Democratic Peace Theory

Fenomena hubungan internasional semakin lama semakin mendekat ke persoalan sehari-hari penduduk di berbagai belahan dunia, termasuk Indonesia. Cara kita menjalani kehidupan sehari-hari sangat jelas dipengaruhi oleh kejadian-kejadian di arena internasional. Keberhasilan kita untuk memenuhi kebutuhan fisik, seperti pangan, sangat ditentukan oleh fenomena internasional. Upaya kita untuk menjadi pintar, juga sangat terkendala oleh banyak hal yang terjadi di luar wilayah kita. Itu berarti bahwa kita mesti belajar untuk memahami apa yang sebenarnya terjadi di luar sana. Kita mesti belajar mendiskripsikan apa yang terjadi. Mencoba mengerti mengapa itu terjadi dan bagaimana mengatasi dampaknya terhadap kehidupan kita. Karena itulah saya menyambut dengan gembira penerbitan karya-karya seperti yang terhimpun dalam buku ini: Refleksi Teori Hubungan Internasional: dari Tradisional ke Kontemporer. Buku yang tidak hanya menyajikan analisis ilmiah, tetapi juga menyajikan perspektif nilai mengenai apa yang mesti dilakukan sehingga kehidupan di arena internasional itu bisa relevan dan bermanfaat bagi upaya manusia menyelesaikan masalah keseharian mereka.

Prof. Dr. Mohtar Mas’oed

The aim of this article is to examine how first principles are developed into general theories by reviewing the roles that abduction, deduction, and induction play in the three primary steps of the scientific method: hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing, and theory generation. Kant's democratic peace theory is first used to illustrate this process, and the example is subsequently extended to show the secondary level of scrutiny that theories must undergo before they can be applied to the empirical world. The article concludes by considering the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, particularly in the field of social sciences.

Poznansky (2015) attempts to reconcile democratic-peace theory with US covert operations against elected regimes during the Cold War. In the course of doing so, he exposes both the degenerating character of the democratic-peace research program and its ideological underpinnings in American exceptionalism.

Points out how religion is power; power will be used by others--even the non-religious; when things go awry, then, religion is then blamed, often by the same ones who have exploited its power. This calls for critical and wary analysis of the rhetorical use of religion as a pawn, followed by its being blamed as a scapegoat.  Published in The Destructive Power of Religion; Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, edited by J. Harold Ellens (4 volumes, Westport/London: Praeger Publishers, 2004), Vol. 2, 265-83.

Long neglected as a focus of serious study in International Relations (IR), the concept of trust has recently begun to attract increasing attention. Unfortunately, much of this exciting new work still suffers from a lack of a comprehensive conceptualization of trust and a rigorous and replicable operationalization of this conceptualization. In this paper, I help address this problem by proposing a new definition and conceptualization of trust appropriate to IR founded on research in psychology, economics, and even neurology. This conceptualization holds that trust is the result of a collective identification that occurs when sufficient levels of positive affect and familiarity between agents react and crystallize around a salient commonality. Building on this conceptualization, I identify a number of operationalizable factors capable of generating the familiarity and positive affect required for trust to eventuate and derive some qualitative and quantitative indicators for their measurement. Simultaneously, I tackle to problem of how trust, which can only exist at the level of the individual, comes to influence the behaviour of states. I close the paper by distilling this analysis into a five-step research procedure which can be used as a template for studying trust and its influence on state decision-making in IR.

Uluslararası İlişkiler literatürüne 1980'lerde giren "Demokratik Barış Teorisi", bir devletin iç egemenlik biçiminin dış politikasındaki davranışlarını belirlediği anlayışından hareket etmektedir. Buna göre iç egemenlik biçimi demokrasi olan devletler dış politikalarında barışçıl yaklaşımlarda bulunurlar ve birbirleriyle savaş yapmaktan kaçınırlar. Örneğin, tarihleri boyunca aralarında sınır anlaşmazlıkları (başta Alsace Lorraine olmak üzere) yaşayan Almanya ile Fransa bu duruma en iyi örneklerden birisidir. Demokratik Barış Teorisi perspektifinden değerlendirildiğinde her iki devletin de iç egemenlik biçiminin demokrasi olması aralarındaki anlaşmazlıkları barışçıl yollarla çözmelerinde önemli etkenlerden biri olmuştur. Fakat benzer bir anlaşmazlık yaşayan Hindistan ve Pakistan devletleri için aynı şey gözlemlenememektedir. Demokratikleşme sürecinde olan bu iki devlet aralarındaki Keşmir meselesinin çözümünü savaşarak aramaktadırlar. Çalışma, Alsace Lorraine ile Keşmir meselesi üzerinden Demokratik Barış Teorisini sınamaya çalışacaktır.
Bu çalışmanın amacı, "Demokrasinin uygulandığı ülkelerde sorunlar barışçıl yollardan çözümlenebilirken demokratikleşme sürecinde olan ülkelerde savaş neden vardır?" sorusuna cevap aramaktır. Bu doğrultuda öncelikle demokrasi-barış ve demokrasi-savaş arasındaki ilişkiden bahsedildikten sonra demokratik barış teorisi ana hatlarıyla ortaya konulacaktır. Ardından Almanya-Fransa'nın kısa tarihlerine değinilerek birbirleriyle ilişkilerinde demokrasinin ve demokratik barış teorisinin etkilerini Alsace Lorraine meselesi üzerinden incelenecektir. Daha sonra ise, demokratikleşme sürecinde olan Hindistan-Pakistan'ın kısa tarihlerine değinilecek ve birbirleriyle ilişkilerinde demokrasi ile demokratik barış teorisinin etkilerini Keşmir meselesi üzerinden incelenerek araştırma sorusunun cevabı aranmıştır. Sonuç olarak, demokratik mekanizmaların yerleştiği devletlerarasında demokratik mekanizmaların işletilmesi sonucu fiziki çatışmanın gerçekleşmediği, tersi durumlarda ise çatışmanın gerçekleştiği neticesine varılmıştır.

Ancient Athens developed democracy to a higher level than any other state before modern times. It was the leading cultural innovator of the classical age. Classical Athens is rightly revered for these political and cultural achievements. Less well known is this state’s extraordinary record of military success. Athens was directly responsible for transforming Greek wars and for raising their scale tenfold. By the 450s it had become the eastern Mediterranean’s superpower. The first major reason for this success was this state’s demographic advantage. With twenty times more citizens than an average Greek state Athens could field armies and fleets that were much larger than all but a few others. The second major reason was the immense income that Athens got from its empire. This allowed it to employ thousands of non-elite citizens on campaigns and to perfect new corps and combat-modes. There is a strong case that democratic government was the third major reason. The military impact of Athenian democracy was twofold. The competition of elite performers before non-elite adjudicators resulted in a pro-war culture. This culture encouraged Athenians in ever-increasing numbers to join the armed forces and to vote for war. All this was offset by Athenian democracy’s rigorous debates about war. This debating reduced the risks of Athenian cultural militarism. It also made military reforms easier and developed the initiative of the state’s generals, hoplites and sailors. Political scientists have long viewed Athenian democracy as a source of fresh ideas. Presently they cannot satisfactorily explain the war-making of modern democracies. Consequently ancient history can provide political science with new lines of enquiry into how modern democracy impacts on international relations.

This dissertation is about freedom and peace, inclusion and democracy. In many ways, it is an account of liberal peace, albeit not similar to the well-known theory of democratic “peace”. Instead, it is a critical examination of the fundamentals of that theory – an examination that cuts its conception of democracy into pieces, and by so doing reveals its actual impact on global peace(s).

While Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) has long benefited from a robust debate focused on the empirical validity of its central claim that liberal states tend not to fight one another, this discussion has not translated into an equally vigorous consideration of the internal validity of the causal models proposed to explain this empirical regularity. In this paper, I examine two of the most persuasive explanatory models of the liberal peace, namely those presented by John Owen in his book Liberal Peace, Liberal War and Charles Lipson in his offering Reliable Partners. Based on a careful interrogation of these works and their internal logic, I argue that while quite different in the explanations they offer, both suffer from a similar flaw, namely, that both models implicitly rely on an under-theorized willingness of liberals to trust other liberals for their logical coherence. Having identified this flaw, I proceed to assess the extent to which the assumptions on which these models rest provide the basis for filling this aforementioned trust-shaped hole. In so doing, I engage with the limited scholarship on trust that already exists in IR. Finding neither model – nor existing IR scholarship on trust – capable of accommodating the form of trust needed to support the causal weight placed on it by its’ respective author’s theoretical architecture, I conclude by sketching the outlines of the type of trust required to play this role. In so doing, I mount an argument for re-conceiving DPT so as to include Constructivist and Psychological/Cognitivist insights.

Table of contents
1) Abstract
2) Introduction
3) Literature Review
4) Role of Religion and Ideology
5) The Concept of Asymmetric Warfare
6) Conventional Warfare
7) Role of Mediators
8) Covert Operations
9) The Way Forward
10) Conclusion
11) Bibliography

War is a strategic activity of attacking using
weapons and new technologies for resolving
internal and/or international disputes or conflicts
between two or more nations; between ethnic,
social, and religious (organized) groups; etc., to
cope with environmental threats and take advantage
of important opportunities, generating at the
same time a reduction of the freedom of other
societies/groups and causing deaths, injured people,
and/or social, economic, cultural, and/or ethnic
damages.

The Caspian Project is a weekly digital magazine organized by the online analytical resource, Modern Diplomacy. Dr. Matthew Crosston is the Senior Editor of the project, which aims to acquaint people with this critically undervalued region of the world. The analyses go far beyond the standard issue of energy and encapsulates economics, politics, culture, religion, global affairs, conflict and peace.

This edition of the Caspian Project testifies to the enormous wealth of analytical opportunity seen all across the region. While in the past we have enjoyed producing single-issue specializations (which we did over the past two weeks with The Russian Debate and The Persian Gambit, to great fanfare and applause), the true essence of the Project is to have great diversity for the readers every issue. No. 11 as it turns out is something of a hybrid of these two aspects: readers with this issue get quite a bit of diversity while also getting to enjoy a mini-specialization, as a number of the articles inside deal with different aspects of the Russian intelligence community, namely, the Federal Security Service or FSB.

So, on top of some very thought-provoking and hard-hitting articles dealing with the ethics, surveillance, and transnational activities of Russian intelligence, readers ALSO get to learn more in this issue about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Turkmenistan’s human rights record, and Kazakhstan’s entrance into the WTO. It is an issue, therefore, that cuts across domestic politics, global affairs, security, economics, and international organizations. This is something we at Modern Diplomacy hold dearly when it comes to the Caspian Project: so much that is happening in the world today, affecting so many countries, transects in one way or another the greater Caspian sea region. It shall always be a hub of activity and importance, far beyond the standard call about energy and natural resources.

Andreu Miquel Ginestet Menke Presentation at the foreign minister Pekka Haavisto 22nd of April 2022
1. We changed the narrative in science switching the enemy away from human beings to the system of violence.
2. We focus on reducing trauma, sexual violence being the priority N1.
3. The military never can provide security because it is trained to cause trauma.
http://www.naisetrauhanpuolesta.org/an-urgent-need-for-a-new-osce-summit-in-2025-a-meeting-with-the-foreign-minister-pekka-haavisto-on-the-22nd-of-april-2022/

http://www.naisetrauhanpuolesta.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Presentation-at-the-foreign-minister-Pekka-Haavisto-22.4.2022.pdf

Since 9/11 American intelligence has evolved in a changing atmosphere of modern tactics and techniques of information collection. This atmosphere, coupled with massive leaps in technological advancement such as social media, mobile communications, processing analytics, large-form solid-state data storage and novel computational hardware and software equipment, has thrust the Intelligence Community into a strange new world of multi-dimensional intelligence.  With the implementation of new technologies and the expansion of those technologies to public access whereas they were once reserved specifically for governments or major conglomerations, intelligence collection methods have increased far beyond than the traditional human intelligence capability. In addition, the incorporation of science and technology into a loosely termed ‘Technical Intelligence’ (TechInt) has become a major contributor to both data and strategy.  While science and technology and human capability both remain valuable facets of the same overlapping intelligence construct, there is a growing trend of diametrically opposed camps setting one method over the other. This article explains how in terms of field application and intelligence information processing/analysis, both HumInt and TechInt are maximized by a mutual cooperation that at present does not exist.

Co-écrit avec Frédérick Guillaume Dufour. Cette entrée passe en revue et analyse les principales contributions à la théorie de la paix démocratique dans le champ des Relations Internationales, notamment ses racines dans le fameux Traité de la paix perpétuelle de Kant, en passant par la tradition libérale et les travaux de Doyle, Owen et Russett, entre autres, tout en notant les critiques qui lui ont été adressées en provenance d'auteurs néo-réalistes et critiques.

Recently, scholars have connected US constructivism to liberal-idealism. International relations theorists have branded US constructivists as ‘‘liberal theorists’’ for three notable reasons: (1) realists apply an ‘‘ideal- ist’’ tag on constructivism so that it can efficiently be dismissed as a form of theoretical na ̈ıvete, (2) rational choice empiricists are motivated with amending constructivist assumptions to make them viable for quantita- tive analysis; and (3) certain constructivist scholars have attempted to build bridges with rationalist scholarship, especially on epistemological terms, and this ‘‘bridge-building’’ has opened a door for a liberal–con- structivist synergy. This essay demonstrates how constructivism can, and must, be distinguished from liberalism. It uses the recent Iraq War to illustrate three constructivist critiques of an important liberal theory: democratic peace ‘‘theory.’’ The three critiques are (1) ontologicalF liberal democratic peace researchers’ focus on events leads to an incomplete understanding of processes, structures, and agency; (2) epistemologicalFunlike constructivism, liberal democratic peace re- search fails to acknowledge the contamination of subject and object or that state agents use theory to inform their actions; thus the traditionally positivist emphasis on outcomes instead of processes makes for faulty conclusions; and (3) normativeFliberalism’s radical celebration of the individual desocializes states thereby inhibiting, in structurationist terms, the reflexive monitoring of actions. The essay concludes with some general theoretical statements about democratic peace’s future as a paradigm for research.

The article analyzes the Invasion of Afghanistan by the USA in accordance with the Democratic Peace Theory. According to the Kantian perspective, some of the core elements of the democratic peace conception such as the legitimate defensive war of democracies, universal liberal-democratic norms, the confederation (zone) of liberal peace, principle of perpetual peace, rule of international law, the necessity of maintenance in  international trade and international organizations for the perpetual peace ideals will be applied to the case. In this perception, a set of basic explanations related to the democratic peace which reflect the structural, normative, monadic, and dyadic and democratization conceptions will also be assessed and then adapted with the reasons, development and outcome of the case.

La question de la « paix démocratique » occupe une position centrale dans les débats en théorie des relations internationales depuis le déclin et la disparition de l'URSS. À une époque où la démocratie libérale devenait pour beaucoup d'observateurs le seul régime politique légitime, il est apparu important de déterminer si ce régime était ou non favorable à la paix. Dans de telles conditions, les débats académiques sur la « paix démocratique » entrent directement en résonnance avec les grands enjeux internationaux des 25 dernières années, à commencer par le dilemme de l'intervention armée et la question du déploiement de la mondialisation libérale. Sur ce thème, il faut donc toujours garder à l'esprit que les universitaires ne peuvent faire totalement abstraction de leurs préoccupations politiques, et que les résultats de leurs recherches ont parfois un impact plus ou moins direct sur le débat public (Christopher Layne, 1994). Les interrogations sur le caractère pacifique ou non de la démocratie, de la république, du commerce, du libéralisme et du capitalisme ont une longue histoire. Mais il est sans doute possible de dire que la structuration actuelle en théorie des relations internationales du problème de la « paix démocratique » remonte à la parution d'un article en deux parties de l'internationaliste Michael Doyle intitulé « Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs » en 1983. Dans ce texte, Doyle commence par nuancer la thèse d'Emmanuel Kant (Vers la paix perpétuelle, 1795) en montrant que les démocraties libérales ne sont pas intrinsèquement pacifiques (contrairement à ce que postule la version « monadique » de la paix) : les États libéraux (liberal states) peuvent être tout aussi agressifs que les autres. Mais Doyle remarque la chose suivante : les États libéraux n'entrent jamais en guerre entre eux, ils ne combattent que des États non-libéraux (version « dyadique » de la paix). Telle est l'observation sur laquelle se fondent les théories de la « paix démocratique ». Notons deux choses. Premièrement, l'expression « paix libérale » paraît plus pertinente que celle de « paix démocratique », puisque c'est bien l'élément « libéral » qui occupe ici la position centrale. En effet, la théorie de la « paix démocratique » ne s'applique qu'aux démocraties libérales et les démocraties antiques sont écartées. Certes, le vocable de « démocratie libérale » est ambigu et laisse une certaine marge d'appréciation au chercheur, mais les théoriciens s'accordent en général pour y voir une certaine combinaison de démocratie représentative institutionnalisée, d'État protégeant les droits individuels et d'économie de marché plus ou moins régulée. Michael Doyle utilisera d'ailleurs lui-même cette expression de « paix libérale », laquelle reste malgré tout minoritaire dans le champ académique. Deuxièmement, les théories de la « paix libérale » ne concernent pas seulement les internationalistes au sens strict du terme. Ainsi, des philosophes politiques aussi différents que Francis Fukuyama, Jürgen Habermas et John Rawls reprennent tous l'idée selon laquelle les démocraties libérales ne se font pas la guerre entre elles dans leurs analyses de la vie internationale.

An Stelle durch einen Vorteil bringenden Irrtum gegeneinander  gemein im Sinne von bösartig - aus böse & artig zu sein, weil wir Dominanz mit Sicherheit, in einer strukturellen Gewalt auf den Kopf gedreht & gestellt haben.
Die Menschheit ist es gewohnt, durch das Gesetz der Gewalt und Brutalität zu gehorchen. Das ist es, was die Freiheit einschränkt. Eine Freiheitsbeschränkung ist nicht dasselbe wie eine Sicherheit. Sicherheit in der Moderne soll eine eingeschränkte Freiheitsstruktur garantieren, die wir als Demokratie bezeichnen. Demokratie ist nicht dasselbe wie Gerechtigkeit oder gleiche Chancen für alle, aber sie soll zB das kleinere Übel in Bezug auf soziale Gerechtigkeit, Meinungsfreiheit usw. sein. Die Untergrabung der Demokratie durch die Auferlegung der Dominanz des einen über den anderen zerstört die Sicherheit. Die NATO und die USA bekennen sich offen zur Abschreckung durch „Kriege gewinnen“, ein falsches Versprechen.
In diesem Dokument möchte ich verdeutlichen, warum der Beitritt zu einem Militärbündnis, das existiert und erklärt, Traumata verursachen und Schmerzen zufügen zu wollen, ein Widerspruch in Bezug auf die Sicherheit ist.
Lassen Sie mich klar und offen sagen: Das NATO-Militärbündnis dient einem Zweck, wie Jamie Shea es auf einer Konferenz am 19. April 2022 ausdrückte:
„… baut seine Streitkräfte in Mittel- und Osteuropa auf, äh, sowohl zur Abschreckung, als auch weil Abschreckung jetzt, äh, Kriegsführung bedeutet! Es bedeutet, Kriege zu gewinnen und nicht mehr nur zu hoffen, sie zumindest vorerst zu verhindern.“
Sagen Sie mir, wann immer ein Krieg wirklich zu einer gewinnenden Situation in Bezug auf Stabilität und Frieden führt? Hat je ein Krieg dazu geführt, dass der Verlierer des Krieges wirklich den Weg der Vertu eingeschlagen hat? Geht Deutschland nach der Niederlage im 2. Weltkrieg den Weg der Vertue? Wer behauptet, dass Deutschland, das die Demokratie am Hindukusch verteidigt, auf dem Weg der Vertue ist?

Die Unterbrechung des Kreislaufs aller Formen an Gewalt,
ist die einzige intelligente und meisterhafte Art zu leben.
Diese eine & freie Form der achtsam, harmonisch, bedingungslos in liebevoller Weise zu Leben, erfüllt sich nur in einen harmonisch, liebevollen Paradies, durch Schenken & Helfen & in der Achtung zum kosmisch, wirksamen Schöpfergesetz.

Kita mengetahui dan mengkalim tentang Teori Perdamaian Demokratik berikut penopangnya yang menjelaskan bahwa dengan sistem demokrasi yang diterapkan suatu negara, maka akan tercipa kedamaian abadi. Apakah atas dasar ini justru Negara demokrasi dapat memaksakan kehendaknya kepada negara non-demokrasi untuk mengadopsinya melalui paksaan atau intervensi?

Die hierzu bereits gelieferten Antworten können wir aufrechterhalten. Es fand ein Geburtsereignis statt. Es waren Zwillinge. Oder-es fand ein Geburtsereignis statt mit einer Lebendgeburt und ein Parallelereignis mit einer Beinahe-Totgeburt in ein und dem selben Raum und in ein und derselben Zeiteinheit. Ein herzzerreißend schreiendes Mädchen, welches die Hebamme erkannt hat und die stille, pulsierende Nachgeburt, welches das Standesamt nach 15 Minuten als toten Zwilling erkannt hat.

Es werden sämtliche rechtliche, sowie energetische Beziehungen zu dieser Sachlage geschildert.
Sowie neue physische Erkenntnisse.

This introductory course presents a survey of theoretical, conceptual and practical approaches to the study of peace and justice. This includes examining theories of violence, peace, war and rights, as well as more focused discussions of social movements, transformative justice, education and engagement. In pursuing these areas, students will have the opportunity to focus on issues both historical and contemporary and through both ‘traditional’ and ‘alternative’ lens. The course seeks to critically address a range of topics—from non-violence to theories of inter-state war—providing students with a variety of perspectives and understandings of an inter-disciplinary field. Students will be challenged to interpret issues of social inequality, oppression and structural violence at numerous levels; from the interpersonal, to the local, and outward to international conflict. We will begin this learned endeavor by co-creating our own equitable and peaceable educative environment. This will involve a collaboration between instructor and student to foster an environment that is horizontal, non-coercive and utilizing a critical pedagogy, modeled by the professor and used by students. An array of readings will make up the course including scholarly articles, philosophical texts, political texts, primary source documents from perpetrators and survivors of violence, and film. Early in the semester, enrolled students will have the option of adding a community-based learning (CBL) component involving their work with marginalized and underserved individuals or groups (or organizations working with and for such individuals or groups), structured to meet community-defined needs.

This book documents the state of youth empowerment and political voice in the six geopolitical regions of Nigeria. The conclusion in all of the chapters that must is still left to be done at integrating the youth into the governance system in the country. But the recently passed "Not-too-young-to-run bill passed by Nigeria's National Assembly provides the impetus for the Nigerian youth to now take the future in theirs hands.

Il saggio di Bobbio è centrale per la formazione di una coscienza votata alla pace, che sia fondata su una base filosofica rigorosa. L'autore analizza le possibilità e i limiti di un itinerario che possa scongiurare la nefasta prospettiva della guerra atomica.

21. yüzyılın başında olduğumuz bu dönemde, insanlık olarak acilen öğrenmemiz ve geliştirmemiz gereken en önemli kabiliyetlerden biri, savaşa ve şiddete dair zihniyetimizi, düşünce tarzımızı radikal bir şekilde değiştirmek; bireysel, toplumsal, yerel, ulusal ve uluslararası olmak üzere her bağlamda ve her düzeyde sorunların, uyuşmazlıkların ve çatışmaların yapıcı ve barışçı araçlarla çözülmesi yollarını bilimsel ve çok-disiplinli yöntemlerle öğrenmek ve öğretmek olmalıdır.
Her ne kadar geleneksel sosyal bilimler şiddet ve çatışma konularını kendi disiplinleri içinde araştırma konusu yapmış olsalar da, bunların her birisi insan davranışının kendi ilgi alanlarına giren dar bir kesiti ile ilgilenmişlerdir. Örneğin, tarihçiler daha çok çatışmaların tarihini; psikologlar insanları tek tek şiddete veya şiddetsizliğe götüren şartları; sosyal psikologlar, sosyologlar ve antropologlar şiddet-grup dinamiği ve şiddet-sosyal davranış ilişkilerini; siyaset bilimcileri ulusal veya uluslararası seviyedeki siyasi örgütlenmeleri; felsefeciler ve din bilimcileri ise çatışmaların ahlaki ve dini mahiyetini ve şiddetten nasıl ve neden kaçınmak gerektiğini araştırma konusu yapmışlardır. Biyologlar, zoologlar bile esasen insan doğasına yönelik şiddet üzerine araştırmalar gerçekleştirmişlerdir.
Ancak çıkış noktası olarak artık çatışma, şiddet ve savaştan ziyade, barış ve barışa ulaşmanın yolları, çatışmaların barışçıl çözümü olabilecek disiplinlerarası ve çok-disiplinli yaklaşımların üretilmesi, tartışılması ve uygulanması gerekmektedir. Bu da ciddi bir zihniyet ve paradigma değişikliğini gerekli kılmaktadır. Günümüzde bu ihtiyacı karşılama iddiasında olan akademik, bilimsel disiplin açılımı Barış Çalışmalarıdır.
Prof. Dr. Havva KÖK ARSLAN

The task to reshape governments in the countries confronted with the Arab Spring prompts the question whether there are necessary conditions to realize a stable society that simultaneously seeks to eliminate the elements that have led to the uprisings. Acknowledging some constitutional rights seems indispensable in such a process. I argue that such a state of affairs is indeed the case, at least now that the ‘old’ justifications to differentiate between people do not suffice anymore. That is not to say that the countries involved will have identical laws in each respect, but merely that a common basis has to be realized, manifested in political and legal equality, so this given does not derogate from the fact that each country’s specific legislation needs to be shaped in the light of its own history. Such a basis has no ‘moral’ character, but is simply a necessary condition to prevent sedition.

"Khadi: Gandhi's Mega Symbol of Subversion" investigates the power of a symbol to qualitatively transform society by studying Mahatma Gandhi's use of clothing as a metaphor for unity, empowerment and liberation from imperial subjugation.

The book brings together historical evidence of Gandhi's search for a semiotics of attire in his quest for personal integrity and socio-political change. From a multidisciplinary perspective, it closely examines the 'subversion' underlying his sartorial communication.

The symbolic potential for change which khadi has, is therefore seen, not merely as 'revolution' or 'sedition', but as a sustained, well-organised strategy for achieving full independence or purna swaraj.

The author also discusses the complex challenges in Gandhi's highly polarized environment, such as the conflict between the British Empire and the Indian National Congress, Hindu-Muslim tensions, the urban-rural divide, and the question of untouchability.

Photographs, illustrations and an extensive appendix considerably add to the historical value of the study, making it useful for students and scholars in various fields of South Asian research." - Sage Publications

'Khadi: Mega Symbol...' is also translated into Hindi and Marathi by Sage-Bhasha, India.

La fin de la guerre ? Les ambiguïtés de la « paix démocratique » : intérêts, passions et idées

Dans les relations internationales, le fait majeur actuel est peut-être la paix qui unit les démocraties libérales à travers la planète : depuis environ deux siècles, elles ne se sont pas fait la guerre entre elles. Forts de ce constat, les théoriciens de la « paix démocratique » – ou plus précisément de la « paix libérale » – cherchent à montrer que des « mécanismes » rendent compte de cette corrélation statistique, ce qui permettrait d’anticiper une véritable paix internationale, à condition toutefois que chaque entité politique adopte les différents aspects du « régime libéral » (économie de marché, démocratie représentative et droits individuels).
Trois principaux « mécanismes » peuvent être dégagés pour asseoir ces théories : (1) le commerce et l’interdépendance économique créent une convergence des intérêts nationaux, (2) la démocratie représentative canalise les passions les plus guerrières et (3) les principes de justice du « régime libéral » sont susceptibles de mettre fin aux conflits liés aux idées. On retrouve dans l’ordre les trois principales constellations causales à l’origine des guerres : les intérêts, les passions et les idées. Or, ces « mécanismes » ont été discutés par les penseurs politiques dès le XVIIIe siècle. Ainsi Montesquieu, rejeté un peu vite par la « tradition » du côté du « doux commerce », se révèle d’un grand secours pour réfléchir à l’ambivalence des différents « mécanismes » à l’œuvre : (1) parallèlement à la convergence des intérêts le commerce moderne engendre aussi l’oppression et la conquête, (2) la réorientation des passions ne fait pas disparaître l’orgueil de régner et le désir de domination et (3) les principes de justice à vocation universelle, censés établir un accord général sur les idées, se muent facilement en une forme ou une autre d’impérialisme.
Cette thèse est donc l’occasion de s’interroger sur ce qui change et sur ce qui ne change pas dans la vie internationale avec l’avènement et l’expansion de ce que nous appelons le « régime libéral ».

This paper sets out an ambitious critique of contemporary political scientists, political historians and others concerned with the history of democracy. It argues that overwhelmingly the history of democracy relies on an overtly Eurocentric narrative that emphasizes the keystone moments of Western civilization. According to this narrative, democracy has a clear trajectory that can be traced from ancient experiments with participatory government in Greece and to a lesser extent in Rome, through the development of the British parliament, the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution, and then finally onto the triumphant march of the liberal model of democracy across the globe over the last 200 years, particularly under Western tutelage. Histories of democracy that focus exclusively on these events not only privilege Europe and its successful colonies, but also miss the broader human story of the struggle for and achievement of democracy.

This presents us with a distinct challenge. For those whose heritage does not include a direct link to Greek assemblies, the American Congress or the French Revolution, the 'standard history of democracy' provides a distant and exclusive narrative, which limits one's ability to embrace democracy. This paper concludes by noting that, as democracy spreads out across the world today, political scientists not only need to break down the intellectual orthodoxy that democracy has exclusively Western roots, but also to embrace a more global view of democracy as a political practise that has been present at various times and in sometimes unfamiliar ways in the complex histories and rich cultural traditions of most of the people of the earth.

Éste artículo tiene como objeto hacer una re-exposición de la teoría política de Baruch Espinosa (1632-1677) a la luz de su ontología –entendida ésta como una ontología materialista. Por lo tanto, se hará una interpretación materialista de la teoría política éste filósofo, desde un acercamiento al «Materialismo Filosófico» de Gustavo Bueno –específicamente, desde su filosofía política, como «materialismo político». Para esto, exploraremos brevemente ciertas ideas de su Tratado Político –teniendo en cuenta, desde luego, la Ética y el Tratado Teológico-Político. Lidiaremos con ideas como «derecho natural», «Estado» o «Libertad», u otras ideas que irán saliendo a través de estas y que junto a la construcción de unas, dialécticamente criticará y destruirá otras –como «Pueblo», «Voluntad», «monarquía absoluta» etc.

(The Political Ontology of Espinosa)
The aim of this article is the reexposition of Baruch Espinosa's (1632-1677) political theory, in the light of his ontology –understood as a materialist ontology. Therefore, we will make a materialist interpretation of the political theory of this philosopher, from an approach to Gustavo Bueno's «Philosophical Materialism» –specifically, from his political philosophy, as a «political materialism». For that goal, we will briefly explore certain ideas from his Political Treatise –of course, with the help of other works, like the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and the Ethics. We will deal with ideas like «natural law», «State», «Freedom», and other ideas that may arise from those and in which construction, they dialectically criticize and destroy others –v.g., «People», «Will», «absolute monarchy» and so on.

Es gibt drei Formen Konflickte zu lösen:
- im System struktureller & direkter Gewalt
- Mangel an Information und zu hauf an Fehlinformationen durch die Medien
1.) Durch Kampf und Sieg gegen Staatsysteme,
      mit bezahlte, systemabhängige Richter die nicht mehr unterschreiben unter ihre 
      Urteile
2.) Durch neutrale Schlichter, systemabhängige Diplomaten, oder freie unabhängige stille
      Diplomaten
In der Unterbrechung der Kreisläufe aller Gewalt führt der Weg in das Paradies
3.) Durch Bewusstwerdung der Menschheit zum 
  wirklich, wirksamen, lebendigen Mit-Schöpfer- Sein zum Wohlsein Aller.

Öfentliche Debatte
https://www.academia.edu/s/6c31fa1479

A discourse to peace educators and activists from Palestine and Israel on the techniques of 'Satyagraha', created and employed by Mahatma Gandhi in the struggle for Indian independence. While the techniques are identified and briefly explained, a diagrammatic presentation of the context within which he acted reveals the courage and discipline required in a Gandhi-inspired subversion of structural and cultural injustice.
Date of discourse: 10, March, 2007.
Date of publication on Academia.edu: 2012

The intent of this chapter is to re-imagine and apply the term " civil disobedience " to the cyber domain. The full extent of how it can apply will be analyzed in a framework of the evolutionary rights of protest. Traditional civil disobedience is a " performance " via visual and physical mediums, while cyber disobedience is essentially a digital performance with difficulty in attributing true ownership of the act. This is an interesting antithesis to the physical protestor, who uses strategic visibility, threat of arrest, and popular backlash against state behavior as vital aspects of the disobedience. These variables are noticeably absent in cyber disobedience.