探索和平的多样性:推进议程

Elisabeth Olivius, Malin Åkebo
{"title":"探索和平的多样性:推进议程","authors":"Elisabeth Olivius, Malin Åkebo","doi":"10.1177/1542316621995641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Within peace and conflict research, the study of peace has received far less scholarly attention than the study of war and violence (Gleditsch et al., 2014). Moreover, among the studies that pay particular attention to peace, a negative peace conception, which equates peace with the absence of direct violence between formerly warring parties, has generally dominated. Consequently, peace itself is underconceptualised. Existing conceptions of peace do not provide analytical tools that can systematically describe, compare, and explain how peace varies across contexts. By way of illustration, the peace in Sri Lanka is evidently different from the peace in South Africa or the peace in Cambodia, and peace in all of these contexts has also evolved in different ways over time. Postwar processes of peacebuilding and development are complex and messy, and the outcomes are both unpredictable and highly diverse. This situation has prompted recent calls for the development of new theoretical frameworks, analytical tools, and methodologies that can enable nuanced empirical analyses and assessments of peace across empirical cases (e.g., Davenport et al., 2018; Diehl, 2016; Höglund & Söderberg Kovac, 2010; Jarstad et al., 2019).","PeriodicalId":39765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peacebuilding and Development","volume":"32 1","pages":"3 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Varieties of Peace: Advancing the Agenda\",\"authors\":\"Elisabeth Olivius, Malin Åkebo\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1542316621995641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Within peace and conflict research, the study of peace has received far less scholarly attention than the study of war and violence (Gleditsch et al., 2014). Moreover, among the studies that pay particular attention to peace, a negative peace conception, which equates peace with the absence of direct violence between formerly warring parties, has generally dominated. Consequently, peace itself is underconceptualised. Existing conceptions of peace do not provide analytical tools that can systematically describe, compare, and explain how peace varies across contexts. By way of illustration, the peace in Sri Lanka is evidently different from the peace in South Africa or the peace in Cambodia, and peace in all of these contexts has also evolved in different ways over time. Postwar processes of peacebuilding and development are complex and messy, and the outcomes are both unpredictable and highly diverse. This situation has prompted recent calls for the development of new theoretical frameworks, analytical tools, and methodologies that can enable nuanced empirical analyses and assessments of peace across empirical cases (e.g., Davenport et al., 2018; Diehl, 2016; Höglund & Söderberg Kovac, 2010; Jarstad et al., 2019).\",\"PeriodicalId\":39765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Peacebuilding and Development\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"3 - 8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Peacebuilding and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1542316621995641\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Peacebuilding and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1542316621995641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

在和平与冲突研究中,和平研究受到的学术关注远远少于战争与暴力研究(Gleditsch et al., 2014)。此外,在特别注意和平的研究报告中,普遍占主导地位的是一种消极的和平观念,即把和平等同于以前交战各方之间没有直接暴力。因此,和平本身的概念被低估了。现有的和平概念没有提供分析工具,可以系统地描述、比较和解释和平在不同情况下如何变化。举例来说,斯里兰卡的和平显然不同于南非的和平或柬埔寨的和平,所有这些情况下的和平也随着时间的推移以不同的方式发展。战后建设和平与发展进程复杂纷乱,结果难以预测,多样性极大。这种情况促使人们最近呼吁开发新的理论框架、分析工具和方法,以便能够对经验案例中的和平进行细致入微的实证分析和评估(例如,Davenport等人,2018;发,2016;Höglund & Söderberg Kovac, 2010;Jarstad et al., 2019)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring Varieties of Peace: Advancing the Agenda
Within peace and conflict research, the study of peace has received far less scholarly attention than the study of war and violence (Gleditsch et al., 2014). Moreover, among the studies that pay particular attention to peace, a negative peace conception, which equates peace with the absence of direct violence between formerly warring parties, has generally dominated. Consequently, peace itself is underconceptualised. Existing conceptions of peace do not provide analytical tools that can systematically describe, compare, and explain how peace varies across contexts. By way of illustration, the peace in Sri Lanka is evidently different from the peace in South Africa or the peace in Cambodia, and peace in all of these contexts has also evolved in different ways over time. Postwar processes of peacebuilding and development are complex and messy, and the outcomes are both unpredictable and highly diverse. This situation has prompted recent calls for the development of new theoretical frameworks, analytical tools, and methodologies that can enable nuanced empirical analyses and assessments of peace across empirical cases (e.g., Davenport et al., 2018; Diehl, 2016; Höglund & Söderberg Kovac, 2010; Jarstad et al., 2019).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Peacebuilding and Development
Journal of Peacebuilding and Development Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Journal of Peacebuilding and Development (JPD) is a new publication for the sharing of critical thinking and constructive action at the intersections of conflict, development and peace. JPD"s authors and editorial staff represent global scholarship, practice and action aiming to develop theory-practice and North South dialogue.
期刊最新文献
Performance Arts in Zimbabwe: Setting the Agenda for Peace and Development Virtual Reality Technologies as PeaceTech: Supporting Ukraine in Practice and Research JPD 18.3 Resources Papuan Voices: Digital Media Usage for Peacebuilding Infrastructure for Peace and Peaceful Elections in Ghana: 2012–2020
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1