International Studies Review (2012) 14, 240272

Oil and Water? The Philosophical

Commitments of International
Peace Studies and Conflict
Resolution1
Elizabeth S. Dahl
University of Nebraska at Omaha
While there have been important studies that have mapped the fields of
peace studies (PS) and conflict resolution (CR), the focus usually has
been on tracing their historical evolution and typical areas of application. In contrast, this article aims to examine PS and CRs philosophical
assumptions and commitments, topics more rarely investigated. Rather
than assuming that CR and PS are analyzing, diagnosing, and addressing conflict in the same way, this study will trace their respective philosophical genealogies (including, where possible, variations within each)
and the concrete implications of these stances in terms of intellectual
wagers about power, truth, structure, and conflict. These findings will
tell us more about what is happening in these two fields and guide
future study.

This deliberately provocative title calls attention to the philosophical similarities

and differences between peace studies (PS) and conflict resolution (CR) as fields.2
While previous studies have mapped the fields of CR and PS, the focus usually
has been on tracing their historical evolution and typical areas of application. In
contrast, this article aims to examine PS and CRs broader philosophical assumptions and commitments, a topic more rarely investigated.3
1
Portions of this article are based upon a paper presented at the International Studies Association conference
in San Diego, CA, in 2006. Thanks to panel participants, Rory Conces, and four anonymous reviewers who provided
suggestions in the revision of this article. My largest intellectual debt, however, is to Patrick Thaddeus Jackson. Of
course, any mistakes are my responsibility alone.
2
For the purposes of this article, conflict resolution is a broad term encompassing all types of dispute and
conflict management, resolution, and transformation approaches, mostly because it is the best-known term in common parlance. In addition, field is used instead of discipline given the more restrictive understandings of the
latter term, indicating isolation from other disciplines. While some scholars claim that CR is a part of PS (Rank
2006:117), these two fields are analyzed separately. In keeping with the origins of these two fields, both PS and CR
are interdisciplinary. At the same time, however, Galtung (2006:17) asserts that PS is transdisciplinary, whereas
Burton and Sandole (1986:343,n4) discuss the possibility of creating an adisciplinary body of thought in CR.
3
Some partial exceptions include Sandole (1993), Paradigm, Theories, and Metaphors in Conflict and Conflict
Resolution: Coherence or Confusion? in Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application, edited by
Dennis J.D. Sandole and Hugo van der Merwe (New York: Manchester University Press) 324; Kriesberg (1991)
Conflict Resolution Applications to Peace Studies, Peace & Change 16 (4):400417; Avruch and Black (1990),
Ideas of Human Nature in Contemporary Conflict Resolution Theory, Negotiation Journal 6 (3):221228; and Katz
(1989), Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 504:14
21. Again, it is notable that Kriesberg and Katz make respective arguments about how PS can learn from CR and
vice versaa commonly heard statement within these two fields that they need to be supplemented by or infused
with the other, as correctives for their different lackings.

Dahl, Elizabeth S. (2012) Oil and Water? The Philosophical Commitments of International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution.
International Studies Review, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2012.01111.x
 2012 International Studies Association

Elizabeth S. Dahl

241

Rather than assuming that CR and PS are analyzing, diagnosing, and addressing conflict in the same way, this study will trace the philosophical genealogies
of CR and PS (including, where possible, variations within each) with reference
to international relations (IR) and social theory more broadly and the concrete
implications of these stances.4 This article represents a first attempt to map out
these philosophical differences and the intellectual commitments they create.5
While a challenging topic, much can be gleaned from such a discussion, whether
in terms of honing existing theoretical frameworks or developing new
approaches in PS and CR as a result. Before beginning the discussion of the
philosophical commitments of both PS and CR, however, it is helpful to review
briefly the historical origins of each field.
Brief Historical Background of PS and CR
When it comes to PS, there are old philosophical precedents as well as recent
efforts to conduct empirical study of war, violence, and peace. While some thinkers such as Thucydides (1996 [431 BCE]) seem to focus on the inevitability of
war, others such as Kant (1991 [1795]) provide ideas of alternate ways to
enhance the potential for a more peaceful world. At the level of social movements, meanwhile, numerous religious groups have promoted pacifism and nonviolent resistance to participation in war as early as the times of the first
Christians. In particular, Quakers, Mennonites, the Amish, and a wide variety of
Buddhists are examples of those groups who express moral and religious reasons
for avoiding violence and promoting peace. At the same time, however, more
secular peace movements also played important roles in protesting and resisting
involvement in wars (Barash and Webel, 2002:33).
More particularly, however,
The failure of the variety of peace, socialist and liberal internationalist movements to prevent the outbreak of the First World War motivated many people in
the years that followed to develop a science of peace which would provide a
firmer basis for preventing future wars than what were in some quarters seen as
the frequently sentimental and simplistically moral responses of pacifism. (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall 2005:34)

During the interwar period, Richardson (1960) in Great Britain, a Quaker,

and Wright (1965) in the United States, were both key in helping start the field
of peace research (Dunn 2005:44), writing influential works that explored the
problem of war.
By the beginning of the Cold War, the study of international peace and CR
became even more urgent given the risk of possible nuclear annihilation and various proxy wars. As part of these efforts, most researchers and policymakers
shared the assumption that the state is the main actor in instigating wars, and
while this belief has eroded following the end of the Cold War, this state-centricity
still is at the core of mainstream PS and CR work at the international level.
4
Comparisons with schools of thought in IR theory also are made for clarification purposes. Note that philosophical commitments need not be made at a conscious level, as unexamined assumptions may play an important
role in decision making. In addition, while this article focuses upon IR theory, it is in keeping with an interdisciplinary approach in which various disciplines share insights and approaches about violence and conflict.
5
Most of the following discussion will employ Tables 24 (below). These tables greatly oversimplify complex
strands of thought in PS and CR and do not display all possible areas of overlapthey are only heuristic devices to
begin the process of teasing apart distinctions by heightening differences artificially. Also note that the field of critical security studies (CSS), despite its many areas of overlap with CR and PS, is not addressed in detail here,
although the work of scholars such as Vivienne Jabri, Nick Vaughan-Williams, Karin Fierke, and others is relevant.
In general, CSS engage directly with traditional security studies and, therefore, are focused more explicitly upon IR
and political theory that makes its philosophical commitments clearer.

242

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

Again, however, several figures, many of whom were from some of the religious
and moral traditions that questioned the inevitability of violence and war, began
to formulate other ways of thinking about these challenging topics. For example,
Kenneth Boulding, the Quaker economist, is another such crucial contributor to
the development of peace and conflict studies, providing a wide variety of
insights, some of which are discussed below.
When it comes to CR, meanwhile, Mechanisms to deal with conflict are, of
course, as old as human society (Laue 1992:303), with thinkers as far back as
Aristotle and Plato struggling to find ways to ameliorate its more negative effects.
Kriesberg (2007:26) indicates that significant precursors to CR emerged as early
as World War I. By the time of the 1960s and 1970s, four movements began to
emerge and converge as follows: (i) organizational relations; (ii) alternative dispute resolution in the legal realm, (iii) problem-solving workshops in IR, and
(iv) religious involvement in peacemaking. Most important, Scimecca (1991:19
20) notes that all four movements present a challenge to traditional authority
and look at conflict and change in more innovative ways. Of the four developments above, the latter two are of most relevance to the international level and
therefore this article. In general, international CR scholars and practitioners distinguish themselves from traditional approaches to addressing violent conflict
(Bercovitch and Jackson 2009:6).
John W. Burton is probably the most important figure in terms of pioneering
international CR. His diplomatic and teaching experience led him to challenge
the dominance of the power politics model of IR, and he began to propose different approaches to the resolution of such conflicts as the one between Malaysia
and Indonesia in the 1960s (Fisher 1997:1924). In time he also joined the
group of scholars attempting to create a social science version of the Pugwash
conferences (Dunn 2005:51).
Similarly, other scholars as Leonard Doob, Edward Azar, and Herbert Kelman
began to develop their own variations of what Burton termed controlled communication (Fisher 1997:26) and Kelman called problem-solving workshops
to bolster political attempts to resolve protracted interstate and intrastate conflicts.
Such focused discussion between various sides of a conflict could help create trust
and allow the parties to begin the process of creative problem solving rather
than perpetuating a cycle of violence and mutual recrimination.
In terms of key scientific studies and developments in peace research and CR,
the 1950s and 1960s were key decades. In 1955, Theodore Lentz advocated that
the methods associated with the natural sciences be used to study war and peace
(Laue 1992:308). Meanwhile, Johan Galtung asserts that events in Oslo in 1959
represent the first step in the development of peace research as an academic
field of study, finally separating it from the realm of security studies (Galtung
2002c:173). In addition, two journals emerged as particularly important in the
creation of both peace research and CR as fields of study. Kenneth Boulding
launched the Journal of Conflict Resolution in 1957 (Ramsbotham et al. 2005:40
41), whereas Johan Galtung founded the Journal of Peace Research in 1964 as its
editor.
In terms of international organizations, meanwhile, the International Peace
Research Association (IPRA) was established in 1964, with Kenneth and Elise
Boulding playing important roles in coordinating international efforts. In
1970, the Bouldings also helped create the Consortium on Peace Research,
Education and Development (COPRED), with Walter Isard founding the
Peace Studies Association soon thereafter (Spring 2006:58). While much more
could be said about the respective key scholars and histories of both fields,6
6
Other key figures who play an important role in developing these two fields include Bert Roling, Karl Deutsch,
Anatol Rapoport, Herbert Marcuse, Joseph Montville, and Christopher Mitchell, among numerous others.

Elizabeth S. Dahl

243

we now shall turn to discussion of the philosophies of the different varieties

of PS and CR.
Similarities between CR and PS
In terms of areas of commonality, many scholars and practitioners of CR join
those in PS who foreground those voices that have been marginalized (due to
power imbalances associated with class, racial, ethnic, gender, as well as other
identity differences). Moreover, both CR and PS use interdisciplinary approaches
as issues of history, culture, and language are interpreted as intertwined and of
importance to peace and CR. For example, prominent scholars such as Galtung
(1996:2) are quite open about promoting an eclectic approach to study.
Both critical CR and PS also face a certain amount of marginalization in terms
of American political science. First, critical PS have been described as utopian
and too focused on ideals that may never be attained in reality when war and violence are evils that must be faced (Quester 1989:95105). Within the United
States, meanwhile, critical PS can be associated too simplistically with the full
range of Marxist theory as well as the various forms of communism and socialism
as practiced by states.
Meanwhile, some have called CR a fad. This criticism occurs within IR as
well as diplomatic circles. After all, it is true that these two fields also arose to
deal with the problems of international conflict and war. At the same time, however, CR techniques go beyond standard diplomatic practices.
In terms of shared beliefs, scholars of CR and PS both look to John W. Burton
for his theoretical concept of basic [human] needs. Using Maslows (1943)
hierarchy of needs as a starting point, Burton argues that more than biologically
determined drives promote human conflict. Rather, a more complex interplay of
biological and psychological needs (or the denial thereof) is interpreted as leading to violent behavior.7 Therefore, human beings complex behavior requires
attention beyond the physical essentials of survivalwater, food, and shelterto
other factors that are key to human development and flourishing. Some of these
needs include having a sense of safety and belonging to a larger group identity.
Another commonality between the two fields is the focus on the distinction
between negative and positive peace. Before Galtungs (1969) important
work, peace was defined primarily as the absence of war. Galtung calls this definition negative peace, as peace does not have a distinct identity of its own, and
the focus instead is upon studying and reducing direct, visible, episodic acts of
violence. Positive peace, in contrast, may be referred to as social justice8 as
well as the absence of structural violence. Structural violence is about the less
visible, pernicious types of violence that undergird much of human interaction.
For example, slavery would be an example of structural violence that is systemic
7
It is interesting that Maslows (1943) hierarchy of needs as well as Burtons work on human needs have not
been inspected more closely in either CR or PS. (One notable exception is Avruch and Black (1987) A Generic
Theory of Conflict Resolution: A Critique, Negotiation Journal 3 (1):8796, which addresses the issue of assuming
cultural universals with basic human needs.) This assumption probably derives from the common sense appeal of
such concepts. Even so, Maslow and Burton both may focus too much on biological needs. Other than with the
immediate need for breathable oxygen, even the biological needs for water and food are conditioned by what the
lack of those items signify or represent to a person or group. (In other words, such needs become salient only when a
person or group is aware that water and food are not easily obtainable.) Moreover, poststructuralists also would caution about dynamics of power and control at work in the political claim that certain human needs are natural,
basic, and universal. To be fair, Burton and Sandole (1986:343,n3) are aware of the potential charge of biological reductionism. The question remains, however, whether they are successful in avoiding this pitfall.
8
Galtung (1969), Violence, Peace, and Peace Research, Journal of Peace Research 6 (3):183. Alternately, Kemp
(1985) summarizes the differences neatly as between the focus on war prevention (negative peace) vs. the focus
on several problem areas: injustice, development, economics, etc. (positive peace) (Kemp (1985), Image of the
Peace Field: An International Survey, Journal of Peace Research 22 (2):135).

244

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

TABLE 1. Schools of Thought

Field

Critical

Mainstream

Peace studies
Conflict resolution

Critical peace studies

(Transformative)
conflict resolution10

Mainstream peace science studies

Mainstream conflict resolution management

and pathological in nature (Brunk 2008:22). Despite the fact that many PS and
CR scholars and practitioners agree with Galtungs differentiation, however, significant debate remains about which form of peace is more important to pursue.
In fact, beyond the fundamental commonalities listed above, however, many
differences soon emerge between CR and PS. The following tables clarify philosophical differences between CR and PS, as well as between mainstream and less
orthodox elements of each. Actually, more tensions seem to emerge along the
conventional-critical dimension, as there are numerous areas of overlap between
the fields themselves. While this differentiation is oversimplified, the four main
varieties are divided here into I) critical PS, II) (transformative) CR, III) mainstream CR conflict management, and IV) mainstream peace science studies
(Table 1).9
Mainstream vs Critical CR and PS
Again, one important similarity between PS and CR is that they both have traditional and more critical manifestations.11 While there are variations in degree,
the more critical PS and CR elements often challenge the status quo (interpreted as often reinforcing various economic and political inequalities) across
levels of analysis from the interpersonal to the international. If they do work
within the system at all, they still may operate in ways that subvert typical power
arrangements, whether by attempting to empower individuals or entire groups.
This tension within the two fields is nothing new. For example, John Burton
was one of the first to note that there is an important difference between
conflict resolution and dispute resolution. Much as Cox (1981:128130)
distinguishes between problem-solving theory12 and critical theory in IR as
the former theoretical framework does not challenge the rules of the game
and therefore limits the insights one derives from analysis,13 John Burton discusses the difference between dispute resolution and conflict pro-vention. In
9
Note that these different schools of thought are not paradigms. Jackson and Nexon (2009) have argued convincingly that Thomas Kuhns notion of paradigms in the natural sciences is not applicable to the social sciences. If
there truly were different paradigms within or among IR, PS, or CR, proponents of the different sides would not be
able to understand what the others are trying to say. While there may be challenges in achieving mutual understanding, different approaches can be grasped via education if the various sides are open to listening. See Jackson
and Nexon (2009), Paradigmatic Faults in International Relations Theory, International Studies Quarterly 53
(4):907930.
10
Frequently, the field of CR is mapped as including conflict management, CR, and conflict transformation
approaches. While such distinctions usually are useful, the purpose of this article is to map philosophical assumptions and their impact on the fields of PS and CR. Also see endnote 28 for additional discussion of the blurred
lines between CR and conflict transformation.
11
Regardless of political orientation, however, there is a wide range of possible epistemologies, ontologies, and
methodologies. In terms of methodology, rational choice and game theoretic approaches, social-psychological
experimentation, ethnographic, quantitative, and case study approaches, all are frequently used in CR and PS.
Moreover, either CR or PS can utilize systems (modeling), hypothesis testing, or law-making (nomothetic)
approaches, although it is hoped that these are used singly and appropriately according to the research question of
interest. Methods and methodology are not a focus of this article, however.
12
Coxs description of problem-solving theory should not be confused with problem-solving workshops in
CR.
13
Of course, Patomaki (2001:727) notes that in the late 1930s, Max Horkheimer raised a similar distinction
between positivism and critical study.

Elizabeth S. Dahl

245

other words, dispute resolution promotes a more compartmentalized view of

conflict, largely distancing it from consideration of broader, systemic issues of
imbalanced power relations (such as racism and sexism, for example). Therefore, dispute resolution operates within the short-term predominant framework
in society. In contrast, Burton (1993:55) promotes a longer-term, deeper sense
of what it takes to resolve conflict preventivelywhat he terms conflict pro-vention.14 Mainstream IR (interpreted here as including all major variants of realism and neoliberalism) as well as conventional PS and CR arguably are less
concerned with deeper or root causes of conflict and violence across both
space and time.
This more limited horizon is particularly true of those working in conflict
management or dispute settlement resolution. At the international level, such
figures as I. William Zartman are associated with this school of thought, which
generally is interpreted as a more pragmatic term and approach than international conflict resolution. This different label reflects the interpretation that
some conflicts may not be resolvable, and yet they can be managed effectively
in ways that channel the tensions in more positive directions for the parties
involved. For example, a political settlement may help end active hostilities.
Moreover, it may give the various government representatives the opportunity to
voice their citizens collective concerns, and perhaps some of these matters can
be addressed to the satisfaction of most involved. Even so, this kind of process
often is not designed to address more ambitious, long-term goals related to distributive justice, racial equality, and so forth.
At the same time, however, scholars such as Fast (2002:529) have noted that
confusing terminology remains a challenge in CR. A great deal of overlap exists
between those who claim to be engaging in international conflict management
vs CR, or CR vs transformation. Bercovitch and Jackson (2009) offer one way to
distinguish between mainstream and newer methods of CR.
these new approaches to conflict resolution are built on the shortcomings of
the traditional [IR] methods Their focus is more emphatically on resolving
deep-seated and structural issues, and they involve as many nonofficial actors as
official ones. This group of approaches examines the root causes of conflict
based on human nature, human behavior, and social structures. It adopts a more
intersubjective view of conflict, including politics, particularly with respect to representation and identity. Thus, it offers a new perspective on human security,
and on the role of states and individuals in world politics. Individuals matter, as
do states, and human security is as sacrosanct as state sovereignty. (Bercovitch
and Jackson 2009:89)

Still others make a distinction between CR and conflict transformation, most

notably Lederach (1997:107). In general, there are consistent attempts within
CR (speaking broadly) to highlight the differences between older (and more
traditional) and newer (and more critical) approaches. The dividing line,
however, varies according to the scholars analysis.
For example, Zartman (2000:228) offers another way of differentiating
between mainstream and critical elements within CR in his discussion of negotiators vs dialoguists. In his words, negotiators focus
on the goal of bringing an end to violence and associated pressures for further
escalation. [Their] means is negotiation, the process of bringing opposing
14
Furthermore, the term dispute settlement also signals that the issue is being decided within existing legal
frameworks, an issue that becomes more of a challenge at the international level given issues of state sovereignty,
implementation, and enforcement. Meanwhile, crisis management also presents a limited view of what is possible
in terms of change.

246

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

positions together into a joint decision [whereas dialoguists work] on the
development of relationships and the building of understanding between peoples. [Their] means is dialogue, the process of sustained discussion to change
conflictual relations. [They are] interested in finding the deep-rooted causes of
conflict and in identifying associated needs. This school aims at transforming hostile relations into positive interdependencies (Zartman 2000:227228)

Zartmans analysis of means vs ends is helpful, even if it does not address the
problem of unclear terms directly. More will be discussed about the differences
between traditional and critical versions of CR below.
When it comes to PS, meanwhile, mainstream-critical tensions are not
reflected so clearly in the terminology. As some have noted, what truly are the
differences among such terms as peace studies, peace research, peace science, and peace education?15 This confusion perhaps explains what Mason
(2002:16) calls the evident discomfort that academic programs have with simply
naming their work peace studies. Instead, peace studies often is yoked to
additional terms (such as global, justice, or conflict resolution) to specify
what exactly is being investigated. This intellectual discomfort is intriguing in several respects. It may be that peace is interpreted as too nebulous and broad a
term. At the same time, however, peace may connote unorthodox and perhaps even revolutionary thinking and behavior. Therefore, the interpretation of
the term peace seems to depend greatly upon context.
One helpful guide is Johan Galtungs discussion of the differences between
empirical peace studies and critical peace studies. According to Galtung, the
latter compares empirical reality (data) with values, tryingto change reality if it
does not agree with the valuesvalues being stronger than data16 Meanwhile,
Empirical peace studies are mainstream social science.17 Not surprisingly, therefore, orthodox peace science actually is keeps closer to mainstream IRrealism
and neoliberalism in particular. Again, given that wars traditionally have occurred
between states, mainstream peace science also remains far more state-centric in
nature. In contrast, critical peace studies researchers do not just study war and
violence. They also study peace (Gregor 1996:x).
An additional factor is that critical PS, meanwhile, are closely related to and
influenced by critical theory (also known as critical realism) in IR, which will
be discussed further below. When devising a topography that explains the
philosophical programs of the different components of PS and CR, however, one
also should explain the contrasts between the two fields themselves.
Peace Studies vs Conflict Resolution
While significant areas of overlap exist, there are many differences between the two
fields. For one, some in PS have criticized CR for its ambiguity about who is to
blame for violence and therefore also its reluctance to take sides in conflicts. This
15
While one also could add peace activist to the list, the terms mentioned are the ones used in Anita Kemps
study of the peace field. Respondents were asked to identify themselves according to these choices as well as others
(such as security studies) interpreted to be outside the field. See Kemp (1985), Image of the Peace Field: An
International Survey, Journal of Peace Research 22 (2): 131. Also see Stephenson (1989), Peace Studies: The Evolution of Peace Research and Peace Education in the U.S. and Canada. In Peace and World Order Studies (5th edition), edited by Daniel C. Thomas and Michael T. Klare (Boulder: Westview Press), 919.
16
Galtung (1996:910) also has a third category which he calls constructive peace studies, based on constructivism: the systematic comparison of theories with values, trying to adjust theories to values, producing visions of a
new realityvalues being stronger than data; emphasis in original. For Galtung, all three types of study are necessary. His interpretation of constructivism as prescriptive, or providing therapeutic recommendations, is quite different than how it usually is described within social sciences, focusing on the social construction of reality instead.
17
Galtung (1996), Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 1996), 11; emphasis in original.

Elizabeth S. Dahl

247

issue tends to generate the most irritation between representatives of the two fields,
particularly from critical peace theorists who find the power dynamics of a given situation (what they would interpret as structural violence) to be quite clear.
In particular, mainstream CR approaches can be interpreted as little more
than what Burton describes as dispute resolution, in which the solutions do
not change the overall inequities of the political system.18 It is true that communication may be improved through the discussion of possible misunderstandings,
and an agreement may even be reached as how to interact more positively in the
future. At the same time, however, inherent power imbalances most likely will
not change significantly by dispute resolution techniques. Moreover, if CR processes remain focused on the interests of state elites rather than everyday people
or if human rights abuses are not addressed sufficiently, then any such settlement arguably could make the situation even worse.
Nevertheless, CR practitioners note the positive changes that could ensue if
people actually begin to talk with and listen to each othersomething that may not
take place at all if CR practitioners were to align themselves with a particular party
or parties. Moreover, even the mere appearance of advocacy on the part of the interveners can prevent more powerful parties from agreeing to engage in talks at all.
Of course, many in critical PS decry this openness to engage in dialogue even
with tyrannical figures and forces. They point out the risk of cooptation by listening to perpetrators if CR practitioners do not pay sufficient attention to power
imbalances. Instead, activism and resistance alongside of the downtrodden are
far more direct and honest ways to deal with oppression. Those in CR, however,
note that The study and teaching of CR has shifted over time in response to
critiques of it being oriented to pacification rather than needed social change
(Rank 2006:117).
Another difference between CR and PS is that CR as a field is less polarized
between mainstream and more critical elements, probably in part because its
scholars and practitioners want to practice what they preach and tolerate
differences. Moreover, CR is arguably even more of an applied field, focusing primarily on micro- and mesolevel techniques, whereas PS has a much broader frame
of reference that encompasses all levels of analysis, even the intra-individual.19
In addition, as this article indicates, there are some theoretical and philosophical
reasons why there is not as sharp of a distinction between traditional and critical
schools of thought in CR.
Meanwhile, there likely is a connection between critical PS and the interpretation of the word peace as connoting revolutionary impulses. Thus, despite the
commonalities between critical elements in the CR and PS fields, there is a sense
that the latter is more overt about trying to create a more just social order by
changing the current system. Now we turn to consideration of the four quadrants of PS and CR as elaborated in Table 2.
Mainstream CR and Conflict Management
In the words of Bercovitch and Jackson (2009:1),
By conflict resolution we mean a range of formal or informal activities undertaken
by parties to a conflict, or outsiders, designed to limit and reduce the level of
violence in conflict, and to achieve some understanding on the key issues in conflict, a political agreement, or a jointly acceptable decision on future interactions
18
As someone in CSS, it is unsurprising that Deiniol Lloyd Jones describes Burton as merely a facilitation theorist (Jones (2000), Mediation, Conflict Resolution and Critical Theory, Review of International Studies 26, 650).
19
Conflict resolution scholar Sandole (2008:45) also mentions the intrapsychic level, although this level is
mentioned rarely in CR proper. Probably Sandole is trying to incorporate some contributions from peace psychology regarding enemy images and misperceptions.

Marx, Adorno, Horkheimer,

Gramsci, Robert W. Cox,
Bhaskar, Habermas

Philosophical
influences

Critical realism Frankfurt

School, critical political
economy, postcolonialism
B. Constructivism22
+ socialpsychology

A. Systems theory
+ socialpsychology

B. Reacting to realism
security studies: Thucydides,
Hobbes, Machiavelli

B. Constructivism (combined
with socialpsychological
insights): Nietzsche, later
Wittgenstein, Foucault

Neoliberalism (both
economic and institutional
varieties); with conflict
management, some realism

C. Constructivism

A. Neoliberalism (both
economic and
institutional varieties):
Locke, Adam Smith,
Kant, Woodrow Wilson

I. William Zartman, Jacob

Bercovitch

A. systems theory (combined

with socialpsychological
insights)21: Talcott Parsons

John Burton, John Paul

Lederach

III. Mainstream
conflict resolution
management

Neoliberalism (both economic

and institutional varieties)
and at times, realism

B. Reacting to realism
security studies: Thucydides,
Hobbes, Machiavelli

A. Neoliberalism (both
economic and institutional
varieties): Locke, Adam
Smith, Kant, Woodrow Wilson

J. David Singer, Michael Doyle20

IV. Mainstream peace

science studies

20
It is notable that most CR and PS scholars do not fit easily into these categories, such as Kenneth Boulding, for example. Again, this finding indicates the limits of typologies in summarizing the breadth a scholars life work, and yet at the same time, in some cases, it may indicate issues of theoretical coherence.
21
This cell of the typology is somewhat similar to the one proposed by Rosoux (2009) regarding reconciliation processes in Rosoux (2009) Reconciliation as a Peace-Building Process:
Scope and Limits, in The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution, edited by Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk, and I. William Zartman (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 545.
22
In IR, Wendts (1999) is a thin version of constructivism, whereas Onufs (1989) thicker variety focuses upon the role of social action in constituting the world. Thus, for those who
follow Onufs interpretation, any so-called structures are created and sustained by humans. (A point of potential confusion is that constructivism in IR often is called constructionism in
other fields (Shotter 1993a)). More relevant in terms of this article, however, is the issue that both Wendt (1999) and Waltz (1979) are not nearly as focused upon micro-level CR techniques as
they are aspects of the international system at a macro level. Some aspects of Waltz and Wendt may be relevant to peace science, however, given PS concern with the global system.

Related schools of
thought (IR
and beyond)

Johan Galtung, Betty Reardon

Representative
scholars

Also nonviolence activists

theorists: Gandhi, Martin
Luther King, Jr., Tolstoy

I. Critical peace studies

Field

II. (Transformative)
conflict resolution

TABLE 2. Philosophical Influences of Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

248
International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

Elizabeth S. Dahl

249

and distribution of resources. Conflict resolution is about accepting a conflict,

recognizing that there are ways out of it, and engaging in some tacit or explicit
coordination, without which none of these goals can be achieved. (Bercovitch
and Jackson 2009:1; emphasis in original)

This definition embraces a wide variety of approaches, from more restrained

notions of conflict management even to some aspects of conflict transformation.
For the purposes of this article, traditional approaches to CR cover not only
conflict management (CM), but also certain aspects of realist and neoliberal
approaches insofar as they relate to Bercovitch and Jacksons description above.
While this designation is broad, there also are central areas of agreement. For
example, realists, neoliberals, as well as those in CM all are concerned with
managing violent conflict and focusing on areas of possible cooperation. In addition, these approaches still tend to be state-centric and instrumentalist, focusing
primarily on Track I exchanges among top-level diplomats, civil servants, and
military figures. While perhaps not quite as instrumentalist as much of mainstream IR, meanwhile, mainstream CR still places an emphasis on achieving
rational goals via calculated behavior.
Realist Aspects
Moreover, the pragmatic tenor and approach of realism is present in much of
conflict management. As with Morgenthau (1960) and others, realists often subscribe to the pessimistic view of human nature as naturally warlike. In terms of
philosophy, realists often cite famous excerpts of such important thinkers as
Thucydides (1996 [431 BCE]), Hobbes (1994 [1651 1668]), and Machiavelli
(1988 [1532]) to bolster their claim about the timelessness of realism.23 Reality is a sad story in which the strong do what they will; the weak do what they
must (Thucydides 1996 [431 BCE]).
Realist approaches are included here because at times the distinctions
between conflict management proper and realism can be rather fine, with conflict managers sometimes being only slightly more optimistic about the outcome
of CM processes.24 Even so, conflict managers still tend to contrast themselves
with realism, noting that they are trying to ameliorate or rebut its harshest
interpretations and effects. More importantly, conflict management and
mainstream CR practitioners and scholars focus far more on communicative
techniques than realists do.
In general, conflict management includes interventionist attempts to prevent
hostilities from spiraling into broader ones that have a wider human impact and
toll. Due to perpetual issues of generating sufficient political will among states,
most often conflict management efforts take the form of surgical, short-term
interventions at points of crisis or near-crisis, although conflict prevention also is
a concern.
Perhaps the major distinction between mainstream and critical versions of CR,
meanwhile, is that the former includes a wider range of tools in its toolbox of
possible mechanisms and approaches, using facilitation, persuasion, incentives,
23
As any political theorist would note, each of these writers work can be read more thoroughly and with more
nuance than is likely when being utilized via selected excerpts to claim a long intellectual lineage from the past.
Realism is a more complex school of thought than this quick summary indicates. It is easy for any major approach
to be stereotyped by competing schools (and at times, stereotyped by its own practitioners). Sophisticated scholars
such as Schelling (1966) and Jervis (1976), for example, have made significant contributions to our collective
understanding of violent conflict and war.
24
For an example of the ongoing impact of realism on some of those in conflict management, see Joseph
Lepgold and Thomas G. Weiss, eds. (1998) Collective Conflict Management and Changing World Politics (Albany: State
University of New York Press).

250

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

as well as various forms of directive and coercive interventions (carrots and

sticks) to reduce violence. Mediators and facilitators may have various forms of
leverage (economic, military, political) available to help direct the parties in conflict and impose settlements via power mediation.
Other CM efforts, however, may be more in keeping with neoliberal institutionalism, given its focus on international law and diplomatic practice. This
element helps explain why conflict management generally is more attuned than
conflict transformation to the generation of agreements and settlements.
Neoliberal Influences
Liberalism is the first body of philosophical thought that has influenced both
CR and PS significantly, in no small measure because some claim it also ushered
in the modern era of ideology. Initial key thinkers such as John Locke, Adam
Smith, and Immanuel Kant are used to help build upon previous Enlightenment
themes of reason, truth, and universality. For example, Lockes (1989 [1689])
focus on life, liberty, and property reflects liberalisms emphasis on freedom in
terms of human rights as well as economics. Meanwhile, Smith (1994 [1776])
helped usher in the modern understanding of free-market capitalism, an interpretation that continues to have resonance today. In addition, Immanuel Kants
Perpetual Peace (1991 [1795]) provides the basis for the famous democratic
peace observation that democracies (albeit republics or non-monarchies in
Kants conception) tend not to fight one another. Moreover, Kants (2002
[1788]) categorical imperative or the principle that a moral rule for one also
should apply to all is the basis for those advocating cosmopolitan conflict resolution and a generic, universal theory of conflict.
These sources are important predecessors of neoliberalism, separated here
into two strands of thought that are particularly influential in mainstream CR
and PS: economic neoliberalism and neoliberal institutionalists. From an economic neoliberal interpretation, trade among countries promotes peaceful
coexistence, as war would disrupt states (as well as their citizens) abilities to
exchange goods and services. Neoliberal institutionalists (also known as democratic neoliberals or domestic-politics neoliberals), however, focus more
on creating an increasingly civilized global order based on the rule of law
via international institutions, laws, and norms. As per the democratic peace
argument, states will be more likely to give similarly constituted states the
benefit of the doubt than not in situations of possible misunderstanding
and conflict.25 Moreover, this perspective extends to the belief that democratic political systems and legal mechanisms will be the most useful in creating and regulating a shared order. Many legal and human rights scholars
believe in this project, also, and share the Enlightenment philosophical basis
for these beliefs. In contrast to realists, these scholars often blend moral
considerations more directly into their analysis. For example, President Woodrow
Wilson is a particularly well-known example of neoliberal institutionalist
thought and practice, such as with his focus upon the right of self-determination of nations.
When it comes to traditional forms of conflict management and CR, meanwhile, many such efforts work within current and developing neoliberal institutions, laws, and norms. Part of such practice is responding to realisms
pathologies insofar as neoliberals note that areas of cooperation do exist in the
international system. They also want to proclaim that the defense of universal
25
Unfortunately, these same states will be less likely to extend such understanding to states with different political systems. See Bruce M. Russett (1993), Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton:
Princeton University Press).

Elizabeth S. Dahl

251

human rights should be part of any calculations regarding intervention in a

particular conflict.
One shortcoming of legal and human rights frameworks, however, is that they
can downplay the importance of cultural differences in favor of an enlightened
universalism. Furthermore, while well intentioned, such interpretations leave
themselves open to charges of cultural imperialism and paternalism. After all,
human rights, democracy, and civil society all are concepts that originated in
the West. In terms of practice, meanwhile, neoliberals focus on written settlements can be challenged also. Is documentation as a basis for agreements truly a
cultural universal? Or is it instead assuming a shared diplomatic culture
among international elites?
Another influence of liberal universalism on mainstream CR is the emphasis
upon finding a generic theory of conflict. This focus perhaps began with John
Burton (Burton and Sandole 1986), but he is representative of many in the field.
Similarly, such CR scholars as William Zartman and Jacob Bercovitch focus
primarily in their research upon discerning the most optimal techniques,
settings, timing, and mechanisms across cases. Given that emphasis on universal
theory, and also due to the fact that many conflict management efforts are
limited primarily to the diplomatic and business arenas, such issues as gender
and race are not of specific interest.
In terms of IR influences on mainstream CR, neoliberalism and realism tend
to focus on instrumental and present-focused understandings of state-centric international politics, and therefore risk overlooking some of the longer-term developments that eventually can lead to serious challenges or even changes to the
status quo. As Salter (2002:162) notes, By not emphasizing the ideational or
representational aspects of power, IR cannot understand many relations of dominance or sites of resistancenot at least in IRs more conventional forms.
Instead, both realism and neoliberalism utilize data-reducing measures (for
example, the rational actor assumption), to simplify reality and focus instead
on the essentials of international politics.
There are, however, other strands of thought that are influential upon mainstream CR, however. Certain elements of constructivism are found, such as the
basic CR technique in non-directive types of mediation and facilitation of not
focusing on being a fact finder about what actually happened among the
disputants, but letting them discern a mutual solution to their problem. Creativity
and flexibility also are promoted when brainstorming potential ideas (Fisher,
Ury, and Patton 1991:17), indicating some sense that reality is what we make
of it. Similarly, one may encounter language in keeping with systems theory,
which will be discussed more below.
Differences from Other Approaches
Some in critical PS charge that conflict mediation, not peacebuilding, or conflict transformation, is the dominant approach, accepted by states, peace
researchers and NGOs alike, presumably at the international level. Moreover,
Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen and Carl G. Jacobsen (2002:51) add, Mediation...is
predominantly a Western approach... It is the product of a specific culture and
psychological ideological cosmology, which affect the way conflict is viewed and
the tools we develop in response to it.
It is true that most traditional CR processes are situated primarily in formal
institutional settings, and in such contexts, potential cultural differences are
assumed as less important given a shared diplomatic (or business) culture
among elites. After all, such figures as Zartman and Bercovitch focus primarily
on negotiations at the highest levels of government. In fact, Zartman
(1993:17; emphasis in original) states, in his typically piquant words, that

252

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

when it comes to the importance of culture on negotiations, even the best

understanding of any such effect is tautological, its measure vague, and its role
in the process basically epiphenomenal. Zartman (1993:17) adds that culture
usually is blamed for negotiation breakdown rather than negotiation success,
while conflict is of such a nature that any number of factors can lead to
negotiation failure.26 Even so, most mainstream CR approaches increasingly
pay attention to cultural, racial, and gender differences, among others, if not
to the satisfaction of those in the conflict transformation school such as
Lederach (1995:6).
Moreover, mediation is hardly the only approach used in mainstream CR at
the international level. Such processes as good offices, Track II multi-track
efforts,27 direct negotiation, adjudication, conciliation, fact-finding, arbitration,
among others, also may be used.28
Actually, at the international level, it can be quite difficult to distinguish
between those engaged in mainstream conflict management resolution vs
mainstream peace science. Arguably, the former may focus more on particular
techniques and practices while the latter pay closer attention to macroprocesses, but enough conceptual borrowing occurs as to make the distinction a
challenge. In addition, both are related closely to traditional security studies
and reflect the influence of IRs mainstream theories of realism and neoliberalism.
Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, there is not as stark a distinction between
mainstream and critical elements in the CR field. Tensions do exist, such as
among representatives of different intervening states, or even among different
non-profits (particularly if one group emphasizes human rights and justice concerns and another focuses more on ending violence), for example. Nevertheless,
these mainstream-critical tensions are not nearly as acute as they are in PS. The
reasons for this difference are difficult to pinpoint, but may include a tendency
in CR to focus on technique more than broader philosophical concerns, as well
as overall openness to theoretical eclecticism.
One contrast is that those in the conflict transformation school of thought
focus more exclusively on CR processes that are facilitative and elicit engagement
on the disputants own terms. Moreover, they also are quite reluctant to
engage in (as well as skeptical of the results of) imposed as well as forceful
means to curtail violent conflict. Last, most of those in transformative CR
are not acting on behalf of individual states, engaging instead in informal
processes.
At the same time, however, Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, and William Zartman
(2009) note that CR as a term has changed.
26
Of course, by this reasoning, Zartman might also rule out the factor of possible misperception or perception gaps, as they, too, are blamed as a major cause of negotiation breakdown.
27
Note that many multi-track diplomatic efforts are more in keeping with conflict transformation approaches.
28
For an overview of such activities, Chester Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall have edited several
volumes for the United States Institute of Peace Press that, over time, increasingly have focused on mainstream elements of the field and representative interpretations of inter- and intrastate conflicts. Compare the much wider variety of scholars represented in Crocker, Osler Hampson, and Aalls (1996) earliest volume, Managing Global Chaos, to
their most recent follow-up text, Leashing the Dogs of War (2007). At the same time, however, several texts have
emerged that are broader in perspective, such as Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk, and I. William Zartman, eds.
(2009), The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage); Sandra Cheldelin, Daniel Druckman,
and Larissa Fast, eds. (2008), Conflict, 2nd edition (New York: Continuum); Larry Fisk, Larry and John Schellenberg,
eds. (2008), Patterns of Conflict, Paths to Peace (Toronto: University of Toronto Press); Daniel Philpott and Gerard F.
Powers, eds. (2010) Strategies of Peace: Transforming Conflict in a Violent World (New York: Oxford); and Dennis J.D.
Sandole, Sean Byrne, Ingrid Sandole-Staroste, and Jessica Senehi, eds. (2008) Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution (New York: Routledge). Still, one drawback of these edited volumes is that they often emerge from conferences
held at a particular university and hence tend to be written by the faculty and graduates of that university program.
This practice may lead to some insularity as well as duplication of efforts.

Elizabeth S. Dahl

253

in recent years, the very concept of conflict resolution has been stretched.
Traditionally, conflict resolution amounted to an attempt, successful or otherwise, between parties and or outsiders to do something about their conflict, that
is, to reach an agreement, reduce violence, and modify some aspects of their
behavior. Yet, in fact, most of the conflicts that were apparently settled or
resolved tended to reignite into violence within a few short years. As a result, the
topic of durability arose as a subject of concern and of study, as research continues to identify the reasons why agreements last, or dont. We recognize the need
for an extended approach to the issue of resolution. We now expect a genuine
approach to conflict resolution to involve changing structural and attitudinal
aspects of a relationship, not just its violent behavior. (Bercovitch et al.
2009:673)

Even so, while Zartman (2009:322) and most others in CM do not preclude
transformation, they probably interpret it as unlikely.
Transformative Conflict Resolution
More commonly known as conflict transformation, this critical element of the
CR field goes far beyond conventional diplomatic, legal, and business settings in
terms of its conflict analysis and intervention. One reason for this expansion of
activity is that Traditional means of settlement, such as negotiation, mediation,
and arbitration, deal solely or primarily with surface interests and positions and
do not directly address underlying needs and values (Fisher 1997:32). In fact,
as R.J. Fisher adds (1997:32), a poorly designed and implemented settlement
may make the situation worse.
As mentioned previously, traditional conflict resolution also is interpreted
as being too Western, insensitive to cultural dynamics, and too reliant upon brief
outside interventions from experts.29 In Lederachs words,
much of conflict resolution training has taken too narrow an approach toward
preparing people to work with deep-rooted conflict. Considerable emphasis has
been put on prescriptive models and techniques for handling conflict, with the
result that proposals for action tend to focus mostly on the cognitive skills of
analyzing conflict and the communicative skills of negotiation. Proposed intervention strategies are often laden with cultural baggage and rarely engage the
trainee as the primary resource in seeking processes and responses appropriate
to the conflict setting. (Lederach 1997:107)

Most significant in terms of this article is John Paul Lederachs work on

the transformation of societal conflicts.30 Mediation generally is a brief
29
See Lederach (1997), Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington, DC: United States
Institute of Peace), 107. Meanwhile, Etchart and Baksh (2005:27) argue that conflict resolution connotes an underlying belief that conflict is interpreted as negative and therefore must be avoided or suppressed instead of used as a
progressive and creative force. There also is a state-centric focus to many conflict resolution approaches. Of course,
some have pointed out that this interpretation demonstrates poor understanding of the original meaning of the term,
conflict resolution, which shares many of the same operating assumptions as conflict transformation. Moreover, CR
increasingly is applied incorrectly as a term. For example, an international conflict would not be resolved by the detonation of a nuclear bomb, as that would ignore the normative understanding in the field that conflict resolution
only refers to those nonviolent and constructive techniques by which conflict should be addressed. See Mitchell
(2002), Beyond Resolution: What Does Conflict Transformation Actually Transform? Peace and Conflict Studies 9
(1:1); http://shss.nova.edu/pcs/journalsPDF/V9N1.pdf#page=7; accessed July 26, 2010.
30
Lederach (2003) has claimed that he has thought about the term conflict transformation since the late
1980s (see his detailed explanation in The Little Book of Conflict Transformation (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003)
3). Meanwhile, Galtung also uses the term frequently. Of course, what Lederach and Galtung mean by transformation is slightly different. Both are talking in terms of systemic or structural change, but Galtung is referring to a
neo-Marxist process of dialectical progress toward synthesis and transcendence. On a different note, Lederach is
hardly the only figure in the conflict transformation school, as many other scholars, particularly those affiliated with
the program at Eastern Mennonite University, also are relevant.

254

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

interaction among individuals, whereas Lederach focuses more on longer-term

violent conflicts that have widespread impact. For one, mediations focus
on process rather than outcome may well be insufficient if no attempt
is made to address broader considerations of social justice, especially at a
macrolevel.
In contrast to crisis management approaches, Lederach (1997:78) provides an
important reminder that quick fixes in protracted conflict rarely lead to sustainable processes or solution. Therefore, this school of thought goes beyond the
aim of improving communication also to addressing systemic, longer-term factors, and eschews the more coercive, manipulative techniques available in the CR
toolbox. Instead, transformative CR processes focus even more on eliciting the
participants insights, emphasizing ways to expand conflict parties empowerment
and mutual recognition. The word transformation is supposed to reflect a
more dynamic and positive interpretation of conflict along with a focus on processes that one hopes will promote more positive interactions and impacts in the
future. All activities are to remain peaceful and nonviolent, and promote a positive transformation of human interaction among the parties in conflict. While
Lederachs comments relate primarily to well-known civil and international conflicts, they also provide important advice for those situations that have not yet
escalated into war.
Instead, Lederach (1997:78) suggests that CR efforts must be embedded
within the painstaking tasks of relationship and confidence building as part of
a nested, holistic effort.31 Such endeavors must be responsive to cultural, identity, emotional, and historical dynamics, keeping in mind that the people
involved in a conflict are the experts, not outside interveners. As part of such
work, transformative CR encourages wider participation from those within the
conflict zone, particularly engaging mid-level workers who are at the crucial
intersection between government and the people.
In terms of development of this school of thought, John Burton once
again is one of the central figures who started the move toward conflict transformation, both in terms of the concept of conflict pro-vention and what
later came to be called problem-solving workshops or Interactive Conflict
Resolution as a whole (Fisher 1997). While some might place the latter within
mainstream CR, Burtons unconventional approach indicates that such workshops were at least an important precursor of the conflict transformation
school.
Theoretical Elements
In terms of its philosophical commitments, conflict transformation broadens the
challenges to realism. In contrast, more traditional approaches may cede too
much ground to realism insofar as they accept many of its precepts as given,
such as international anarchy, for example. Moreover, this critical version of CR
goes beyond traditional neoliberal institutionalisms emphasis on written settlements generated by state elites.
Moreover, transformative CR is relational and therefore focused upon human
interaction. This interpretation goes beyond neoliberal individualism, as relationalism is less focused on self-interest and instead is balanced with connection
and responsiveness to others (Keashly and Warters 2008:61). Many claim that
critical PS are also relational in this sense, however.

31
Maire Dugan (1996), A Nested Theory of Conflict, Women in Leadership 1, 1, cited in Lederach (1997),
Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace), 5556.
Dugans contribution is notably monist in orientation, as part of a systems theoretical contribution.

Elizabeth S. Dahl

255

Furthermore, transformative CR and critical PS both are focused on

reflexivity to greater extents than their more mainstream counterparts, as
awareness of ones own role in the broader scheme of things is important
in transforming human interaction and acting in more peaceful ways.
More specifically, however, what are conflict transformations philosophical
assumptions?
This answer is a complicated one, as a blend of approaches is indicated. If we
follow Lederachs own words, two lenses are particularly important, one focusing on structure and the other on process.
We see here the natural and crucial overlap between the structural and procedural lenses, as elements of a broad peacebuilding paradigm. Structure suggests the need to think comprehensively about the affected population and
systematically about the issues. Process underscores the necessity of thinking
creatively about the progression of conflict and the sustainability of its transformation by linking roles, functions, and activities in an integrated manner. Together,
the two sets of lenses suggest an integrated approach to peacebuilding (Lederach 1997:79; emphasis in original)

Lederachs attention to structure most likely traces back to John Burtons

work on elaborating the structure of the international system. The theoretical
basis of this approach is Parsons (1937) systems theory, in which he tries to dissect the various levels of analysis and components of the international system,
providing a cybernetic model of all of its major activities. As Lederach (1997:14;
emphasis in original) notes, it is difficult for people to see war as a system that
is oppressive to all involved. For example, attempts to mediate an end to a violent civil war will fare poorly unless the mediator as well as involved international
institutions and supportive outside governments all pay heed to major power
imbalances, historical grievances, the concerns of ordinary citizens and social
movements, and go beyond correcting possible misunderstandings between the
major parties. This pointed rebuttal of realist and neoliberal interpretations is
significant.
The challenge is that systems theory is not quite as useful when it comes to
Lederachs (1997:75) emphasis on structural transformation, however. As will
be discussed in more detail below, systems theory does not explain change well, so
it cannot be helpful in analysis of what transforms a conflict from one stage
to another. At this point, other theories or at least theoretical insights must
be imported to provide explanatory power. Hence, Lederach mentions
process.
One such important source area is socialpsychology, although this field also
contains numerous strands of thought.32 John Burton and others (including
those trained in socialpsychology) are more likely to add such findings to their
analysis.
Another element that may help explain transformation is constructivism, and
Lederach (1997:20; emphasis added) again indicates this connection when he
makes such statements as Metaphorically, peace is seen not merely as a stage in
time or a condition. It is a dynamic social construct. More about constructivism
will be discussed below.

32
There are differences between such scholars as Goffman (1967, 1971) and Shotter (1993a,b) vs behavioralist
approaches, with the former embracing a more monist perspective. The issue remains, however, whether certain
contributions blend more effectively with the systems analysis than others.

256

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

Critiques
Some critics claim that transformative CR has few concrete successes (or at least
complete ones, insofar as the broader conflict has been brought to successful
termination).33 Van Tangen Page (2002:59) also argues that transformative CR
remains murky and does not sufficiently address tensions between justice and
peace, as when former combatants are granted amnesty despite the lack of
contrition some display. The attempt to transform interactions among groups of
people, while paying attention to long-standing power imbalances and complex
historical sensitivities, is indeed a challenge. Many of those who practice transformative CR seem to have the faith that, despite setbacks, such work will be
constructive in the longer term. Again, some of this belief may be rooted in
various religious forms of mysticism, or at least an agnostic attitude that not all
seeds that are planted will bloom. Even so, the criticism listed above also
applies to critical PS and other perspectives.
Mainstream Peace Studies Science
When it comes to mainstream peace science, meanwhile, some point out that
it arguably should be called (traditional) security studies, war studies, or military science instead,34 because peace is defined primarily as the absence of
war or negative peace. All of these points indicate that mainstream peace science actually is responding a great deal to mainstream IR theoryrealism and
neoliberalism in particular. Given that wars traditionally have occurred between
states, mainstream peace science also has tended to be more state-centric in nature, trying to analyze and reduce organized lethal violence.
Theoretical Influences35
Depending on how closely aligned they are to traditional security studies, the
more likely mainstream PS scholars are to be strongly influenced by the pessimism of realism, if not agreeing with it in all respects.36 Realists interpret war as
a nearly inevitable aspect of the human condition, and so survival of the sovereign state, the ultimate protector of the citizenry, is of utmost importance.
Therefore, traditional realists also quote the famous saying, Si vis pacem, para
bellum or If you want peace, prepare for war.
33
Of course, this interpretation has its own problems. When is a conflict truly over? Given that conflict is a
process, one would expect any conflict termination to be a lengthy procedure with many setbacks over the years.
To a certain extent, language itself is problematic, as static nouns such as termination, resolution, and transformation are used to describe dynamic processes, and connotes what may be a false sense of expectation about
conflicts having concrete, easily discerned beginnings and endings. Moreover, some disagree that transformation should be on this list. After all, conflict transformation centers on the belief that systemic change can occur that
will sustain possible setbacks, external shocks, and so forth. Despite the fact that I was schooled in the conflict transformation approach and believe in its value, I remain concerned that there are problematic philosophical tensions
between the constructivist, process orientation, and the structural change assumptions in conflict transformation.
While this point is highly controversial, it is my hope that CT scholars and practitioners will reflect upon it rather
than dismiss it quickly.
34
Georg Picht cited in Bonisch (1981), Elements of the Modern Concept of Peace, Journal of Peace Research 18
(2):166.
35
Much of this section overlaps with what has been said about the theoretical influences upon mainstream CR.
For the sake of brevity, please consult that section for more detail, as well as the discussion about differences
between mainstream-critical PS and CR.
36
To a certain extent, neorealism also is influential. The main insight used in practice, however, is Waltzs
(1979) discussion of anarchy at the international level. In the international context, anarchy means that states must
fend for themselves to survive, as there is no true supra-national authority to intervene in conflicts. Meanwhile, a
true Waltzian interpretation of the international system is far less likely to be utilized in mainstream PS or IR, probably because of its high level of abstraction.

Elizabeth S. Dahl

257

The end of the Cold War, however, necessitated a change in focus for nearly
any scholar involved in studying international peace, violence, and conflict. Realists altered from studying the key tensions between the United States and USSR
as the two global superpowers to ethnic conflict. This shift reflects an overall
reduction in interstate conflict and increasing numbers of intrastate conflicts
(including a rise in civilian casualties) instead (Levy 2007:21,18). Since the
events of September 11, 2001, realists also have turned their attention more to
crisis management, terrorism, and even more recently, the problem of failed
states.
While many in mainstream PS would not describe themselves as realists, much
of their work still responds to realism. Most importantly, while realists hope to
prevent war, some in conventional PS would like to go beyond that to eradicate
war, an impulse connected to neoliberal institutionalism. In addition, some in
traditional PS believe that there is a possibility of system transformation, which
runs counter to realist thought. Enlightenment values, such as those regarding
the search for truth and freedom, underlie such efforts.
Many of the above beliefs are shared at least in part with critical PS. At the
same time, however, critical PS is global rather than state-centric and has a
broader timeframe (both past and future) than traditional IR. Moreover, The
traditional belief in the inevitability of war and injustice is questioned even
more strongly (Rank 2006:119120).
Critical Peace Studies
Those in critical PS are particularly clear in their orientation, although at times
they also suffer from a lack of attention to the particulars of their own philosophical heritage. Part of this issue may come from their unwavering focus on
emancipation and alleviation of suffering, as such urgent matters may seem to
make philosophy a luxury granted only to armchair elites far removed from
everyday struggles. At the same time, this belief in emancipation is undergirded
by broader acceptance of such Enlightenment values as truth, peace, justice, liberty, equality, and fairness, among others.
Most critical PS scholars also make direct connections between peace and
nonviolence, positing that both means and ends are important in promoting
a constructive end to protracted conflict. At the same time, however, many
adhere to the bumper-sticker wisdom, If you want peace, work for justice.
A peaceful ceasefire or even a political settlement that ends violent conflict
may not be enough to end systemic and deeply embedded problems of
injustice, militarism, resource scarcity, and exploitation. Therefore, while
nonviolent techniques matter, attention also should be given to addressing
underlying structures (economic, political, ideological) that sustain cycles of
oppression and domination over the long term. Injustice must be confronted
directly, requiring constant advocacy of and work alongside the underprivileged.
As Louis Kriesberg notes,
the analysis and criticism of conventional practice is regarded by some as a way
of doing peace research or peace studies, because it reveals the patterns of
thought or structures of action that generate wars or perpetuate injustice and a
war system. Such revelations or demystifications of the prevailing conventions, it
is presumed, help liberate people to create new, more peaceful circumstances.
(1991:401)

While some critics have claimed that PS have become less relevant since the
Cold War ended, defenders (Patomaki 2001:724) note that a more accurate

258

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

way to describe what has happened is that PS has expanded its focus.37 For
one, critical PS has shifted its attention from the East-West conflict of the
USSR vs the United States, to the structural violence that undergirds NorthSouth inequities. US American strategic hegemony, which arguably prevents
such international and supranational organizations as the United Nations from
being truly effective, remains a frequent target of critique. As Antonio Gramsci
(1971) might note, however, US American economic and social hegemony is
another factor in explaining ongoing impoverishment and the concentration of
wealth in the hands of a few. This system of structural violence is undergirded
by economic neoliberalism, so those in critical PS are prone to use anti-capitalist
rhetoric.
In terms of other influences, many in this branch of PS look to Mohandas
Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. for their contributions to nonviolent action,
with some also focusing upon their considerable spiritual insights. Those from
Judeo-Christian religious traditions may even promote liberation theology, a prophetic tradition that often criticizes global capitalism and militarist powers for
their lack of attention to the plight of the poor and disenfranchised. Different
strands of religious thought also include a meditative element, focusing on creating harmony between self and other, as well as with the cosmos as a whole. Last
(nonviolent) anarchist writings may provide additional source material on peaceful action (Smoker 1981). The wide variation in practice and belief, however,
may not always work to promote conceptual clarity and concrete guidance. The
one point of stability may be the continuing significance of Johan Galtung to
critical PS.
Ongoing Centrality of Johan Galtung
While Heikki Patomaki claims that many in PS have grown tired of gurus
such as Johan Galtung, his impact on the field cannot be denied.38 One
only need look at any PS textbook to see the prominent use of Galtungs
(1969:183) key concepts, such as the difference between direct (personal) and
structural (indirect) violence, which also may be referred to as social
injustice.
As mentioned above, one of the central differences between mainstream and
critical PS approaches is the emphasis placed on negative or positive peace. Galtung hopes to achieve both types of peace as he interprets them as interrelated,
although positive peace is the more important goal.
Meanwhile, many peace scientists state that the goal of eradicating war is
an important one in and of itself and that Galtungs positive peace is utopian (Bonisch 1981:167; Quester 1989:103). Onuf (1975:71) also notes that
much of this division seems to fall between European and American peace
research and that the two sides do not learn enough from the other.39 Of
course, this stark divide in PS between idealists and pragmatists seems to
have improved somewhat since the end of the Cold War, probably due in
part also to rise of the Internet in sharing information across geographical
boundaries.

37
Of course, there have been situations in which PS programs have gotten divorced from political science
departments, for example, perhaps reflecting a bias against the former as being too unscientific.
38
Of course, Patomakis point (2001:725) raises the valid question of whether it is wise to rely so heavily on one
particular intellectual figure. At the same time, however, there are several CSS scholars whose work pushes critical
PS beyond Galtung, such as Deiniol Lloyd Jones, Nick Vaughan-Williams, Eli Stamnes, and Richard Wyn Jones, for
example. Nevertheless, many PS programs still emphasize Galtungs teachings.
39
An intriguing question is the extent to which national associations remain connected to different schools of
thought in PS and CR.

Elizabeth S. Dahl

259

Importantly, and unlike some others in critical PS, Galtung is particularly comfortable in discussing political philosophy given his background in sociology.
When compared to IR theory, commonalities exist between his work and the
school of thought in IR of critical theory (more particularly, critical realism).
While there is some question of whether Galtung approves of this interpretation,
many similarities exist.40
Much as with critical theorists in IR, Galtung has been influenced strongly by
G.W.F. Hegel and Karl Marx. For example, Galtungs frequent use of three-stage
movement, triangles, and transcendence indicates his Hegelian dialectical framework.41 The persistence of these heuristic devices also indicates that Galtung may
have a belief in an underlying progressive direction in historical processes, much
as Hegel and Marx believed.
At the same time, however, the dualism of dialectical analysis is used only insofar as it is striving toward a more holistic synthesis.42 Galtungs interest in Eastern cultures also indicates his desire to go beyond standard Western dualistic
theories of conflict and violence.
These deviations from Marx underscore the important point that neither
critical realists nor Galtung are Marxists in an orthodox sense. Many of
Marxs central arguments have been jettisoned, especially since the end of the
Cold War. For example, there is no mention of his utopian end goal of communism. Meanwhile, Marx has been criticized roundly for his lack of attention
to other possible sites of conflict besides class relations. As for Galtung in particular, he has written many comments over the years that deride Marx as
well as those political leaders who tried to implement Marxist theory into
practice.43
At the same time, however, other elements of MarxistLeninist analysis and
language frequently are used to explain peace and conflict (Bonisch 1981:172)
at the international level, with Galtung himself noting that Peace is a revolutionary proposition.44 Such terms as structural violence, dialectics, contradiction, structures, and core periphery (Brand-Jacobsen and Jacobsen
2002:53), for example, all indicate this philosophical genealogy.45 Of particular
influence, however, are Marxs (1976 [1867]) critical attitude toward capitalism

40

Patomaki (2001:727) notes some previous reluctance on Galtungs part to claim ties to critical realism.
While some might argue that Immanuel Kant is more influential in terms of the emphasis on transcendence,
Hegels dialectics can be mapped as a three-stage process, culminating in the third transcendent stage of synthesis. See Galtung (1996), Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage), 96 and 11 for examples of Galtungs diagrams. Another example is when Brand-Jacobsen and Jacobsen
(2002:49) discuss the need to transcend war as an institution.
42
Galtung (2002a), Conflict, War and Peace: A Birds Eye View, in Searching for Peace: The Road to Transcend,
eds. Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen (2nd ed.) (London: Pluto), 14. Of course,
there remains the issue of whether dialectics are too mechanistic and deterministic a way to reach holism. Kenneth
Boulding (1977:7678) raises this point, also arguing that dialectical frameworks also have a difficult time embracing dynamism and contingency.
43
For example, Galtung and Tschudi (2002:153) describe the Marxist fallacy of focusing only on the
contradiction between labor and capital. Also see Galtung (2002b), The State Nation Dialectic: Some Tentative
Conclusions, in Searching for Peace: The Road to Transcend, eds. Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof
Brand-Jacobsen (2nd ed.) (London: Pluto), 127.
44
Galtung (1996), Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage), 266; emphasis in original.
45
Of course, one may focus on structure without relying upon dialectics (Talcott Parsons, for example), so the
code word structure only becomes indicative of the Marxist tradition when used in close conjunction with other
key terms (such as emancipation, contradiction, or dialectics) and areas of concern (class and economics).
Similarly, dialectics have ancient roots in philosophy and therefore range beyond Marxs interpretation, so more
information is needed in order to figure out the point being made. For example, Lederach (1997:63) uses the term
dialectical when describing his theoretical framework despite otherwise not using much in the way of Marxist language, so additional information is necessary to know his meaning.
41

260

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

(as being repressive and unsustainable, in part because the market cannot
regulate itself) and Lenins (1997 [1917]) analysis of imperialism (as the
exploitative labor arrangements of capitalism in core countries merely are
shipped overseas to lesser-developed nations). Nevertheless, Galtung does not
follow their respective prescriptions for change.
In terms of global capitalism, many in critical PS note that while the world may
appear to economic neoliberals to operate in functional and equitable ways (especially prior to the global financial collapse in the fall of 2008), a closer, deeper
inspection reveals mass exploitation, militarism, human misery, and environmental
degradation. All of these features are symptomatic of the primacy of free-market
capitalism in determining what happens in the world. While some may criticize the
reductionism of focusing too much on economics, those in critical PS note how
their analysis has expanded far beyond Marxist considerations of class to explore
what Galtung (2002a,b:xiii) describes as the remaining seven fault-lines in the human
condition as follows: nature, gender, generation, race, exclusion, nation and state.
Again, these features largely are shared in common with critical realism
(sometimes also called critical theory) in IR. Critical realism traces back to the
Frankfurt School, featuring such intellectual figures as Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. Bhaskar (1998), the key figure in critical
realism within IR, also builds upon Enlightenment principles and uses selected
elements of Marxist thought to analyze human relations, criticize capitalisms
dominance within the global economy, and work toward emancipation. Unlike
economic neoliberalism, globalization and development are not interpreted as
purely progressive. Bhaskars (1998) focus is upon revealing the deep, essential
properties of material objects as well as the far less visible neoliberal economic
structures that create and sustain systemic human oppression. For example,
development merely masks the fact that certain powerful vested interests
(Christie 2006:14) control the distribution of resources and goods, thereby promoting division between the globes haves and have nots.
Since Galtung seems to share so many beliefs with critical realism, why does
he not embrace this school of thought more openly? Patomaki (2002:106) indicates that Galtung experienced a dramatic shift in his scientific beliefs,
having spent years on the false emancipatory promise of [neo]positivist social
sciences. After he finally realized that knowledge is not only not-neutral but also
constitutive of social worlds and that, from a global perspective, there are limitations to both liberalism and Marxism, he started to look to non-Occidental social
cosmologies [such as Buddhism for guidance]

As perhaps the most damning criticism of Galtung, Patomaki (2002:105) also

argues that Galtungs diagnosis is about descriptive taxonomies of the sources of
problems related to violence, instead of systematic attempts to understand and
causally explain events, episodes, and processes specified concretely in time and
space. Patomaki (2002:105) claims that Galtungs lack of realist social science
means that his normative critique and visions for the future tend to be ungroundedand also short of accounts of transformations from here to there.
At this point, our focus will shift to the impacts of these various philosophical
stances. While highly simplified, the following discussion (corresponding to
Tables 3 and 4) will at least begin the process of assessing the implications of
the different analytical stances.
Monism and Dualism
Perhaps the most important and under-considered question about CR and PS
(as well as IR) is whether the respective approaches are monist or dualist in

Elizabeth S. Dahl

261

their understanding of the world. The first academic wager has to do with
the relationship between the knower and the known (Jackson 2010:37).
More specifically, this issue has to do with philosophical ontology (Patomaki
and Wight 2000:224), or the ways in which the researcher is connected to the
world and therefore able to produce knowledge in the first place (Jackson
2010:29,28).46
To clarify, a monist stance indicates that a scholars mind is part of the world
rather than distinct from it. In the words of Wittgenstein (1961 [1918]), the
world is all that is the case. There is no outside or inside. Only the whole
exists.
In contrast, dualists operate under the assumption that the objects of study
have a more or less determinate character that is separate from the researchers activity (Jackson 2010:35). According to this perspective, ones mind is
independent of the social world, and therefore there is a corresponding difference between subject and object. Critical and mainstream peace scholars
(as well as some of those in conflict management) are therefore mind-world
dualists.
As Table 3 indicates, however, there is a second dimension or mind-world
wager to be considered: what Jackson (2010:37) terms as the difference
between transfactualism and phenomenalism. For example, critical and
mainstream peace scholars do not agree about what can be studied scientifically.
Mainstream PS, conflict management, as well as most socialpsychological scholars claim to focus almost exclusively upon empirical phenomena, or those
aspects of reality that can be more or less directly observed, experienced, and
measured (Jackson 2010:36). Therefore, it comes as no surprise that such scholars generally focus upon empirically falsifiable hypothesis testing, an approach
shared with orthodox neopositivists in IR.
In contrast, critical peace scholars focus study more upon invisible structures that defy direct observation, but are interpreted to be more determinative
of what actually happens in the world. This position is called transfactualism
because it goes a level beyond mere facts to their supposed generation from deeper structures. Therefore, Galtungs (2002a:3) discussion of deep-rooted
dimensions to conflict, such as deep structure culture, belies not only the dualist
mind-independence (Jackson 2010:92) from the object of study, but also a
concern with researching unobservables.47
Meanwhile, many CR approaches may share mind-world monism as an assumption. While artificial distinctions may be drawn (as Fisher et al. (1991:1011) do
between positions and interests, for example), these are heightened analytically as part of a Weberian ideal type (Jackson 2010:142). This approach corresponds to the phenomenalist perspective that the social sciences are productive
of the world of facts, beholden not to some externally existing set of objects or
their essential dispositional properties but rather to the cultural values that
define and orient the investigation from the outset (Jackson 2010:143). Facts
are not separate, but part of the social world. Moreover, given mind-world monism, these analytical constructs and descriptions cannot be falsified, as that would
be doing violence toward the researchs philosophical assumptions. Let us now

46
In this sense, this article is not debating the character of the world (Jackson 2010:29) or rather the scientific ontology (Patomaki and Wight 2000:224) of entities and processes, as such a focus quickly leads into questions of what are the proper methods to study such phenomena.
47
Avruch and Black (1990:224) note the same phenomenon when they mention that some CR theory seems to
be advocating a type of controlled excavation, a baring of underlying strata masked by overlying ones.

262

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

TABLE 3. Mind-World Wagers48

Relationship
between the
knower and the
known

Mind-world
dualism

Mind-world
monism

Transfactualism
Critical peace studies

(Transformative)
conflict resolution49

Relationship
between knowledge
and observation
Phenomenalism
Mainstream peace
science studies

Mainstream conflict
resolution management

turn to particular interpretations of concepts central to the study of conflict,

violence, war, and peace.
Truth
When it comes to discerning the truth of a given situation, PS in both its
critical and mainstream forms are undergirded by the belief that the truth
exists a priori and is knowable. Much as often is associated with the Enlightenment, there is an assumption that there is a foundation of reason, truth,
justice, and other key values that underlie human existence (see Table 4
below).
When it comes to a given conflict, therefore, it is more or less possible to
uncover what actually happened, and therefore, the question of who is to
blame is relatively simple to answer. Analysis about what must be done as a
result is more complicated and differs according to mainstream and critical elements given the formers more segmented focus on preventing war, but generally remains straightforward. The problem for both critical and mainstream PS is
garnering the necessary political will to recognize and implement the necessary
changes.
Fact-Value Debate
The central point of departure between mainstream and critical PS, however, is
that the latter often questions the arbitrary division between fact and value.
Whereas mainstream peace scientists generally focus on finding the truth via individual facts, again belying the presence of Enlightenment values, critical peace
theorists are more suspicious of making a sharp distinction between fact and
value. After all, who is making the distinction and why? According to Galtung
and many in critical PS,

48
This table corresponds almost exactly to Patrick Thaddeus Jacksons description of similar wagers in IR,
although Jacksons typology focuses upon neopositivism, critical realism, analyticism, and reflexivity instead (Jackson
2010:37). Again, this typology represents a Weberian ideal type, heightening artificially the differences among the
available stances.
49
Note that CSS as a developing field similarly splits between those more in the constructivist post-structuralist
vs those in the critical realist schools of thought (Stamnes and Jones 2000:40). Of course, some scholars utilize
aspects of both types of critical approaches, such as Vivienne Jabri (2010).

Some view peace as the absence

of violent conflict, while
Galtungians promote positive
peace

There are non-negotiables

Some believe that if you

want peace, work for justice.
Others have utopian
visions of world peace

Power is concentrated
unfairly: structural violence;
some conspiracy theories

Ideational
Views conflict as transformable,
not intractable.
Pragmatism; just about anything
can be negotiated discussed50

Instrumentalist
International level: state-centric
Views conflict as resolvable,
not intractable
Pragmatism; just about
anything can be negotiated
discussed

Focus on interests, not

positions (Fisher et al.
1991:40)

Power: diffuse; work

within the system;
pro-business

Peace primarily is the

absence of war
War should be avoided if
at all possible

Instrumentalist

State-centric model; work

within the world system

50
John Burton would not agree, focusing on basic human needs as nonnegotiables. Probably Burton is warning that basic human needs are not subject to being bargained away via compromise. That is quite a different interpretation of negotiation than mere discussion.

Perspective
on conflict

Perspective
on power

Go beyond Western thinking;

cultural sensitivity
Power: diffuse, yet awareness
of unfair distribution of
resources and unequal power
dynamics
Empowering parties
through CR processes

Can have a spiritual

component

Dialectical processes that

can lead to transcendence,
synthesis, and or consensus

Creativity, flexibility particularly

when brainstorming
potential ideas

Focus on truth, fact,

what really happened,
materiality. The truth
is knowable
Makes fact value
distinction

Agnostic? Separate people

from the problem
(Fisher et al. 1991:40)

Agnostic? Social
construction of reality
Fluidity, dynamism,
creativity

Focus on truth, fact, what really

happened, materiality. The truth
exists a priori and knowable;
challenges fact value distinction
Can have a meditative, spiritual
component

Status of
truth

IV. Mainstream peace

science studies

III. Mainstream conflict

resolution management

I. Critical peace studies

Field

II. (Transformative)
conflict resolution

TABLE 4. Philosophical Commitments of Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

Elizabeth S. Dahl
263

264

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

structural conflicts [are] built into the social structure between those high up
who want to remain on top, and those lower down who do or do not reconcile
themselves to their fate: the dangerous classes, dangerous because they may
one day wake up and see reality.51

This language indicates the presence of a rationalist assumption. Like later

Marxists who came up with the concept of false consciousness (Lukacs (1971
[1920]) to characterize Marxs theory of social class, some in PS believe that the
problem is one of getting people to realize the world is not as the powerful have
told them. Once again, this dualist interpretation is rooted in the Enlightenment
project, broadly speaking, as it indicates that the power of reason can lead
humans to regain their sight about the true nature of the world and therefore
stop engaging in various forms of violence.
Again, there are strong similarities between critical PS and critical realism,
given that they both work on revealing the deep essences of objects, stripping
away ones false view of reality to achieve a more enlightened awareness. If one
is willing to look more deeply into the nature or essence of peace, for example,
then much of the objective truth will be revealed.
Social Construction of Reality
In contrast, many CR practitioners are less concerned with uncovering the
truth, per se, given the practice of suspending aspects of judgment during
CR processes. Given the complexity of group processes of identity, different
sides to a conflict will interpret history differently, highlighting certain incidents and ignoring others. What is most important is how the parties in conflict interpret the situation, including whether they have any common ground
between them.52 In mediation processes, interveners are supposed to avoid
being fact finders or judging what side is telling the truth about a particular matter. Philosophically, this approach relates to social constructivism, as
the categories of truth and fact are pointed out as mere constructions
derived over time and place from fluid, shared interactions among human
beings.53 More importantly, facts only are relevant insofar as humans interpret them to be.
Moreover, CR scholars and practitioners (as well as some in PS also) rely, to a
certain extent, on the belief that reality is something constructed intersubjectively (meanings that are shared commonly among a group and therefore
beyond the contents of individual minds),54 and therefore, the reality of a situation can be changedeven improved.55

51
Galtung (2002a), Conflict, War and Peace: A Birds Eye View, in Searching for Peace: The Road to Transcend,
eds. Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen (2nd ed.) (London: Pluto), 5; emphasis
added.
52
Of course, some might argue that this studied focus on other matters does not reflect what practitioners
really believe about the status of truth. For our purposes, however, what is most important is what most practitioners do as part of their regular practice.
53
This stance can go beyond issues of truth, of course. Consider gender, for example. Both PS and CR have
those who ignore gender differences as well as those who embrace stereotypical gender differences (that is,
women are natural peacemakers) and those who denaturalize gender altogether. Those who take an agnostic
approach to gender, noting the wide range of possible behavior, are more in keeping with a social constructivist
interpretation. Furthermore, there are those who have a structural approach to gender and feminism, noting the
pervasiveness of patriarchy in the international system.
54
Galtung (1996:15) also discusses intersubjectivity to a certain extent, although he takes the idea in a different
directionone similar to his interpretation of constructivism. Again, this interpretation is not unlike what one
might see with Habermas as a neo-Marxist, limited interpretation of intersubjectivity.
55
Having said that, however, it is not a simple matter to manage disputesit just is relatively easier than addressing broader conflicts.

Elizabeth S. Dahl

265

This approach indicates that the question of truth and falsehood may
not even be the issue. Instead, a pragmatic and even agnostic stance is
promoted in which creativity and interaction among the parties are more
important.
While not without flaws, a CR approach generally focuses upon such openended questions as: What would have made the situation better? Conversely,
what can be done to avoid or at least minimize the negative impact of such incidents in the future? The parties most affected by the conflict are the ones who
must decide their own future. Therefore, the parties answers and their interpretation(s) of the truth are of more importance. This approach therefore also
manages to sidestep the fact value debate, unless it becomes an issue of concern
for one or more of the disputants.
This interpretation also points to the importance of social norms, particularly
in transformative CR, as there is more emphasis placed on looking at the overall
context of interactions. Social norms play a key role in shaping behavior, however, not determining it. This interpretation therefore includes more room for
contingency than does institutional neoliberalism. More concretely, in both
forms of CR,
negotiations are shaped by social norms [that] influence what are considered
the qualities of a good negotiation process and the qualities of an acceptable agreement. Norms regarding both the fairness of both the outcome
(distributive justice) and the procedure by which the outcome was determined
(procedural justice) are relevant to negotiations. (Keashly and Warters 2008:49)

Keashly and Warters also point out how the social norm of fairness can be
interpreted many different ways, so it is important for all parties to be clear
about what standards or principles they plan to use.
Despite all of these commonalities with social constructionism, however, not
all CR approaches follow this line of thinking. Some scholars are more focused
upon systems theory since it is more explicitly designed for the development for
generic theory. At the same time, however, it may be advantageous to develop
the constructivist element in CR further given the increased issue of cultural
dynamics.
Power
When it comes to considerations of power, meanwhile, many in mainstream PS
and conflict management are influenced by the realisms primary focus on
threats and use of force. Others in PS and CR, however, are more likely to subscribe to an alternate interpretation of political power, most particularly one that
is based upon the power of cooperation. Even authoritarian regimes are dependent upon maintaining the consent of the governed. Nonviolent theorists such
as Mohandas Gandhi as well as thinkers dating back to Socrates and Jesus have
indicated that violences power is short lived. Cooperation is a more productive
and efficient way to achieve political goals over the long term (Brunk 2008:27).
PS and CR soon part ways, however, after that. As mentioned earlier, some in
critical PS have argued that Western CR approaches primarily are mediation
based. The problem with this emphasis, as Brand-Jacobsen and Jacobsen claim,
is that the focus of mediation is on the actors, and away from relations and
structures.56 Therefore, this top-down and elitist approachnearly always
56
Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, with Carl G. Jacobsen (2002), Beyond Mediation: Towards More Holistic
Approaches to Peace-building and Peace Actor Empowerment, in Searching for Peace: The Road to Transcend, eds.
Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen (2nd ed.) (London: Pluto), 52; emphasis in
original.

266

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

[neglects] the context and contradiction in which a conflict occurs.57 CRs

more diffuse and fluid interpretation of power is viewed derisively by those critical peace scholars who situate power quite decisively among the rich and politically influential, and note the lack of material power wielded by the poor and
disenfranchised. Therefore, CRs seeming blindness to structures of power is what
irks many peace scholars the most about CR approaches. Having said that, CR
practitioners interpret the power dynamics among the groups involved as being
quite important and work to help create an even playing field during CR processes by giving the less powerful a place to raise their concerns. Indeed, as
Lederach notes,
Power is diffuse in such settings, and does not operate out of a statist hierarchy. It is
diffuse because of the multiplicity of groups, weakened central authority, the
shifting of alliances, the autonomous nature of action within alliances and
groups by subgroups, and the general dynamic of groups and individuals seeking
local influence and control. (Lederach 1997:14; emphasis added)

Such language is in keeping with a constructivist interpretation of power as

dynamic and in flux.
In many regards, this contention about structures mirrors a similar debate within
IR between critical theorists and postcolonialists vs poststructuralists and constructivists (also see Table 2).58 Again, the former group is far clearer about their positions,
whereas the latter remains more ambiguous. The former always have stronger
beliefs in the Enlightenment project, broadly speaking, and some even seem to be
operating under the Christian notion of the necessity of responding to the call.
In short, postcolonialists and critical theorists often particularly frustrated by poststructuralists perceived lack of urgency about helping the disempowered.
To be fair, poststructuralists and constructivists are concerned about many of
the same issues. The points raised by postcolonialists and critical realists, for
example, about structures of power, intellectual hegemony (Gramsci 1971), and
the political and economic relationship between self and Other, are weighed
seriously. Given that constructivists are monist in its belief that the world is all
that is the case, however, what postcolonial scholars view as separate structures
of power is recast relationally as dynamics of power instead.59 Of course, this kind
of answer rarely satisfies critical realists and postcolonialists, who are looking for
concrete signs of engagement with particular governments, leaders, and policies.
At least some constructivists remain allies in such work, albeit following a different logic of analysis and prescription of the situation at hand.60

57
Of course, Brand-Jacobsen and Jacobsen (2002:53) are not completely accurate in describing the focus of
mediation. While correct about mediations avoidance of structures, much of CR is focused on relations and not
actors per se. They also seem to be ignoring John Paul Lederachs mid-level work, for example, in their analysis of
CRs drawbacks.
58
The term poststructuralism is used instead of postmodernism, first because it is a broader term
and also because so few scholars identify themselves as postmodern besides Jean-Francois Lyotard. This
practice follows the anthropological principle of calling groups according to the titles by which they call themselves.
59
Another advantage of a monist interpretation is that it defuses the so-called agent-structure problem.
Given the shift in emphasis from structures to group processes that serve to constrain the sense of what is
possible in a given context, human agency is preserved. Of course, this is not to say that agency is absolute,
but that humans play a role in weaving the very processes that delimit their interpreted range of viable
choices.
60
While beyond the scope of this article, poststructuralists have been criticized in particular for promoting an
endless cycle of critique. At the same time, however, poststructuralists provide important reminders that, for example, indigenous (or at least local) actors who take power after colonialism may not actually improve conditions for
ordinary people.

Elizabeth S. Dahl

267

What Do We Mean by Structure?

Beyond the issue of finding definitions, one key finding of this article is that the
term structure requires enhanced attention in CR and PS research. When we
discuss structure or structuralism, what exactly do we mean? There are
important differences, for example, between Galtungs dualistic neo-Marxist
understanding of structure as opposed to Burtons monist systems theory
approach (following Parsons [1937]). Both Galtung and Burton use the term
structure, but have different emphases according to their philosophical
assumptions.61 Galtungs approach makes a clearer case against injustice via the
notion of structural violence, and as such, his discourse is more charged. Again,
given the neo-Marxist element of his analysis, he targets the current neoliberal
economic and financial system as perpetuating various global inequalities. Structural transformation may necessitate revolution.
In contrast, Burtons framework is somewhat subtler, modeling the entire
world system across levels of analysis, indicating that transformation only can
come from within the system. Understandably, however, CR scholars do not want
to leave the critique of inequality to critical PS alone. According to Bercovitch
and Jackson (2009:91), Conflicts do not occur randomly. They take place
within certain kinds of structures or systems of relationships (inequality, economic deprivation, human rights abuses, failed states, etc.). Note, however, how
Bercovitch and Jackson include human rights abuses and failed states as part of
their list. The inclusion of human rights adds a more mainstream, rights-oriented sense of liberalism, whereas the mention of failed states indicates a realist,
state-centric element to what otherwise sounds like a Galtungian description of
global problems. This passage indicates the tendency within CR to include any
finding that might have relevance to the analysis and resolution of conflict,
regardless of its theoretical source. For the most part, this theoretical openness in
CR is quite positive, and yet there is great potential for confusion, too.
Part of this tendency probably derives from the power of the overarching systems
theory perspective. By dissecting the international system, systems theory allows for
consideration of subsystem and lower-level group interactions and dynamics.
At the same time, however, there are behavioralist socialpsychological and,
more rarely, individual-level psychological discussions of structure that mean
something quite different (i.e., how many parties there are to a conflict, power
asymmetry thereof, etc., vs cognitive structures of the brain). For example,
Bercovitch and Jackson (2009:42) mention various structural factors involved in
mediation processes, including the physical, social, interpersonal components
of the mediation. Thus, this discussion of structure has to do with the dynamics
of interventions at the group and individual levels.
If these different understandings of structure are not clarified properly in
scholarship, it could lead to muddled findings, and practitioners and scholars
alike might not be pleased with such an outcome. Such work informs practice,
and it is important to provide as much help to guide future applications as well
as research. Thus, those who utilize systems theory should be particularly careful
to indicate the level or levels of analysis in question and be mindful about the
way in which findings from different theoretical traditions are incorporated.
Conflict
While many would think that the topic of conflict should come earlier, this issue
is probably the one most discussed in previous scholarly work. Depending on the
61
Those scholars who approach these topics from a sociological background will be more aware of these issues
and therefore be able to decode the respective types quite easily. Other approaches may not be as prepared to note
the differences.

268

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

school of thought, a noticeable gap exists between mainstream forms of IR, PS,
and even some in CR and critical elements of these fields insofar as the former
sometimes view conflict as inherently destructive, while the latter interpret it as
also providing opportunities for creative problem solving and the enhancement
of mutual understanding.
This difference in interpretation is crucial as it affects the answers to questions of
overall strategy. (Is peace the absence of war? Must one work for justice before
attaining peace? How is the issue of power imbalance best addressed? Is violence
ever justified? Are certain conflicts inherently unresolvable? Is peace a means, an
end, or both?) After all, these issues are perennial ones with no easy answers.
Many of these issues have been discussed in more detail above, so all that will
be added here is that those in critical PS are more likely to agree with Johan
Galtung (1996:viii) that Conflict is much more than meets the naked eye as
trouble, direct violence. There is also the violence frozen into structures, and the
culture that legitimizes violence. Again, this interpretation almost makes it sound
as if such structures are given static, material form. In contrast, CR (especially critical variants thereof) focuses more upon the active dynamics involved in conflict as
well as the processes of addressing it and channeling it in positive directions.
Conclusion: Philosophy Matters
Having clarified some of the philosophical differences and similarities between
PS and CR, do such distinctions even matter? Since peacebuilding increasingly
is becoming the term of choice to describe efforts within PS and CR, perhaps it
could be substituted for these other terms that instead promote division between
two likely allies. After all, Lederach (1997:20) and other scholars indicate that
this term also covers post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation efforts.
Unfortunately, this term has similar drawbacks to those of CR and PS. As
Linda Etchart and Rawwida Baksh note,
Peacebuilding has become the buzzword in international policy as a key plank of
post-Cold War global security. However, the concept is defined, interpreted and
executed in a variety of ways and involves numerous different theoretical
approaches and terms and a wide range of activities... (Etchart and Baksh
2005:29)

This lack of clarity with definitions of key concepts seems to be the norm in
the fields of PS and CR. Rather than trying to create one true definition or typology in an illusory quest for consensus, working definitions may continue to be
the best way to proceed.
To return to the original question posed by the title, meanwhile, are PS and
CR like oil and water? In general, the answer seems to be not quite. While
there are tensions between the two fields, for the most part there is a lot of conceptual borrowing and blending. Both fields focus upon effecting positive
change, whereas realism in IR is more about preventing the worst-case scenario.
More to the point, many have noted the positive energy generated by the creative tension between these two overlapping fields, with monist CR focusing more
on ideational and discursive factors whereas dualist PS gives greater attention to
material (guns vs butter) issues. Many scholars and practitioners on both sides
have claimed the necessity of these two fields continuing to learn from the other,
borrowing from and blending a variety of approaches together. For the most
part, one can celebrate that kind of pragmatism and openness.
Indeed, both CR and PS are eclectic in practice, which is creative and constructive to a point. The issue is that there probably are better and worse forms of
eclecticism. The more positive forms will be those that generate insights from crea-

Elizabeth S. Dahl

269

tive blending without creating too much philosophical incoherence. This risk is
particularly visible within CR, including conflict transformation approaches. Such
a variety of theoretical assumptions is melded together: systems theory, social
psychological insights (both monist and dualist), constructivism, Galtungs structural violence, and so forth, so that there is a risk of synthesis without coherence.
Every theory and theoretical concept has its own commitments and priorities,
and a blend of various approaches may not be commensurable.62
In particular, one key finding of this article is that the term structure
requires enhanced attention in CR and PS research. When we discuss structure or structuralism, what exactly do we mean? There are important differences between Galtungs neo-Marxist and Burtons Parsonian interpretations of
structure. Both theoretical frameworks are legitimate approaches to the study of
conflict and peace, and each downplays certain factors while heightening attention to others.
Fortunately, this problem may be addressed by greater attention to various
frameworks philosophical commitments.63 Integration of concepts from other
theoretical strands of thought still is possible, if done in ways that do not do as
much violence to the source material by taking it out of context or jumping levels of analysis too blithely.
Of course, some may not interpret philosophical coherence as an urgent problem to either of these fields. Life and death matters take place every day, and
armchair philosophizing may seem quite insignificant in comparison. The
issue remains, however, that both the fields of CR and PS take analysis, prescription, and prevention seriously, and as such, there are going to be important differences in interpretation depending upon the theoretical lenses one uses.
Enhanced philosophical coherence will add to our ability to focus and improve
our respective fields of study rather than constraining our abilities to do our dayto-day work. One such source to help guide future research and perhaps even
collaborative efforts would be CSS.
Furthermore, a practical implication of this article is that doctoral programs in
PS and CR probably would do well to have or bolster their philosophy of science
course requirement. Most importantly, it is hoped that this discussion will lead
to improvements in available PS and CR theory, as well as impressive new contributions to the field.
References
Avruch, Kevin, and Peter W. Black. (1987) A Generic Theory of Conflict Resolution: A Critique.
Negotiation Journal 3 (1): 8796.
Avruch, Kevin, and Peter W. Black. (1990) Ideas of Human Nature in Contemporary Conflict Resolution Theory. Negotiation Journal 6 (3): 221228.
Barash, David P., and Charles P. Webel. (2002) Peace and Conflict Studies. Thousand Oaks: CA:
Sage.
Bercovitch, Jacob, and Richard Jackson. (2009) Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
62
To give a particular example, it arguably is less problematic for Galtung to incorporate John Burtons notion
of basic human needs into his framework than for Burton to borrow Galtungs notion of structural violence.
Burtons monist systems theory simply cannot have the emphasis on transformation and structural inequalities that
a neo-Marxist interpretation does. Transformation comes from within a system because the system encapsulates all
of reality. The dualistic antagonism among forces in Galtungs neo-Marxist framework is blunted in a monist system.
63
There are other theoretical traditions that struggle with theoretical coherence. Many current neorealist
approaches are little more than traditional realism combined with only a surface understanding of Kenneth Waltz
(1979). Since some in traditional IR are not familiar with Talcott Parsons systems theory [1937] and its influence
on Waltzs approach, the major insight that has been added is Waltzs (1979) notion of anarchy since it is more
useable in combination with prior realist understandings.

270

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

Bercovitch, Jacob, Victor Kremenyuk, and I. William Zartman, eds. (2009) The SAGE Handbook
of Conflict Resolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bhaskar, Roy. (1998) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human
Sciences, 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.
Bonisch, Alfred. (1981) Elements of the Modern Concept of Peace. Journal of Peace Research 18 (2):
165173.
Boulding, Kenneth E. (1977) Twelve Friendly Quarrels with Johan Galtung. Journal of Peace Research
14 (1): 7586.
Brand-Jacobsen, Kai Frithjof with Carl G., Jacobsen. (2002) Beyond Mediation: Towards More
Holistic Approaches to Peace-building and Peace Actor Empowerment. in Searching for Peace: The
Road to Transcend, 2nd edition, edited by Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen and Kai Frithjof
Brand-Jacobsen. London: Pluto.
Brunk, Conrad. (2008) Shaping a Vision: The Nature of Peace Studies. In Patterns of Conflict, Paths
to Peace, edited by Larry Fisk and John Schellenberg. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Burton, John W. (1993) Conflict Resolution as a Political Philosophy. In Conflict Resolution Theory
and Practice: Integration and Application, edited by Dennis J.D. Sandole and Hugo van der Merwe.
New York: Manchester University Press.
Burton, John W., and Dennis Sandole. (1986) Generic Theory: The Basis of Conflict Resolution.
Negotiation Journal 2 (4): 333344.
Christie, Daniel J. (2006) What Is Peace Psychology the Psychology Of? Journal of Social Issues 62
(1): 117.
Cox, Robert W. (1981) Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10 (2): 126155.
Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall, eds. (1996) Managing Global Chaos:
Sources of and Responses to International Conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall, eds. (2007) Leashing the Dogs of War:
Conflict Management in a Divided World. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
Dunn, David J. (2005) The First Fifty Years of Peace Research: A Survey and Interpretation. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate.
Etchart, Linda, and Rawwida Baksh. (2005) Applying a Gender Lens to Armed Conflict, Violence
and Conflict Transformation. In Gender Mainstreaming in Conflict Resolution: Building Sustainable
Peace, edited by Rawwida Baksh, Linda Etchart, Elsie Onubogu, and Tina Johnson. London: The
Commonwealth Secretariat.
Fast, Larissa A. (2002) Frayed Edges: Exploring the Boundaries of Conflict Resolution. Peace &
Change 27 (4): 528545.
Fisher, Ronald J. (1997) Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. (1991) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without
Giving In. New York: Penguin.
Galtung, Johan. (1969) Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research 6 (3): 167191.
Galtung, Johan. (1996) Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Galtung, Johan. (2002a) Conflict, War and Peace: A Birds Eye View. In Searching for Peace: The Road
to Transcend, 2nd edition, edited by Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof BrandJacobsen. London: Pluto.
Galtung, Johan. (2002b) The State Nation Dialectic: Some Tentative Conclusions. In Searching for
Peace: The Road to Transcend, 2nd edition, edited by Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai
Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen. London: Pluto.
Galtung, Johan. (2002c) TRANSCEND: 45 Years, 45 Conflicts. In Searching for Peace: The Road to
Transcend, 2nd edition, edited by Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof BrandJacobsen. London: Pluto.
Galtung, Johan. (2006) Peace Studies: A Ten Point Primer. In Peace Studies in the Chinese Century,
edited by Alan Hunter. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Galtung, Johan, and Finn Tschudi. (2002) Crafting Peace: On the Psychology of the TRANSCEND
Approach. In Searching for Peace: The Road to Transcend, 2nd edition, edited by Johan Galtung,
Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen. London: Pluto.
Goffman, Erving. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goffman, Erving. (1971) Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Gramsci, Antonio. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Ed. Trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey
Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers.

Elizabeth S. Dahl

271

Gregor, Thomas, ed. (1996) A Natural History of Peace. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Hobbes, Thomas.( 1994 [1651 1668]) Leviathan: With Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668,
edited by Edwin Curley. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Jabri, Vivienne. (2010) War and the Transformation of Global Politics. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. (2010) The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, and Daniel H. Nexon. (2009) Paradigmatic Faults in International
Relations Theory. International Studies Quarterly 53 (4): 907930.
Jervis, Robert. (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jones, Deiniol Lloyd. (2000) Mediation, Conflict Resolution and Critical Theory. Review of International Studies 26: 647662.
Kant, Immanuel. (1991 [1795]) Perpetual Peace. In Kants Political Writings, 2nd edition, edited by
Hans Reiss and translated by H.B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel. (2002 [1788]) Critique of Practical Reason. Trans. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis,
IN: Hackett.
Katz, Neil H. (1989) Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies. Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science 504: 1421.
Keashly, Loraleigh, and William C. Warters. (2008) Working It Out: Conflict in Interpersonal
Contexts. In Patterns of Conflict, Paths to Peace, edited by Larry Fisk and John Schellenberg.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Kemp, Anita. (1985) Image of the Peace Field: An International Survey. Journal of Peace Research 22
(2): 129140.
Kriesberg, Louis. (1991) Conflict Resolution Applications to Peace Studies. Peace & Change 16 (4):
400417.
Kriesberg, Louis. (2007) The Conflict Resolution Field: Origins, Growth, and Differentiation. In
Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods & Techniques, Revised edition, edited by I. William
Zartman. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
Laue, James H. (1992) Contributions to the Emerging Field of Conflict Resolution. in Approaches to
Peace: An Intellectual Map, edited by W. Scott Thompson and Kenneth M. Jensen with Richard N.
Smith and Kimber M. Schraub. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
Lederach, John Paul. (1995) Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Lederach, John Paul. (1997) Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington,
DC: United States Institute of Peace.
Lederach, John Paul. (2003) The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good
Books.
Lenin, V.I.. (1997 [1917]) Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
Lepgold, Joseph, and Thomas G. Weiss, eds. (1998) Collective Conflict Management and Changing
World Politics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Levy, Jack S. (2007) International Sources of Interstate and Intrastate War. In Leashing the Dogs of
War: Conflict Management in a Divided World, edited by Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson,
and Pamela Aall. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
Locke, John. (1989 [1689]) Two Treatises of Civil Government. Ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lukacs, Gyorgy. (1971 [1920]) History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Machiavelli, Niccolo`. (1988 [1532]) The Prince. Eds. Q. Skinner, and R. Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, Karl. (1976 [1867]) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1. New York: Penguin.
Maslow, Abraham. (1943) A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50 (4): 370396.
Mason, Gregory H. (2002) Peace Studies in the Next Half-Century. Peace Review 14 (1): 1519.
Mitchell, Christopher. (2002) Beyond Resolution: What Does Conflict Transformation Actually
Transform? Peace and Conflict Studies 9 (1): 123. Available at http://shss.nova.edu/pcs/journalsPDF/V9N1.pdf#page=7 (Accessed July 26, 2010.)
Morgenthau, Hans J. (1960) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd edition. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Onuf, Nicholas G. (1975) Peace Research Parochialism. Journal of Peace Research 12: 7178.
Onuf, Nicholas G. (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

272

International Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

Parsons, Talcott. (1937) The Structure of Social Action. New York: Basic Books.
Patomaki, Heikki. (2001) The Challenge of Critical Theories: Peace Research at the Start of the
New Century. Journal of Peace Research 38 (6): 723737.
Patomaki, Heikki. (2002) From East to West: Emergent Global PhilosophiesBeginnings of the
End of Western Dominance? Theory, Culture & Society 19 (3): 89111.
Patomaki, Heikki, and Colin Wight. (2000) After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism.
International Studies Quarterly 44: 213237.
Philpott, Daniel, and Gerard F. Powers, eds. (2010) Strategies of Peace: Transforming Conflict in a
Violent World. New York: Oxford.
Quester, George H. (1989) International-Security Criticisms of Peace Research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 504: 95105.
Ramsbotham, Oliver, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall. (2005) Contemporary Conflict Resolution,
2nd edition. Malden, MA: Polity.
Rank, Carol. (2006) The Development of Peace Studies in the United States. In Peace Studies in the
Chinese Century, edited by Alan Hunter. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Richardson, Lewis. (1960) Statistics of Deadly Quarrels. Pittsburgh: Boxwood.
Rosoux, Valerie. (2009) Reconciliation as a Peace-Building Process: Scope and Limits. In The SAGE
Handbook of Conflict Resolution, edited by Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk, and I. William
Zartman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salter, Mark B. (2002) Barbarians & Civilization in International Relations. Sterling, VA: Pluto.
Sandole, Dennis J.D. (1993) In Paradigm, Theories, and Metaphors in Conflict and Conflict Resolution: Coherence or Confusion? In Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application,
edited by Dennis J.D. Sandole and Hugo van der Merwe. New York: Manchester University Press.
Sandole, Dennis J.D. (2008) Typology. In Conflict, 2nd edition, edited by Sandra Cheldelin, Daniel
Druckman and Larissa Fast. New York: Continuum.
Sandole, Dennis J.D., Sean Byrne, Ingrid Sandole-Staroste, and Jessica Senehi, eds. (2008)
Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution. New York: Routledge.
Schelling, Thomas C. (1966) Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Scimecca, Joseph A. (1991) Conflict Resolution in the United States: The Emergence of a Profession? In Conflict Resolution: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, edited by Kevin Avruch, Peter W. Black, and
Joseph A. Scimecca. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Shotter, John. (1993a) Conversational Realities: Constructing Life Through Language. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Shotter, John. (1993b) Cultural Politics of Everyday Life. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
Smith, Adam. (1994 [1776]) The Wealth of Nations, edited by E. Cannan. New York: Modern Library.
Smoker, Paul. (1981) Small Peace. Journal of Peace Research 18 (2): 149157.
rsula Oswald. (2006) Latin American Perspectives on Peace Research. In Peace Studies in
Spring, U
the Chinese Century, edited by Alan Hunter. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Stamnes, Eli, and Richard W. Jones. (2000) Burundi: A Critical Security Perspective. Peace and Conflict Studies 7 (2): 3756.
Stephenson, Carolyn M. (1989) Peace Studies: The Evolution of Peace Research and Peace Education in the U.S. and Canada. In Peace and World Order Studies, 5th edition, edited by Daniel C.
Thomas and Michael T. Klare. Boulder: Westview Press.
Thucydides. (1996 [431 BCE]) The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian
War, revised edition, edited by Robert B. Strassler. New York: Free Press.
Van Tangen Page, Michael. (2002) The Birth of a Discipline? Peace and Conflict Research in the
New Millennium. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 25: 5765.
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wendt, Alexander. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1961 [1918]) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Trans D.F. Pears and
B.F. McGuinness. New York: Humanities Press.
Wright, Quincy. (1965) A Study of War, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zartman, I. William. (1993) A Skeptics View. In Culture and Negotiation: The Resolution of Water
Disputes, edited by Guy O. Faure and Jeffrey Z. Rubin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zartman, I. William. (2000) Literary Review: Conflict Management: The Long and the Short of It.
SAIS Review 20 (1): 227235.
Zartman, I. William. (2009) Conflict Resolution and Negotiation. In The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution, edited by Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk, and I. William Zartman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.