the military, or arms manufacturers; to opposition to any organization of society that might rely in any way upon governmental force. Groups that sometimes oppose the governmental use of force include anarchists and libertarians. Absolute pacifism opposes violent behavior under all circumstance, including defense of self and others.
Pacifism may be based on moral principles (a deontological view) or pragmatism (a consequentialist view). Principled pacifism holds that all forms of violent behavior are inappropriate responses to conflict, and are morally wrong. Pragmatic pacifism holds that the costs of war and inter-personal violence are so substantial that better ways of resolving disputes must be found.
Inner peace, meditation and prayerfulness
[edit]
Psychological or inner peace (i.e. peace of mind) refers to a state of being internally or spiritually at peace, with sufficient clarity of knowledge and understanding to remain calm in the face of apparent discord, stress and discomfort. Being internally "at peace" is considered to be a healthy playable mental state, a homeostasis of emotions and to be the opposite of feeling stressful, mentally anxious, or emotionally unstable. Within meditative traditions, the achievement of "peace of mind" is often associated with bliss and happiness.
Peace of mind, serenity, and calmness are descriptions of a disposition free from the effects of stress. In some meditative traditions, inner peace is believed to be a state of consciousness or enlightenment that may be cultivated by various types of meditation, prayer, tai chi, yoga, or other various types of mental or physical disciplines. Many such practices refer to this peace as an experience of knowing oneself. An emphasis on finding inner peace is often associated with traditions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and some traditional Christian contemplative practices such as monasticism,[29] as well as with the New Age movement.
Non-aggression principle
[edit]The non-aggression principle asserts that aggression against an individual or an individual's property is always an immoral violation of life, liberty, and property rights.[30] Utilizing deceit instead of consent to achieve ends is also a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Therefore, under the framework of this principle, rape, murder, deception, involuntary taxation, government regulation, and other behaviors that initiate aggression against otherwise peaceful individuals are considered violations.[31] A common elevator pitch for this principle is, "Good ideas don't require force."[32]
Satyagraha
[edit]
Satyagraha is a philosophy and practice of nonviolent resistance developed by Mahatma Gandhi. He deployed satyagraha techniques in campaigns for Indian independence and also during his earlier struggles in South Africa.
The word satyagraha itself was coined through a public contest that Gandhi sponsored through the newspaper he published in South Africa, Indian Opinion, when he realized that neither the common, contemporary Hindu language nor the English language contained a word which fully expressed his own meanings and intentions when he talked about his nonviolent approaches to conflict. According to Gandhi's autobiography, the contest winner was Maganlal Gandhi (presumably no relation), who submitted the entry 'sadagraha', which Gandhi then modified to 'satyagraha'. Etymologically, this Hindic word means 'truth-firmness', and is commonly translated as 'steadfastness in the truth' or 'truth-force'.
Satyagraha theory also influenced Martin Luther King Jr., James Bevel, and others during the campaigns they led during the civil rights movement in the United States. The theory of satyagraha sees means and ends as inseparable. Therefore, it is contradictory to try to use violence to obtain peace. As Gandhi wrote: "They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end..."[33] A quote sometimes attributed to Gandhi, but also to A. J. Muste, sums it up: "There is no way to peace; peace is the way".[citation needed]
Monuments
[edit]The following are monuments to peace:
| Name | Location | Organization | Meaning | Image |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Twelve Metal Colossi | Epang Palace, Xi'an | Emperor of China | Following the Qin universal conquest and symbolizing the universal pacification, the First Emperor collected all metal weapons of former Warring States as no longer necessary and melted them into twelve statues and bells.[34] | No illustrations have survived |
| Ara Pacis | Rome, Italy | Roman Senate | The monument of peace was preferred over the traditional triumphal arch as Augustus emphasized the achievement of universal peace over Roman military victory. | [35] |
| Dirk Willems Peace Garden | Steinbach, Manitoba | Mennonite Heritage Village | A peace garden telling the story of Dirk Willems; a place for reflection and contemplation on what it means to live a life of radical peacemaking. | |
| Japanese Garden of Peace | Fredericksburg, Texas | National Museum of the Pacific War | A gift from the people of Japan to the people of the United States, presented to honor Chester W. Nimitz and created as a respite from the intensity of violence, destruction, and loss. | |
| Japanese Peace Bell | New York City, NY | United Nations | World peace | |
| Fountain of Time | Chicago, IL | Chicago Park District | 100 years of peace between the US and UK | |
| Fredensborg Palace | Fredensborg, Denmark | Frederick IV | The peace between Denmark–Norway and Sweden, after Great Northern War which was signed 3 July 1720 on the site of the unfinished palace. | |
| International Peace Garden | North Dakota, Manitoba | non-profit organization | Peace between the US and Canada, World peace | |
| Peace Arch | border between US and Canada, near Surrey, British Columbia. | non-profit organization | Built to honour the first 100 years of peace between Great Britain and the United States resulting from the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1814. | |
| Shanti Stupa | Pokhara, Nepal | Nipponzan-Myōhōji-Daisanga | One of eighty Peace Pagodas in the World. | |
| Statue of Europe | Brussels | European Commission | Unity in Peace in Europe | |
| Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park | Alberta, Montana | non-profit organization | World Peace |
Theories
[edit]Many different theories of "peace" exist in the world of peace studies, which involves the study of de-escalation, conflict transformation, disarmament, and cessation of violence.[36][better source needed] The definition of "peace" can vary with religion, culture, or subject of study.
Balance of power
[edit]The classical "realist" position is that the key to promoting order between states, and so of increasing the chances of peace, is the maintenance of a balance of power between states – a situation where no state is so dominant that it can "lay down the law to the rest". Exponents of this view have included Metternich, Bismarck, Hans Morgenthau, and Henry Kissinger. A related approach – more in the tradition of Hugo Grotius than Thomas Hobbes – was articulated by the so-called "English school of international relations theory" such as Martin Wight in his book Power Politics (1946, 1978) and Hedley Bull in The Anarchical Society (1977).
As the maintenance of a balance of power could in some circumstances require a willingness to go to war, some critics saw the idea of a balance of power as promoting war rather than promoting peace. This was a radical critique of those supporters of the Allied and Associated Powers who justified entry into World War I on the grounds that it was necessary to preserve the balance of power in Europe from a German bid for hegemony.
In the second half of the 20th century, and especially during the Cold War, a particular form of balance of power – mutual nuclear deterrence – emerged as a widely held doctrine on the key to peace between the great powers. Critics argued that the development of nuclear stockpiles increased the chances of war rather than peace, and that the "nuclear umbrella" made it "safe" for smaller wars (e.g. the Vietnam War and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia to end the Prague Spring), so making such wars more likely. Similarly, other critics such as Robert L. Holmes note that any reliance upon a strategy of mutual nuclear deterrence as a means to prevent nuclear war itself is irrational at best in so far as it requires the utilization of the very instruments of war which it seeks to avoid implementing, while also failing to demonstrate an inherent effectiveness in preventing war in either the past, present or future frames of reference.[37][38] [39]
Appeasement and deterrence
[edit]Appeasement is a strategy to achieve peace by making political, material, or territorial concessions to an aggressive power.[40] Deterrence is a strategy to achieve peace by using threats or limited force to dissuade an actor from escalating conflict,[41] typically because the prospective attacker believes that the probability of success is low and the costs of attack are high.[42]

Speaking truth to power
[edit]Speaking truth to power is a non-violent political tactic, employed by dissidents against the received wisdom or propaganda of governments they regard as oppressive, authoritarian or an ideocracy. Practitioners who have campaigned for a more just and truthful world have included Apollonius of Tyana, Vaclav Havel,[45] Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mahatma Gandhi, Bacha Khan, and the Dalai Lama.[46]
The phrase originated with a pamphlet, Speak Truth to Power: a Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence, published by the American Friends Service Committee in 1955. A contributor of the pamphlet's contents was civil rights activist Bayard Rustin.[47][48]
Free trade and interdependence
[edit]It was a central tenet of classical liberalism, for example among English liberal thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th century, that free trade promoted peace. For example, the Cambridge economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) said that he was "brought up" on this idea and held it unquestioned until at least the 1920s.[49] During the economic globalization in the decades leading up to World War I, writers such as Norman Angell argued that the growth of economic interdependence between the great powers made war between them futile and therefore unlikely. He made this argument in 1913. A year later Europe's economically interconnected states were embroiled in what would later become known as the First World War.[50]
Democratic peace theory
[edit]The democratic peace theory posits that democracy causes peace (between democracies) because of the accountability, institutions, values, and norms of democratic countries.[51]
Territorial peace theory
[edit]The territorial peace theory posits that peace causes democracy because territorial wars between neighbor countries lead to authoritarian attitudes and disregard for democratic values.[52] This theory is supported by historical studies showing that countries rarely become democratic until after their borders have been settled by territorial peace with neighbor countries.[53]
War game
[edit]The Peace and War Game is an approach in game theory to understand the relationship between peace and conflicts.
The iterated game hypotheses was originally used by academic groups and computer simulations to study possible strategies of cooperation and aggression.[54][page needed]
As peace makers became richer over time, it became clear that making war had greater costs than initially anticipated. One of the well studied strategies that acquired wealth more rapidly was based on Genghis Khan, i.e. a constant aggressor making war continually to gain resources. This led, in contrast, to the development of what's known as the "provokable nice guy strategy", a peace-maker until attacked, improved upon merely to win by occasional forgiveness even when attacked. By adding the results of all pairwise games for each player, one sees that multiple players gain wealth cooperating with each other while bleeding a constantly aggressive player.[55]
Socialism and managed capitalism
[edit]Socialist, communist, and left-wing liberal writers of the 19th and 20th centuries (e.g., Lenin, J.A. Hobson, John Strachey) argued that capitalism caused war (e.g. through promoting imperial or other economic rivalries that lead to international conflict). This led some to argue that international socialism was the key to peace.
However, in response to such writers in the 1930s who argued that capitalism caused war, the economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) argued that managed capitalism could promote peace. This involved international coordination of fiscal/monetary policies, an international monetary system that did not pit the interests of countries against each other, and a high degree of freedom of trade. These ideas underlay Keynes's work during World War II that led to the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank at Bretton Woods in 1944, and later of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (subsequently the World Trade Organization).[56][page needed]
International organization and law
[edit]One of the most influential theories of peace, especially since Woodrow Wilson led the creation of the League of Nations at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, is that peace will be advanced if the intentional anarchy of states is replaced through the growth of international law promoted and enforced through international organizations such as the League of Nations, the United Nations, and other functional international organizations. One of the most important early exponents of this view was Alfred Eckhart Zimmern, for example in his 1936 book The League of Nations and the Rule of Law.[57]
Trans-national solidarity
[edit]
Many "idealist" thinkers about international relations – e.g. in the traditions of Kant and Karl Marx – have argued that the key to peace is the growth of some form of solidarity between peoples (or classes of people) spanning the lines of cleavage between nations or states that lead to war.[58][page needed]
One version of this is the idea of promoting international understanding between nations through the international mobility of students – an idea most powerfully advanced by Cecil Rhodes in the creation of the Rhodes Scholarships, and his successors such as J. William Fulbright.[59]
Another theory is that peace can be developed among countries on the basis of active management of water resources.[60][better source needed]
Day
[edit]World Peace Day, celebrated on 21 September, was founded as a day to recognize, honour and promote peace.[61]
Studies, rankings, and periods
[edit]Peace and conflict studies
[edit]
Peace and conflict studies is an academic field which identifies and analyses violent and nonviolent behaviours, as well as the structural mechanisms attending violent and non-violent social conflicts. This is to better understand the processes leading to a more desirable human condition.[62][full citation needed] One variation, Peace studies (irenology), is an interdisciplinary effort aiming at the prevention, de-escalation, and solution of conflicts. This contrasts with war studies (polemology), directed at the efficient attainment of victory in conflicts. Disciplines involved may include political science, geography, economics, psychology, sociology, international relations, history, anthropology, religious studies, and gender studies, as well as a variety of other disciplines.
Measurement and ranking
[edit]Although peace is widely perceived as something intangible, various organizations have been making efforts to quantify and measure it. The Global Peace Index produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace is a known effort to evaluate peacefulness in countries based on 23 indicators of the absence of violence and absence of the fear of violence.[63]
The 2015 edition of the Index ranked 163 countries on their internal and external levels of peace.[64] According to the 2017 Global Peace Index, Iceland is the most peaceful country in the world while Syria is the least peaceful one.[65] Fragile States Index (formerly known as the Failed States Index) created by the Fund for Peace focuses on risk for instability or violence in 178 nations. This index measures how fragile a state is by 12 indicators and subindicators that evaluate aspects of politics, social economy, and military facets in countries.[66] The 2015 Failed State Index reports that the most fragile nation is South Sudan, and the least fragile one is Finland.[67] University of Maryland publishes the Peace and Conflict Instability Ledger in order to measure peace. It grades 163 countries with 5 indicators, and pays the most attention to risk of political instability or armed conflict over a three-year period. The most recent ledger shows that the most peaceful country is Slovenia on the contrary Afghanistan is the most conflicted nation. Besides indicated above reports from the Institute for Economics and Peace, Fund for Peace, and University of Maryland, other organizations including George Mason University release indexes that rank countries in terms of peacefulness.
Long periods
[edit]The longest continuing period of peace and neutrality among currently existing states is observed in Sweden since 1814 and in Switzerland, which has had an official policy of neutrality since 1815. This was made possible partly by the periods of relative peace in Europe and the world known as Pax Britannica (1815–1914), Pax Europaea/Pax Americana (since 1950s), and Pax Atomica (also since the 1950s).
Other examples of long periods of peace are:
- the isolationistic Edo period (also known as Tokugawa shogunate) in Japan 1603 to 1868 (265 years)
- Pax Khazarica in Khazar Khanate about 700–950 CE (250 years)
- Pax Romana in the Roman empire (for 190 or 206 years).
See also
[edit]- Anti-war – Social movement opposed to armed conflicts
- Catholic peace traditions
- Grey-zone (international relations) – State between peace and war
- Group on International Perspectives on Governmental Aggression and Peace – Peace organization
- List of anti-war songs
- List of peace activists
- List of places named Peace
- List of peace prizes
- Moral syncretism
- Nonkilling – Approach to nonviolence
- Nonviolence – Principle or practice of not causing harm to others
- Peace education – Interdisciplinary approach to pedagogy of violent conflict and social injustice
- Peace in Islamic philosophy
- Peace Journalism – Style and theory of reporting
- Peace makers
- Peace One Day – Nonprofit organization
- Peace Palace – International law administrative building in The Hague, Netherlands
- Peace symbol – Symbols to promote peace
- Prayer for Peace
- Structural violence – Form of violence
- Sulh – Arabic term used in Islamic jurisprudence
- Turn the other cheek – Phrase from the Sermon on the Mount in Christian doctrine
- War resister – Person who resists war
References
[edit]- ^
- "UN Logo and Flag". United Nations. Archived from the original on 26 December 2020. Retrieved 10 December 2020.
- "International Day of Peace 2020 Poster" (PDF). UN.org. United Nations. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2020. Retrieved 10 December 2020.
- ^ Woodhouse, Tom (27 January 2022). "A brief history of peace". Vision of Humanity. Retrieved 11 August 2025.
- ^ Moeschberger, Scott L.; DeZalia, Rebekah A. Phillips (14 May 2014). Symbols that Bind, Symbols that Divide: The Semiotics of Peace and Conflict. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-05464-3.
- ^ Galtung, Johan (31 July 1996). Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (1st ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd. ISBN 978-0-8039-7511-8.
- ^ "peace". Online Etymology Dictionary. Archived from the original on 14 December 2013.
- ^ Benner, Jeff. "Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings: Peace ~ shalom". Ancient Hebrew Research centre. Archived from the original on 26 April 2014.
- ^ "Peace Sign". Inner Peace Zone. 28 August 2021. Archived from the original on 20 September 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
- ^ Boederman, John, ed. (1997). The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge University Press. p. 832.[volume & issue needed]
- ^ Nilsson, Martin P. (1983). Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology. Univ. of California Press. p. 48.
- ^ Dowler, Amelia. "Gold coin of Croesus". A History of the World. Archived from the original on 22 January 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2019.
- ^ Šmihula, Daniel (2013). The Use of Force in International Relations. VEDA, Publishing House of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. p. 129. ISBN 978-80-224-1341-1.
- ^ "The Role and Responsibilities of the Police" (PDF). Policy Studies Institute. p. xii. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
- ^ Lioe, Kim Eduard (3 December 2010). Armed Forces in Law Enforcement Operations? – The German and European Perspective (1989 ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 52–57. ISBN 978-3-642-15433-1.
- ^ Romm, Joseph J. (1993). Defining national security: the nonmilitary aspects. Pew Project on America's Task in a Changed World (Pew Project Series). Council on Foreign Relations. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-87609-135-7. Retrieved 22 September 2010.
- ^ a b Rogers, P (2010). Losing control : global security in the twenty-first century (3rd ed.). London: Pluto Press. ISBN 9780745329376. OCLC 658007519.
- ^ "Excerpt from the Will of Alfred Nobel". Nobel Foundation. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 31 March 2008.
- ^ "To 'render war impossible': the Rhodes Scholarships, educational relations between countries, and peace" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 June 2013. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
- ^ Cecil Rhodes's goal of Scholarships promoting peace highlighted – The Rhodes Scholarships Archived 22 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Various materials on peace by Warden of the Rhodes House Donald Markwell in Markwell, "Instincts to Lead": On Leadership, Peace, and Education. Connor Court, 2013.
- ^ E.g., Donald Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
- ^ "The Decade Ahead: The US Role in the World" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 September 2013.
- ^ "Honouring J. William Fulbright - the Rhodes Scholarships". Archived from the original on 22 September 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2012.
- ^ See, e.g., "The Rhodes Scholarships of China" in Donald Markwell, "Instincts to Lead": On Leadership, Peace, and Education, Connor Court, 2013.
- ^ Benner, Jeff. "Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings: Messiah ~ meshi'ahh". Ancient Hebrew Research Center. Archived from the original on 26 April 2014.
- ^ "For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." [New Revised Standard Version]
- ^ Luke 1:76–79
- ^
- Beaman, Jay; Pipkin, Brian K. (2013). Pentecostal and Holiness Statements on War and Peace. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 98–99. ISBN 9781610979085.
- "Article 22. Peace, Justice, and Nonresistance". Mennonite Church USA. 2 March 2015. Archived from the original on 4 June 2021. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
- ^ Quran 13:28
- ^ Quran 58:11
- ^ McGinn, Bernard (2006). Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism. p. 163.
- ^
- Richman, Sheldon (29 March 2015). "For Libertarians, There Is Only One Fundamental Right". Reason. Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
- Vance, Laurence M. (1 October 2015). "The Morality of Libertarianism". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Archived from the original on 24 July 2023. Retrieved 24 July 2023.
- ^ Block, Walter. "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". Lew Rockwell. Archived from the original on 24 July 2023. Retrieved 22 March 2016.
- ^ Popik, Barry (4 July 2021). ""Good ideas don't require force"". The Big Apple. Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
- ^ Prabhu, R.K.; Rao, U.R., eds. (1967), "The Gospel Of Sarvodaya", The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi (Revised ed.), Ahemadabad, India, archived from the original on 27 September 2011
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Elsner, Jaś (22 October 2020). Figurines: Figuration and the Sense of Scale. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–92. ISBN 978-0-19-886109-6.
- ^ "Ara Pacis Augustae" (JPG).
- ^ "Peace Studies Program". Cornell University. Archived from the original on 22 October 2007.
- ^ (1989) On War and Morality Holmes, Robert L. ' Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1989 Introduction p. 18 ISBN 0-691-07794-0 on Google books
- ^ The New York Times, 17 January 1988, p.. 26, "What We Don't Know About Nuclear Policy" by Robert L. Holmes on nytimes.com
- ^ Lee, Steven (1992). "Reviewed work: On War and Morality., Robert L. Holmes" (PDF). Noûs. 26 (4): 559–562. doi:10.2307/2216042. JSTOR 2216042.
- ^ "Appeasement - World War 2 on History". www.history.co.uk. Archived from the original on 4 April 2013.
- ^ Morgan, Patrick M. (1977). Deterrence: A Conceptual Analysis. SAGE Publications. pp. 26–30. ISBN 978-0-8039-0819-2. Archived from the original on 24 February 2024. Retrieved 30 August 2021.
- ^ Mearsheimer, John J. (1983). Conventional Deterrence. Cornell University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-5017-1325-5. JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt1rv61v2. Archived from the original on 5 April 2023. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
- ^ Dubrin, Doug. "The March on Washington and Its Impact". www.pbs.org. Archived from the original on 9 January 2013. Retrieved 29 August 2020.
- ^ Jenkins, Alan (28 August 2013). "An important goal of the 1963 March on Washington remains unfulfilled". The Hill. Retrieved 29 August 2020.
- ^ Havel, Václav; et al. (1985). Keane, John, ed. The Power of the Powerless: Citizens against the state in central-eastern Europe. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-87332-761-6.
- ^ Nan Richardson (ed), Kerry Kennedy and Eddie Adams, 'Speak Truth to Power', Umbrage, 2003, introduction.
- ^ Speak truth to power A Quaker search for an alternative to violence. American Friends Service Committee. 1955. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
- ^ According to Fea (2017), 'Rustin and his co-authors expunged Rustin’s name from the pamphlet because of his arrest on charges of committing a homosexual act in 1953.'The History of the Phrase “Speak Truth to Power”
- ^ Quoted from Donald Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, chapter 2.
- ^ "NATO Review - the end of the "Great Illusion": Norman Angell and the founding of NATO". 14 January 2019. Archived from the original on 10 November 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019.
- ^ Hegre, Håvard (2014). "Democracy and armed conflict". Journal of Peace Research. 51 (2): 159–172. doi:10.1177/0022343313512852. S2CID 146428562.
- ^
- Gibler, Douglas M.; Hutchison, Marc L.; Miller, Steven V. (2012). "Individual identity attachments and international conflict: The importance of territorial threat". Comparative Political Studies. 45 (12): 1655–1683. doi:10.1177/0010414012463899. S2CID 154788507.
- Hutchison, Marc L.; Gibler, Douglas M. (2007). "Political tolerance and territorial threat: A cross-national study". The Journal of Politics. 69 (1): 128–142. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00499.x. S2CID 154653996.
- ^
- Gibler, Douglas M.; Owsiak, Andrew (2017). "Democracy and the Settlement of International Borders, 1919-2001". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 62 (9): 1847–1875. doi:10.1177/0022002717708599. S2CID 158036471.
- Owsiak, Andrew P.; Vasquez, John A. (2021). "Peaceful dyads: A territorial perspective". International Interactions. 47 (6): 1040–1068. doi:10.1080/03050629.2021.1962859. S2CID 239103213.
- ^ Shy, Oz (1996). Industrial Organization: Theory and Applications. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
- ^ Miller, Nicholas R. (1985). "Nice Strategies Finish First: A Review of The Evolution of Cooperation". Politics and the Life Sciences. 4 (1). Association for Politics and the Life Sciences: 86–91. doi:10.1017/S0730938400020852. JSTOR 4235437. S2CID 151520743.
- ^ Markwell, Donald (2006). John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-829236-4.
- ^ Zimmern, Alfred Eckhard (1936). The League of Nations and the Rule of Law. Macmillan.
- ^ Hinsley, F.H. (1962). Power and the Pursuit of Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-09448-1.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - ^ Discussed above. See, e.g., Markwell, Donald (2013). "Instincts to Lead": On Leadership, Peace, and Education. Australia: Connor Court Publishing. ISBN 978-1-922168-70-2.
- ^ "Publications – Strategic Foresight Group, Think Tank, Global Policy, Global affairs research, Water Conflict studies, global policy strategies, strategic policy group, global future studies". strategicforesight.com. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 2 November 2016.
- ^ "International Day of Peace". United Nations. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
- ^ Dugan, 1989: 74
- ^ "Vision of Humanity". visionofhumanity.org. Archived from the original on 22 February 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
- ^ Jethro Mullen (25 June 2015). "Study: Iceland is the most peaceful nation in the world". CNN.com. Archived from the original on 7 August 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
- ^ Edmond, Charlotte (8 June 2017). "These are the most peaceful countries in the world". World Economic Forum. Archived from the original on 15 July 2017. Retrieved 14 July 2017.
- ^ "Fragile States 2014". foreignpolicy.com. Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 17 March 2017. Retrieved 10 March 2017.
- ^ Zeitvogel, Karin (19 June 2015). "South Sudan Tops List of World's Fragile States – Again". VOA. Archived from the original on 13 August 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
Further reading
[edit]- Sir Norman Angell. The Great Illusion. 1909
- Raymond Aron, Peace and War. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966
- Hedley Bull. The Anarchical Society. Macmillan, 1977
- Sir Herbert Butterfield. Christianity, Diplomacy and War. 1952
- Martin Ceadel. Pacifism in Britain, 1914–1945: The Defining of a Faith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980
- Martin Ceadel. Semi-Detached Idealists: The British Peace Movement and International Relations, 1854–1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
- Martin Ceadel. The Origins of War Prevention: The British Peace Movement and International Relations, 1730–1854. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
- Martin Ceadel. Thinking about Peace and War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987
- Inis L. Claude, Jr. Swords into Ploughshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organization. 1971
- Michael W. Doyle. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. W.W. Norton, 1997
- Sir Harry Hinsley. Power and the Pursuit of Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962
- Andrew Hurrell. On Global Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008
- Immanuel Kant. Perpetual Peace. 1795
- Martin Luther King Jr.. Letter from Birmingham Jail
- Donald Markwell. John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
- Donald Markwell. "Instincts to Lead": On Leadership, Peace, and Education. Connor Court, 2013
- Hans Morgenthau. Politics Among Nations. 1948
- Laure Paquette. The Path to Peace
- Steven Pinker. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Viking, 2011
- Sir Alfred Eckhard Zimmern. The League of Nations and the Rule of Law. Macmillan, 1936
- Kenneth Waltz. Man, the State and War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978
- Michael Walzer. Just and Unjust War. Basic Books, 1977
- Jeni Whalan. How Peace Operations Work. Oxford University Press, 2013
- Martin Wight. Power Politics. 1946 (2nd edition, 1978)
- "Pennsylvania, A History of the Commonwealth," esp. pg. 109, edited by Randall M. Miller and William Pencak, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002
- Peaceful Societies, Alternatives to Violence and War Short profiles on 25 peaceful societies.
- Prefaces to Peace: a Symposium [i.e. anthology], Consisting of [works by] Wendell L. Willkie, Herbert Hoover and Hugh Gibson, Henry A. Wallace, [and] Sumner Welles. "Cooperatively published by Simon and Schuster; Doubleday, Doran, and Co.; Reynal & Hitchcock; [and] Columbia University Press", [194-]. xii, 437 p.
External links
[edit]- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs
- Research Guide on Peace by the United Nations Library at Geneva
- Peace Monuments Around the World
- Working Group on Peace and Development (FriEnt)
- Ladislav Hejdánek: What do we actually want when we want peace?
Peace
View on GrokipediaDefinitions and Concepts
Etymology and Linguistic Origins
The English noun "peace" entered the language around the mid-12th century, borrowed from Anglo-Norman "peis" and Old French "pais," initially connoting freedom from civil disorder or public tranquility.[10][11] This Old French form traces directly to Latin "pax" (nominative, with accusative "pacem"), which denoted absence of war, a treaty, or a binding compact, as evidenced in classical texts like those of Cicero where "pax" implied enforced order through agreement rather than mere quiescence.[10] The Latin term evolved from Proto-Italic "*pāks," linked to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root "*péh₂ḱ-" or variant "*pag-/*pak-," meaning "to fasten," "to bind," or "to attach," underscoring peace as a secured state akin to a fastened pact or restrained conflict.[10][11] Cognates in other Indo-European branches reflect this binding motif: Sanskrit "pasa-" for "cord" or "noose," Avestan "pas" for "fetter," and Greek "pēgnymi" for "to fix" or "bind," all deriving from the same PIE root and extending to terms like English "pact" or "compact."[11] In Germanic languages, an alternative PIE strand via "*frithu-" (as in Old English "friþ") emphasized protection or safety, diverging slightly to stress sanctuary over fastening but sharing the core aversion to disturbance.[12] Beyond Indo-European languages, peace concepts diverge etymologically, often emphasizing wholeness over binding. In Semitic languages, Hebrew "shalom" (and Arabic "salām") stems from the triliteral root "š-l-m," denoting completeness, soundness, or requital, as in biblical usages where it implies prosperity and uninjured state rather than mere cessation of strife.[13] These non-IE roots highlight how linguistic origins encode culturally specific causal understandings of peace, with Indo-European forms prioritizing contractual restraint and Semitic ones holistic integrity.[13]Negative Peace vs. Positive Peace
The distinction between negative peace and positive peace originates from Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung's 1969 essay "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research," where he differentiated peace not merely as the cessation of overt conflict but as addressing underlying conditions that perpetuate harm.[14] Negative peace refers specifically to the absence of direct, personal, or organized violence, such as armed conflict, war, or physical assaults, without requiring resolution of deeper societal tensions.[3] For instance, a ceasefire agreement halting hostilities between warring parties exemplifies negative peace, as it prevents immediate bloodshed but may coexist with unresolved grievances or simmering animosities that could reignite violence.[15] In contrast, positive peace, as defined by Galtung, encompasses the presence of social structures, institutions, and attitudes that foster equity, justice, and human integration, effectively eliminating "structural violence"—indirect harms arising from exploitative systems like extreme inequality or institutionalized discrimination.[14] This broader framework demands proactive measures, such as equitable resource distribution and inclusive governance, to build resilience against conflict recurrence; Galtung argued that true peace requires both the absence of direct violence and the dismantling of conditions that normalize indirect suffering.[3] Empirical analyses, such as those from the Institute for Economics and Peace's Positive Peace Index (PPI), quantify positive peace through eight pillars—including sound business environments, equitable resource access, and low corruption—revealing that nations scoring highest on the PPI, like Iceland and New Zealand as of 2020 data, exhibit not only sustained negative peace but also three times lower rates of internal conflict relapse compared to low-PPI countries.[16] The negative-positive dichotomy highlights a causal progression: while negative peace provides a foundational cessation of violence, it often proves unstable without positive elements, as evidenced by post-colonial truces in regions like sub-Saharan Africa during the 1990s, where armistices reduced battlefield deaths but failed to curb civil unrest due to persistent ethnic exclusions and economic disparities.[17] Conversely, positive peace initiatives, such as post-World War II Marshall Plan aid to Europe (1948–1952), which invested $13 billion (equivalent to $150 billion in 2023 dollars) in reconstruction and institutional reforms, correlated with enduring stability across recipient nations by addressing structural devastation alongside demilitarization.[3] Studies using World Values Survey data from 2017–2022 further indicate that norms supporting positive peace—such as acceptance of diversity and rule of law—predict lower violence metrics independently of negative peace indicators, suggesting these factors enhance societal buffers against shocks like pandemics or economic downturns.[17][18] Critics of Galtung's positive peace framework, including realist scholars, contend that equating structural inequalities with violence risks conflating descriptive social conditions with intentional aggression, potentially prioritizing ideological reforms over pragmatic deterrence, which has empirically sustained negative peace in cases like the U.S.-Soviet nuclear standoff (1947–1991), where mutual assured destruction averted direct war despite ideological divides.[19] This perspective underscores that while positive peace offers a normative ideal, its implementation can falter amid competing priorities, as seen in failed state-building efforts in Iraq post-2003, where imposed equity measures exacerbated factional violence rather than integrating society.[20] Overall, the concepts illuminate peace as a spectrum, with empirical data affirming positive peace's role in long-term stability yet cautioning against its overextension without verifiable causal links to reduced violence.[16]Distinctions from Related Terms (e.g., Stability, Order)
Peace is fundamentally distinguished from stability in that the former denotes the absence or minimization of violence—direct or structural—between actors, while the latter pertains to the resilience of systems against disruption, often irrespective of underlying coercive mechanisms or unresolved grievances. Johan Galtung, in his seminal 1969 framework, defined negative peace as the mere cessation of organized violence, such as war, but emphasized that stability can coexist with latent conflicts suppressed by authoritarian control, as seen in regimes where dissent is quelled through surveillance and force rather than reconciliation.[14] For instance, the Soviet Union's post-World War II stability in Eastern Europe maintained superficial order via military occupation and political repression, yet harbored ethnic tensions that erupted in the 1989-1991 dissolutions, illustrating how stability lacks the integrative elements of positive peace, which Galtung described as societal harmony addressing injustice and equity.[21] In contrast to political order, which refers to institutionalized hierarchies, laws, and norms enforcing compliance—potentially through violence or fear—peace implies a condition where such enforcement is unnecessary due to mutual non-aggression or shared interests. Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651), argued that sovereign order is essential to escape the "war of all against all," positing peace as a byproduct of absolute authority rather than an intrinsic state, yet this view conflates enforced quiescence with genuine pacification, as empirical cases like Franco's Spain (1939-1975) demonstrate: a rigidly ordered society under dictatorship achieved domestic tranquility through purges and censorship, but peace remained contingent on suppression, erupting in Basque and Catalan separatist violence post-transition.[22] Causal analysis reveals that order can perpetuate cycles of resentment, whereas sustainable peace demands erosion of incentives for conflict, such as resource scarcity or ideological divides, beyond mere structural rigidity. These distinctions underscore that stability and order may enable short-term negative peace but often fail to foster enduring positive peace without addressing root causes like economic disparities or cultural animosities. Data from the Institute for Economics and Peace's Global Peace Index (2024) quantifies this: nations scoring high on political stability indices, such as Singapore (ranked 6th in stability by the World Bank in 2023), exhibit militarized order with strict controls, yet lag in positive peace metrics due to limited civil liberties, contrasting with less "stable" but more harmonious societies like Iceland, where decentralized trust and low inequality correlate with top peace rankings.[23] Thus, while stability and order provide frameworks for managing violence, peace requires proactive integration, rendering the terms non-interchangeable in analytical discourse.Philosophical and Ethical Foundations
First-Principles Reasoning on Human Nature and Conflict
Human nature, rooted in biological imperatives for survival and reproduction, predisposes individuals to competition over limited resources such as food, territory, and mates, often escalating into conflict when cooperative equilibria fail.[24] Evolutionary pressures have selected for aggressive traits, including physical and coalitional violence, as adaptive responses to threats from rivals, evidenced by cross-cultural patterns in aggression that align with ancestral environments of scarcity and uncertainty.[25] In the absence of enforceable norms or hierarchies, self-interested actors prioritize short-term gains, leading to defection in iterated interactions—a dynamic observable in game-theoretic models of prisoner's dilemma scenarios mirroring real-world resource disputes.[26] Empirical data from anthropology corroborates this, revealing chronic violence in pre-state hunter-gatherer societies, where interpersonal and intergroup killings accounted for 15-25% of adult male mortality in studied populations, far exceeding rates in modern states.[27] Archaeological findings, such as the 10,000-year-old Nataruk site in Kenya, document deliberate massacres among nomadic foragers, indicating organized intergroup raids driven by competition rather than mere accidents or intra-group strife.[28] Resource scarcity amplifies these tendencies; meta-analyses show that both abundance and depletion of renewables like water or arable land correlate with heightened conflict probability, as groups perceive zero-sum gains from preemptive aggression.[29] Causal chains from innate dispositions to overt conflict involve proximate triggers like status hierarchies and kin favoritism, which evolutionary psychology links to neural mechanisms such as testosterone-driven risk-taking and serotonin-modulated impulsivity.[30] Without countervailing institutions—enforced property rights, deterrence, or mutual assured destruction—human propensities toward predation persist, as seen in failed states where homicide rates mirror Hobbesian predictions of mutual predation, exceeding 50 per 100,000 in anarchic conditions.[31] This foundational realism underscores that peace demands deliberate structures to channel or suppress these drives, rather than presuming harmony as default.Pacifism: Principles and Empirical Limitations
Pacifism posits that violence, including war and individual acts of force even in self-defense, is inherently morally impermissible, advocating instead for universal non-violent responses to conflict through methods such as negotiation, civil disobedience, and moral suasion.[8] This deontological variant, rooted in ethical absolutism, holds that killing violates fundamental human dignity regardless of context, while consequentialist forms argue that war invariably produces greater net harm than alternatives like surrender or arbitration.[32] Proponents, including religious traditions like Quakerism, emphasize love, forgiveness, and community-building as transformative forces capable of resolving disputes without coercion.[8] Empirical assessments reveal significant limitations in pacifism's application against determined aggressors, as non-violent appeals often fail to deter conquest when opponents lack reciprocal moral constraints. Historical instances, such as the 1938 Munich Agreement where British and French concessions to Nazi Germany's demands did not avert World War II but instead facilitated further expansion, illustrate how pacifist-inspired appeasement can embolden expansionism rather than secure peace.[33] Quantitative analyses of resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 indicate that while strategic non-violent civil resistance achieves political objectives in 53% of cases—twice the 26% success rate of violent insurgencies—these successes predominantly occur in domestic contexts against regimes responsive to public pressure, not interstate invasions by totalitarian states indifferent to ethical persuasion.[34][35] Pacifism's absolute rejection of defensive force overlooks causal dynamics where vulnerability invites predation, as evidenced by the occupation of pacifist-leaning nations like Denmark and Norway in 1940, which suffered minimal initial resistance and prolonged subjugation under Nazi rule, contrasting with armed defenses elsewhere that imposed costs on invaders.[33] Critics, drawing from realist perspectives, contend that without credible deterrence—such as military capabilities that raise the price of aggression—pacifist postures empirically correlate with higher risks of victimization, as aggressors exploit perceived weakness rather than converting through non-violence.[8] This is underscored by post-1945 nuclear deterrence, which maintained relative great-power peace for decades by balancing mutual assured destruction against pacifist disarmament proposals that risked unilateral vulnerability.[36] While pacifism excels in fostering internal reforms, its empirical track record against existential threats highlights a disconnect between principled absolutism and the pragmatic necessities of human conflict, where non-resistance can perpetuate rather than prevent harm.[33]Realist Ethics: Deterrence and Just War as Pathways to Peace
Realist ethics in international relations emphasizes that enduring peace emerges from the prudent exercise of power rather than utopian ideals of harmony or unilateral restraint. Drawing from classical thinkers like Thucydides and Hobbes, realism acknowledges human nature's propensity for conflict driven by self-interest and fear, positing that states must prioritize survival through strength. Deterrence serves as a core mechanism, wherein credible threats of retaliation—particularly overwhelming retaliation—discourage aggression by altering adversaries' cost-benefit calculations. This approach contrasts with pacifist or liberal optimism by grounding peace in verifiable incentives rather than assumed goodwill, as states balance power to avoid domination or subjugation.[37] Nuclear deterrence illustrates realism's efficacy, with the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) rendering large-scale war between nuclear-armed states irrational since the first atomic tests in 1945. No nuclear exchange has occurred among major powers, despite proxy conflicts and crises such as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, where U.S. naval quarantine deterred Soviet missile deployment in Cuba without escalation to direct combat. Empirical analyses attribute this stability to MAD's logic: each side's second-strike capability ensures devastation for the aggressor, as modeled in strategic assessments showing that rational actors forgo initiation when assured of unacceptable losses. The 1991 Gulf War further evidences deterrence's role, as Iraq refrained from nuclear threats despite conventional setbacks, highlighting how even nascent programs reinforce restraint under credible counter-threats.[38][39][40] Just War theory integrates ethical constraints into realist practice, permitting force only under strict conditions to achieve or restore peace, thereby channeling inevitable conflicts toward limited, defensive ends rather than total war. Formulated by Augustine around 400 AD, it justifies war to punish violations of justice, such as unprovoked invasions, while requiring sorrowful intent to minimize harm. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century systematized this in the Summa Theologica, enumerating jus ad bellum criteria—including sovereign authority, just cause (e.g., self-defense), right intention, last resort, proportionality, and reasonable chance of success—and jus in bello principles like discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. These guidelines deter unjust wars by stigmatizing aggression and legitimize proportionate responses, as seen in historical applications like Allied defense against Axis expansion in World War II (1939–1945), where criteria curbed excesses amid total mobilization. By embedding moral realism—prioritizing empirical outcomes over absolutist non-violence—just war theory sustains peace through disciplined power, countering critiques from biased idealist sources that overlook its role in averting unchecked conquests.[41][42]Religious Perspectives
Christianity: Peace Teachings and Historical Applications
Christian teachings on peace emphasize reconciliation with God and interpersonal non-violence, rooted in New Testament exhortations such as Jesus' command to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44).[43] The Sermon on the Mount further promotes turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) and identifies peacemakers as blessed (Matthew 5:9), framing peace as an active pursuit of shalom—wholeness and harmony under divine order.[44] Paul's epistles reinforce this by urging believers to "live at peace with everyone" (Romans 12:18) and pursue peace as a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), though these are balanced against acknowledgments of human conflict and authority's role in restraining evil (Romans 13:1-4).[45] Early Christian communities, prior to the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, largely eschewed violence, with figures like Tertullian arguing against military service on grounds of idolatry and bloodshed incompatible with baptismal vows.[46] Origen similarly advocated prayer over swords for defending the faith, reflecting a consensus against retaliation or warfare among pre-Constantinian writers.[47] However, views were not monolithic; some evidence suggests diversity, with Christians serving in Roman legions by the late 2nd century, though prohibited from killing.[48] The synthesis of peace ideals with pragmatic governance emerged in just war theory, pioneered by Augustine of Hippo around 413-426 CE in The City of God, which permitted defensive wars under legitimate authority to restore peace against aggression, provided intent remained charitable rather than vengeful.[49] Thomas Aquinas refined this in the 13th century Summa Theologica (Question 40), specifying criteria including just cause (e.g., punishing wrongdoers), right intention (peace, not conquest), proportionality, and last resort, viewing war as a tragic necessity for earthly order amid fallen human nature.[42] These principles aimed to limit violence while affirming that unchecked evil—such as invasions—undermines the peace Christians are called to safeguard.[41] Historically, these teachings manifested variably. Post-Constantine, Christians integrated into imperial armies, with Theodosius I's Christian empire (379-395 CE) employing force against heretics and barbarians to secure pax Christiana. The Crusades (1095-1291 CE), initiated by Pope Urban II's call at Clermont, applied just war logic defensively against Seljuk Turk expansions threatening Byzantium and pilgrims, recapturing Jerusalem in 1099 but devolving into cycles of retaliation. Reformation-era conflicts, including the Schmalkaldic War (1546-1547) and Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), saw Protestants and Catholics invoke divine sanction for intra-Christian strife over doctrine and territory, resulting in over 8 million deaths and highlighting tensions between unity and coercion.[50] Pacifist traditions persisted as countercurrents, with 16th-century Anabaptists like Mennonites rejecting oaths and arms based on literal Sermon on the Mount obedience, facing persecution for non-resistance during the Münster Rebellion aftermath (1534-1535).[51] Quakers, founded by George Fox in 1652, institutionalized testimony against all war, influencing abolitionism and conscientious objection; during World War I (1914-1918), over 50,000 British Quakers and Mennonites served in non-combatant roles via alternative service programs. Mainstream denominations, however, often endorsed participation in 20th-century conflicts, such as World War II (1939-1945), under just war rationales against Axis aggression, with U.S. Catholic bishops approving entry after Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Empirical outcomes show just war applications correlating with deterrence—e.g., post-1945 European stability via NATO—but also excesses, underscoring causal realism that peace requires both restraint and readiness against existential threats.[52]Islam: Interpretations of Peace Amid Jihad Traditions
In Islamic theology, the concept of peace derives from the Arabic root s-l-m, which encompasses meanings of safety, security, wholeness, and submission to divine order, with salām specifically denoting peace as a state free from defect or harm.[53] [54] The term Islām shares this root, implying submission to God (Allāh) as the path to achieving such peace, while the standard Muslim greeting as-salāmu ʿalaykum invokes peace upon others, reflecting a normative emphasis on interpersonal harmony.[55] [56] God is described in the Quran as as-salām (the Source of Peace) in Surah Al-Hashr 59:23, positioning ultimate peace as a divine attribute attainable through obedience, though this ideal coexists with doctrinal allowances for conflict under specific conditions.[57] Quranic verses articulate peace as preferable when feasible, as in Surah Al-Anfal 8:61, which instructs Muslims to incline toward peace if the adversary does so, even amid ongoing hostilities.[58] Similarly, Surah Al-Hujurat 49:9 mandates reconciliation between fighting Muslim factions once they desist, framing intra-community peace as obligatory.[57] However, these coexist with imperatives for combat, such as Surah At-Tawbah 9:5, which commands fighting polytheists after sacred months unless they repent and establish prayer, and 9:29, directing struggle against People of the Book until they pay jizyah in submission—verses often interpreted in classical exegeses as permitting offensive action against non-Muslims obstructing Islamic dominance.[58] [59] Early Medinan revelations shifted from Meccan restraint to permitting defensive jihād (struggle) post-Hijrah in 622 CE, evolving into broader applications during conquests.[60] The term jihād fundamentally means "striving" or "exertion" in Arabic, applied in the Quran to both non-violent personal reform (e.g., Surah Al-Furqan 25:52, striving with the Quran) and military endeavors (qitāl).[61] Classical jurists categorized it into "greater jihād"—internal struggle against sinful impulses—and "lesser jihād"—armed conflict—based on a hadith reported after a battle where Muhammad stated, "We have returned from the lesser jihād to the greater jihād," though this narration lacks authentication in canonical collections like Sahih Bukhari or Muslim and appears in later, weaker sources.[62] [63] In fiqh traditions (e.g., Hanafi, Shafi'i), jihād encompassed defensive warfare against aggressors and offensive campaigns to expand dar al-Islam (abode of Islam) against dar al-harb (abode of war), requiring caliphal authorization and adherence to rules like sparing non-combatants. [64] Historical precedents include the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in 628 CE, a 10-year truce with Quraysh allowing pilgrimage access and averting immediate war, hailed in Surah Al-Fath 48:1 as a "clear victory" despite concessions, demonstrating pragmatic diplomacy. [65] Post-prophetic expansions under the Rashidun caliphs (632–661 CE) applied jihād offensively, conquering Byzantine and Sassanid territories, justified by jurists like Abu Hanifa as obligatory for propagating Islam absent treaties.[59] Modern reformists, such as those in 20th-century contexts, often restrict jihād to defensive self-preservation, citing international law alignments, while salafi and jihadist groups invoke classical offensive paradigms for global caliphate restoration, as seen in groups like ISIS referencing Surah At-Tawbah.[66] [67] This interpretive tension underscores how peace in Islam is conditional on Islamic supremacy, with jihād traditions enabling both cessation of hostilities via submission and resumption if perceived threats to the faith arise.[68][69]Judaism: Shalom and Defensive Imperatives
In Judaism, shalom signifies wholeness, completeness, and prosperity beyond mere cessation of hostilities, rooted in the Hebrew verb shalem ("to be whole" or "complete"). This concept permeates the Hebrew Bible, appearing approximately 237 times, often as a divine blessing or greeting implying soundness, safety, and relational harmony across personal, familial, and communal spheres.[70][71] The pursuit of shalom is a religious imperative, as articulated in texts like Psalms 34:14 ("Seek peace and pursue it") and Proverbs 12:20, which link it to ethical righteousness and divine favor. Rabbinic sources extend this to shalom bayit ("peace of the home"), viewing marital and domestic harmony as a microcosm of broader societal peace, essential for the indwelling of the Divine Presence (Shechinah).[72][73] Torah law mandates proactive efforts toward shalom in interpersonal and international contexts. Deuteronomy 20:10 requires offering peace terms to adversaries before besieging a city, prohibiting unprovoked aggression and framing war as a last resort. Prophets such as Isaiah (2:4) and Micah (4:3) prophesy an eschatological era of universal shalom, where nations "beat their swords into plowshares," underscoring peace as a covenantal ideal intertwined with justice (tzedek). Talmudic sages, in Tractate Gittin 59b, prioritize communal shalom by permitting minor Torah violations to preserve it, reflecting a pragmatic ethic where harmony fosters moral order.[74] Yet Jewish tradition integrates shalom with defensive imperatives, recognizing human aggressors' threats to wholeness necessitate force. Halakha deems self-preservation paramount under pikuach nefesh (saving life), overriding most commandments; the Talmud (Sanhedrin 72a) states, "If someone comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first," authorizing preemptive lethal defense against a rodef (pursuer). This derives from Exodus 22:1-2, permitting killing a nighttime burglar presumed intent on murder, and extends to collective defense.[75][76] Judaism categorizes permissible wars into milchemet mitzvah (obligatory, e.g., defensive against existential threats like Amalek in Deuteronomy 25:17-19) and milchemet reshut (discretionary, requiring Sanhedrin approval and Urim ve-Tummim oracle). Defensive conflicts demand immediate response, even on Shabbat, as in the Midianite war (Numbers 25), prioritizing survival over ritual. Biblical precedents, such as Joshua's conquests, frame such actions as securing shalom through eradication of perpetual enmity, not conquest for gain. Rabbinic commentators like Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:1) codify these, balancing pacifist aspirations with realist deterrence to achieve enduring wholeness. Modern halakhic rulings apply this to state-level defense, as seen in post-1948 interpretations justifying Israel's military actions against invasion threats.[77][78][79]Hinduism and Buddhism: Non-Violence Doctrines and Exceptions
In Hinduism, ahimsa—literally "non-injury" or non-violence toward all living beings—emerges as a foundational ethical principle rooted in ancient scriptures, including the Chandogya Upanishad, which equates it with universal compassion and restraint from harm to "all creatures." This doctrine extends beyond physical violence to encompass thoughts, words, and actions, influencing practices like vegetarianism among many adherents and serving as a cardinal virtue in texts such as the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, where it forms the foremost yama (ethical restraint). Empirical adherence varies historically; for instance, Vedic rituals permitted animal sacrifices as necessary for cosmic order (ṛta), exempting them from strict ahimsa application, reflecting a pragmatic balance rather than absolutism.[80][81] Exceptions to ahimsa arise under the framework of dharma (cosmic duty), particularly for the kshatriya (warrior) caste, where defensive or righteous violence (dharma yuddha) upholds societal order against adharma (unrighteousness). The Bhagavad Gita, composed around 200 BCE to 200 CE, exemplifies this: Krishna instructs Arjuna to fulfill his warrior obligations in the Kurukshetra war, arguing that inaction would perpetuate greater harm and violate svadharma (personal duty), as "better one's own dharma imperfectly than another's well performed." Here, violence is not himsa if motivated by protection of righteousness, distinguishing it from wanton aggression; the text mentions ahimsa four times but subordinates it to contextual ethics, countering absolutist interpretations like the apocryphal "ahimsa paramo dharma" not found in the Gita itself. Historical applications include epics like the Mahabharata, where protagonists engage in sanctioned warfare despite ahimsa's ideal, underscoring causal realism: non-violence preserves peace when possible, but unchecked threats necessitate force to prevent broader chaos.[82][81][83] Buddhism elevates ahimsa through the first precept of the Panca Sila (Five Precepts), binding lay and monastic followers to abstain from taking life, rooted in the Buddha's enlightenment circa 528 BCE and reiterated in the Dhammapada (verses 129–130), which declares all fear conquest through violence and praises compassion as the path to security. This extends to mental non-harm, prohibiting even intent to kill, with the Vinaya Pitaka imposing severe penalties like expulsion for monastics who intentionally harm sentient beings, fostering empirical outcomes like reduced interpersonal violence in early sanghas (communities). Unlike Hinduism's duty-based exceptions, core Theravada doctrine treats killing as unskillful (akusala), generating negative karma irrespective of motive, with the Buddha rejecting self-defense justifications in discourses like the Kakacupama Sutta, likening restraint to enduring a saw's cut without anger.[84][85] Exceptions in Buddhism remain doctrinally marginal and interpretive, often rationalized via upaya (skillful means) in Mahayana traditions to protect the Dharma or sentient beings from greater suffering, though without scriptural endorsement for proactive violence. Historical deviations include Japanese sohei (warrior monks) from the Heian period (794–1185 CE), who armed themselves to defend temple lands amid feudal conflicts, blending Zen discipline with martial engagement, as seen in Enryaku-ji temple's forces clashing with rivals until suppressed in 1571. Samurai, many Zen practitioners from the Kamakura period (1185–1333 CE), reconciled killing through no-mind (mushin) detachment, viewing it as transient illusion rather than doctrinal sanction, yet this diverged from precepts, contributing to anomalies like armed rebellions. Such instances highlight causal tensions: while ahimsa doctrinally curbs aggression, institutional power and survival imperatives have prompted pragmatic breaches, as in Sri Lankan chronicles justifying royal violence against invaders under compassionate pretexts, though modern scholarship critiques these as cultural accretions rather than core teachings.[86][85][87]Other Traditions: Indigenous and Secular Humanist Views
Indigenous perspectives on peace emphasize relational harmony, restorative processes, and integration with natural and communal orders, though these vary widely across diverse cultures and historically coexisted with intertribal conflicts and warfare. Among North American Indigenous groups, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy's Gayaneshagowa, or Great Law of Peace, established around 1142 CE, exemplifies a constitutional framework designed to end chronic warfare among the Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca, and Onondaga nations by promoting consensus-based governance, wampum diplomacy, and mutual defense pacts.[88] This system influenced later democratic ideas but relied on balanced power rather than absolute pacifism, as evidenced by the confederacy's military engagements against external threats. Restorative justice practices, such as peacemaking circles used by tribes like the Navajo and Lakota, prioritize community healing, victim-offender reconciliation, and reintegration over punitive measures, drawing on oral traditions to resolve disputes like theft or family conflicts.[89] Empirical assessments indicate that Indigenous conflict management strategies, including elder mediation and ritual dialogues, achieve higher resolution rates in socio-cultural and resource-based disputes within Indigenous communities compared to state-imposed systems, with success attributed to cultural legitimacy and relational focus; a 2021 cross-cultural study of 48 cases found these approaches effective in 78% of applications in Indigenous settings.[90] However, historical records document prevalent warfare among many Indigenous groups, including Plains tribes' raids for captives and resources, undermining narratives of inherent peacefulness and highlighting that such mechanisms often served pragmatic coexistence amid scarcity rather than universal non-violence. Australian Aboriginal traditions, by contrast, incorporate "sorry business" mourning rituals and kinship-based avoidance to mitigate feuds, but evidence of payback killings and territorial skirmishes reveals a similar interplay of peace-seeking customs with retributive violence.[91] Secular humanism conceives peace as an achievable outcome of rational inquiry, ethical self-determination, and cooperative global institutions, rejecting supernatural justifications for conflict while prioritizing human welfare through evidence-based diplomacy and rights enforcement. The Humanist Manifesto III (2003) advocates for diversity, mutual respect, and the resolution of differences via dialogue and science, viewing war as a failure of reason amenable to prevention through education and international law.[92] Humanists International, formerly the International Humanist and Ethical Union, explicitly pursues "an honest and peaceful world" by promoting tolerance, dignity, and harmony as foundational to averting violence, as articulated in its Oslo Declaration on Peace (1997), which calls for individual ethical growth and supranational governance to transcend nationalism.[93][94] This perspective draws from Enlightenment rationalism and empirical observation of war's costs, endorsing disarmament, conflict de-escalation, and humanist education to foster empathy; for instance, Humanist Manifesto II (1973) critiques militarism and urges world community-building to address root causes like inequality, though critics note its optimism overlooks persistent state rivalries and deterrence's role in stability.[95] Advocacy efforts include opposition to nuclear proliferation and support for secular alternatives to religiously motivated conflicts, aligning with historical freethinker anti-war campaigns like the Rationalist Peace Society's interwar push for rational internationalism.[96] Despite these ideals, empirical data on secular governance's peace outcomes remains mixed, with some stable secular democracies contrasting failures in ideologically driven atheistic regimes.[97]Political and Economic Theories
World peace is not influenced by a single factor but by multiple interconnected elements, including conflicts of national interests, hegemony and power politics, regional disputes, external interventions, terrorism, and non-traditional security threats such as cyber issues.[98] These dynamics are central to realist theories and inform broader political and economic analyses of peace.Realist Theories: Balance of Power and Nuclear Deterrence
In realist international relations theory, the balance of power mechanism posits that states, operating in an anarchic system without a central authority, pursue relative gains in capabilities to deter aggression and prevent any one actor from achieving hegemony, thereby sustaining a stable equilibrium conducive to peace.[99] This dynamic encourages alliances and arms buildups that counterbalance potential dominators, as unequal power distributions historically correlate with conquest and instability, while multipolar or bipolar balances have often preceded extended periods without great-power wars.[100] Empirical analyses of European history from the 16th to 19th centuries show that deliberate balancing—such as coalitions against Napoleonic France or Habsburg Spain—limited expansions and preserved systemic peace, though critics note that miscalculations can precipitate conflicts rather than avert them. Realists like Hans Morgenthau emphasized that this process reflects human nature's drive for security amid uncertainty, rendering peace not idealistic harmony but a pragmatic outcome of perpetual rivalry.[99] Nuclear deterrence extends balance-of-power logic into the atomic age, where mutual assured destruction (MAD) renders full-scale war suicidal for rational actors possessing second-strike capabilities, thus enforcing caution and stability.[101] Since the first nuclear tests in 1945, no exchanges of atomic weapons have occurred between major powers, despite proxy conflicts and crises like the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, attributing this "long peace" to the overwhelming costs of escalation under MAD.[102] Neorealist scholar Kenneth Waltz argued in 1981 that nuclear weapons paradoxically enhance security by equalizing destructive potential, compelling states to prioritize defense over offense and reducing the incidence of conventional wars among proliferators, as seen in the U.S.-Soviet bipolar standoff from 1947 to 1991.[103] Waltz's thesis, elaborated in works like The Spread of Nuclear Weapons (1981), posits that proliferation to additional states—provided they achieve survivable arsenals—mirrors classical balancing by deterring adventurism, though empirical support remains contested by incidents of brinkmanship and proliferation risks in unstable regions.[104] Proponents cite India's 1998 tests and subsequent Pakistan acquisition as stabilizing South Asia by curbing total war, aligning with realist causal reasoning that fear of annihilation trumps ideological or expansionist impulses.[105] Critiques within realism acknowledge that deterrence's efficacy hinges on credible delivery systems and rational leadership; lapses, such as near-misses during the 1983 Able Archer exercise, underscore vulnerabilities to misperception, yet the absence of nuclear use over eight decades provides prima facie evidence of its pacifying role compared to pre-1945 eras of frequent great-power clashes.[102] Waltz contended that "stability and peace rest on easy calculations" of retaliatory devastation, bypassing the ambiguities of conventional balances.[103] This framework prioritizes empirical deterrence over normative disarmament, viewing arms control treaties like the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty as secondary to inherent power symmetries in averting catastrophe.[104]Liberal Theories: Democratic Peace and Free Trade Interdependence
Liberal theories of peace, rooted in Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant, posit that specific domestic institutions and economic practices foster conditions inhospitable to interstate war. The democratic peace theory maintains that constitutional democracies with representative institutions and accountability mechanisms rarely, if ever, initiate war against one another. Empirical analyses of interstate conflicts from 1816 to the present reveal no unambiguous cases of war between mature democracies, defined by criteria such as free and fair elections, civil liberties, and stable institutions lasting at least a decade.[106] This pattern holds across datasets like the Correlates of War project, where dyads of democracies exhibit conflict probabilities approaching zero, even after controlling for confounders like power parity and alliances.[107] Proposed causal mechanisms include institutional constraints, such as legislative oversight and slow mobilization times that deter hasty aggression, alongside normative pacifism where democratic publics oppose costly wars against perceived peers.[108] Audience costs theory further suggests that democratic leaders face higher domestic repercussions for failed bluffs, enhancing credible signaling and reducing miscalculation risks.[109] However, robustness tests indicate the effect weakens when including semi-democracies or short-lived regimes, suggesting the peace applies primarily to consolidated systems rather than transitional ones.[110] Critics argue the absence of war may stem from historical scarcity of simultaneous democracies—only about 10% of dyads since 1816 qualify—inviting selection bias over causation, with power balances or geographic factors providing alternative explanations.[111][112] Complementing democratic peace, the commercial or capitalist peace theory asserts that high levels of bilateral trade and economic interdependence elevate the opportunity costs of disruption, incentivizing states to prioritize commerce over conquest. Originating in Adam Smith's observations on mutual gains from exchange, modern formulations emphasize how integrated supply chains and investment ties create vested interests against militarized disputes.[113] Quantitative studies from 1885 to 2001 find that a doubling of trade-to-GDP ratios correlates with a 20-30% reduction in militarized interstate dispute initiations, particularly in non-crisis periods.[114] Post-World War II data show denser trade networks coinciding with fewer great-power wars, as globalization amplified sunk costs in cross-border assets.[115] Mechanisms include both absolute gains—where war severs profitable exchanges—and relative expectations, where anticipated post-conflict trade losses deter aggression more than current flows.[116] Yet, empirical support is inconsistent; high interdependence preceded World War I among European powers without averting escalation, and recent analyses reveal trade's pacifying effect diminishes under security threats or asymmetric dependencies.[117][118] Endogeneity poses challenges, as peace enables trade rather than vice versa, with instrumental variable approaches yielding mixed results on causality.[119] Proponents counter that the effect strengthens in democratic dyads, suggesting synergies between political liberalism and market integration, though autocratic regimes may weaponize economic ties for coercion. Overall, while correlations persist, neither theory guarantees peace absent complementary factors like military deterrence.Alternative Theories: Marxist Critiques and Constructivist Approaches
Marxist theories posit that lasting peace is incompatible with capitalism, viewing interstate conflicts as extensions of class struggle driven by imperialist expansion for markets and resources. According to this perspective, articulated in works like Vladimir Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), wars arise from the contradictions of capitalist accumulation, where monopolies compel states to compete aggressively, rendering "peace" under capitalism a mere interlude between crises rather than a stable condition. Marxist critiques dismiss liberal theories of democratic peace or economic interdependence as ideological justifications for bourgeois dominance, arguing that such frameworks obscure how free trade perpetuates exploitation and inequality, fueling future violence.[120] For instance, proponents claim that entities like the United Nations serve elite interests by enforcing a "hegemonic peace" that stabilizes global capitalism without addressing root economic antagonisms.[121] However, empirical assessments reveal significant shortcomings in Marxist predictions. Historical data from the 20th century show that self-proclaimed socialist states, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin (which invaded Poland in 1939 and waged the Winter War against Finland in 1939–1940) and China during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), engaged in numerous wars and internal purges, contradicting the theory's expectation of reduced conflict post-revolution. Quantitative studies on conflict correlates indicate no systematic diminishment of violence in Marxist regimes; for example, the Correlates of War dataset records over 50 interstate and intrastate conflicts involving communist states between 1945 and 1991, often justified ideologically as anti-imperialist but rooted in power consolidation.[122] [123] Critics, including non-Marxist analysts, attribute this to the persistence of state coercion and elite control in purported classless societies, undermining causal claims of economic determinism.[124] Academic overreliance on Marxist lenses, prevalent in left-leaning IR scholarship, has been faulted for selective evidence, ignoring how market-oriented reforms in post-communist states like Poland (post-1989) correlated with declining violence rates compared to prior Soviet-era interventions.[125] Constructivist approaches, emerging prominently in the 1990s, emphasize that peace emerges from intersubjective understandings, norms, and identities rather than material power balances or economic structures alone. Scholars like Alexander Wendt argue in Social Theory of International Politics (1999) that anarchy is "what states make of it," positing that shared discourses—such as anti-nuclear taboos post-1945 or the norm against conquest after World War II—can transform adversarial relations into cooperative ones through deliberative processes.[126] In peace studies, this manifests in analyses of how identity shifts, like the European Union's fostering of a "post-national" security community since the 1950s, reduced intra-European war likelihood by reconstructing state interests around mutual vulnerability and dialogue.[127] Constructivists critique materialist theories for underestimating ideational agency, citing cases like the 1990 Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait as influenced by evolving international norms on sovereignty rather than solely deterrence.[128] Yet constructivism faces empirical and methodological critiques for its descriptive rather than predictive power. While it illuminates processes like the spread of human rights norms via NGOs since the 1970s, studies show limited causal impact on conflict resolution; for instance, a 2015 analysis of UN peacekeeping found ideational factors secondary to troop deployments and economic incentives in sustaining ceasefires.[129] Detractors argue it overlooks persistent power asymmetries, as evidenced by Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, where constructed narratives of ethnic kinship failed against realist security dilemmas.[130] In IR scholarship, often ideologically inclined toward normative optimism, constructivist claims are seen as vulnerable to confirmation bias, with quantitative tests revealing weak correlations between norm diffusion and peace outcomes compared to institutional or economic variables.[131] This approach thus supplements but does not supplant analyses grounded in observable incentives and capabilities.Empirical Studies and Measurements
Peace Indices and Quantitative Rankings
The Global Peace Index (GPI), produced annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) since 2007, serves as the most widely referenced quantitative measure of national peacefulness, ranking 163 countries and territories that collectively represent 99.7% of the world's population.[132] It employs 23 indicators—sourced from entities like the Economist Intelligence Unit, Global Terrorism Database, and World Bank—grouped into three domains: ongoing domestic and international conflict (e.g., battle deaths, terrorism impact), societal safety and security (e.g., homicide rates, incarceration levels, political instability), and militarization (e.g., military expenditure as percentage of GDP, arms imports, nuclear capabilities).[133] Scores range from 1 (high peacefulness) to 5 (low peacefulness), with weights applied to indicators based on statistical correlations to overall peace levels; for instance, violent crime receives higher weighting due to its direct empirical link to internal stability.[134] The 2025 GPI reports a continued global decline in peacefulness, marking the lowest levels since the index's inception, with 97 countries deteriorating and only 65 improving between 2023 and 2024, driven by rising conflicts and militarization amid geopolitical fragmentation.[133]| Rank | Most Peaceful Countries (2024 GPI, indicative for trends) | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Iceland | 1.112 |
| 2 | Ireland | 1.303 |
| 3 | Austria | 1.313 |
| 4 | New Zealand | 1.323 |
| 5 | Singapore | 1.339 |
| Rank | Least Peaceful Countries (2024 GPI) | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 163 | Yemen | 3.397 |
| 162 | Sudan | 3.327 |
| 161 | South Sudan | 3.324 |
| 160 | Afghanistan | 3.294 |
| 159 | Ukraine | 3.281 |
.jpg)