UNIT 3 THEORIES OF PEACE BUILDING

Structure
3.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
3.2 Understanding Peace Building
3.2.1 Liberal Peace Building
3.2.2 Sustainable Peace Building

3.3 Peace Building in International Relations Theories: A Meta-Look

3.3.1 Realist Theory of Peace Building
3.3.2 Idealist Theory of Peace Building
3.3.3 Structuralist Theory of Peace Building
3.3.4 Post-Structuralist Theory of Peace Building

3.4 Theoretical Approaches to Peace Building: Different Schools of Thought

3.4.1 The Conflict Management School
3.4.2 The Conflict Resolution School
3.4.3 The Complementary School
3.4.4 The Conflict Transformation School

3.5 The Alternative Discourse School of Peace Building

3.6 Summary
3.7 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

3.1 INTRODUCTION
There has been a great aspiration internationally in learning more about peace building.
This is aimed at enhancing the acquisition of skills and knowledge with objective thoughts
to have sustainable and long term peace at local, national, regional and international arena.
This unit seeks to explore the vital understanding of peace building, peace building in
international relations theories and theoretical approach to peace building. It is strategically
essential to know what the term peace building means; this should be taken before
looking into the conceptual frameworks. Here it is important to note that our understanding
of peace building is largely shaped by our understanding of meaning of peace. Hence, it
is essential to understand the meaning of peace before proceeding to peace building.
Peace is generally conceived of as equivalent to the absence of manifested violence. In
the Explanatory Phonographic Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language, peace is
defined as a list of synonyms which includes “respite from war”, “quiet from suits and
disorders”, “rest from any commotion”, “freedom from terror”, “silence”, “suppressions of
thought” etc. Juergen Dedring opines that traditional assumption regards peace as the
counterpart to the state of war and hence peace is defined as “absence of war”. Peace
is thus largely identified as a lack of conflict of any serious kind. Two concepts of peace
should be distinguished: negative peace and positive peace. Negative peace is focused on
the absence of manifest violence such as war, which could be realised through negotiation
32 Introduction to Peace and Conflict Management

or mediation rather than resorting to physical force. It recommends the use of non-violent
means, total disarmament and social and economic interdependence to avoid physical
violence and discourage the use of force in conflict situation. In a negative peace
approach, preventing war also requires a large array of international agreements and
institutions that can support stable relation among nations. The idea of improving peace
has also been reflected in many international agreements and in the mechanisms of
collective security included in United Nations. Negative peace policies may focus on a
present, short or near future time scale.
The concept of positive peace, based on broad understanding of social conditions, means
the removal of structural violence beyond merely the absence of direct violence. According
to John Galtung, positive peace would not be obtained without the development of just
and equitable conditions associated with the elimination of inegalitarian social structures.
Equality is an essential element for peace because its absence perpetuates tension of all
types. According to Boutros Boutros Ghali, former Secretary General of UN, the
elimination of repression and poverty is an essential element of peace.
Aims and Objectives
This Unit introduces you to peace building as an essentially the process of achieving
peace. After going through this unit, you will be able to:
 know the meaning of peace building;
 understand various theories of peace building;
 appreciate the importance of peace building; and
 know different schools of Thought on peace building.

3.2 UNDERSTANDING PEACE BUILDING

Peace building is essentially the process of achieving peace. Depending on one’s
understanding of peace, peace building differs considerably in terms of approaches, scope
of activities and time frame. It is therefore not astonishing that the term and the concept
of peace building are nowadays used in research and practice with varying understandings
and definitions.
According to Bertram, peace building is relatively a new field. It is, therefore, not
surprising that there are numerous and sometimes confusing definitions of peace building.
However, most interesting is that various scholars’ definition connect peace building to
mean a ‘process’ with a range of activities and stake holders involved. According to Kofi
Annan, peace building is “the various concurrent and integrated actions undertaken at the
end of a conflict to consolidate and prevent a recurrence of armed confrontation”.
Lederach characterises peace building as the attempt to address the underlying structural,
relational and cultural root causes of conflict. These two definitions have common
meaning and understanding of peace building as a process. Annan further includes
processes of changing attitudes which is reconciliatory and addressing the root causes of
the conflict. Annan’s thinking is limited to the process starting only at the end of the
conflict; the question therefore is what if the conflict does not end. Lederach encompasses
the full arrays of stages and approaches needed to transform conflict towards sustainable
peaceful relations and outcomes. Therefore, peace building is a holistic and comprehensive
process which should include: post conflict reconstruction, improving and building on social
relations, provision of aid assistance, reconciliation and entire social and structural changes.
Theories of Peace-Building 33

While all societies from early history onwards have created mechanisms and institutions to
build peace, be these councils of elders or religious leaders or other organised forums.
The institutionalisation of peace building in international law emerged only in the late 19th
century. This process started with The Hague Peace Conference in 1898, followed by the
foundation of the League of Nations, and resulted in the creation of the United Nations
at the end of World War II with the main objective to monitor and support world peace
through mediation, facilitation, good offices and arbitration between states. The term
“peace building” was first used by Johan Galtung (1969). He defined the term as one of
three approaches to peace: peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace building. Galtung’s
understanding of peace building is based on his conceptual distinction between negative
peace (end of violence) and positive peace (peaceful society at all levels). While negative
peace achieves the absence of physical violence through peacekeeping, only positive
peace can achieve the absence of structural violence through peacemaking and peace
building. Peacemaking in a conflict resolution aims at removing the tensions between the
conflicting parties in addressing the causes of violence. Peace building becomes positive
peace by creating structures and institutions of peace based on justice, equity and
cooperation, thereby permanently addressing underlying causes of conflict and preventing
their turn into violence. Most current definitions and understandings of peace building
reflect these two antipodes of positive and negative peace as introduced by Johan
Galtung.
The use of the term “peace building” started proliferating with its rebirth in the 1992 UN
Secretary General’s Report “An Agenda for Peace”. The Agenda was introduced in light
of the stronger role of the UN after the end of the Cold War and the increasing amount
of UN-led peacekeeping operations that aimed at stabilizing countries after war. In this
understanding peace building is “post-conflict peace building.” The original understanding
in “An Agenda for Peace” is essentially focused on stabilizing negative peace and presents
a narrow definition of peace building – preventing the recurrence of violence immediately
after armed conflicts and helping a country to set the parameters for starting the journey
towards positive peace. There are two different understandings of peace building, both of
which reflect the two antipodes of peace as defined by Galtung: Liberal peace building
and Sustainable peace building.

3.2.1 Liberal Peace Building

It is primarily concerned with a short to medium term aims at establishing institutions as
a precondition for the (re)-building of states and societies after wars and creating the
preconditions for a liberal, democratic peace. The understanding of liberal peacebuilding
focuses on the democratic (re)-building of states after armed conflict and is based on the
concept of the democratic/liberal peace going back to the works of Immanuel Kant. In
his work “Zum Ewigen Frieden” (Perpetual Peace), he laid the foundation of an
understanding of peace building between states based on their democratic values. He
argued that the democratic constitution of states correlates with their relatively peaceful
behaviour vis-à-vis other states. Confirming Kant’s arguments, a wide range of quantitative
research makes a clear positive causal linkage between democracy and peace. Democracies
do not fight each other because their shared norms of compromise and cooperation
prevent their conflicts of interests from escalating to violence.
A variation of the “democratic peace” is the debate on “liberal peace”, based on the
works of Adam Smith. In his book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth
of Nations”, he suggested a possible correlation between democracy, economic liberalisation
34 Introduction to Peace and Conflict Management

and peace, i.e. the higher the level of a free market economy in combination with a
democratic political system, the higher the chances for peace. Today the “liberal peace”
proposition is an integral part of the “democratic peace” debate as most democracies are
liberal market economies.

3.2.2 Sustainable Peace Building

John Paul Lederach (1997) is the main propounder of sustainable peace concept. He
developed a peace building framework based on an understanding of peace building that
centers on sustainable reconciliation within societies. Thus, according to Lederach, peace
building can be achieved through the establishment of structures, processes and training of
people within a generation-long time frame. Paul van Tongeren argues in favour of
complexity theory for conflict prevention and peace building. According to Tongeren to
make a contribution to peace, variety of agencies needs to work together at many
different levels in various ways. Hence, impacts can never be attributed to one single
actor. In other words, nobody can claim that factor X led to sustainable peace in country
Z. In the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) for example,
a diverse group of individuals, organisations and actors interact to support a shift from
reaction to prevention. ‘Impacts’ therefore are usually the product of a confluence of
factors for which no single agency or programme can realistically claim full credit. In sum,
the evolution of the peacebuilding discourse is connected to an underlying understanding
of peace. Thus, varying understandings of peacebuilding have emerged, all reflecting the
tension between negative and positive peace, i.e. taking a narrow or wider understanding
of peace building. We find two main paradigms: sustainable peace building with a wide
understanding, and liberal peace building with a short to medium term understanding,
which almost equals state building. While the former has received most attention from the
mid to late 1990s onwards, the latter is the liveliest discussed and disputed today. It is
important to note that these concepts also have overlapping elements. Although the explicit
goal of liberal peace building is the establishment of liberal peace, sustainable peace
building approaches also reflect many liberal elements of the “good society,” based on the
work of Kant.
Hence, acknowledging existing differences, we have decided to use a working definition
of peace building, balancing between the two extremes while also allowing for flexibility:
“Peace building aims at preventing and managing armed conflict and sustaining
peace after large-scale organised violence has ended. Peace building is a multi-
dimensional effort, its scope covers all activities that are linked directly to this
objective over 5-10 years. Peace building should create conducive conditions for
economic reconstruction, development and democratisation as preconditions for
legitimate democratic order, but should not be equated and thus confused with these
concepts.”

3.3 PEACE BUILDING IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

THEORIES: A META-LOOK
In a nutshell, the focus of all international relations (IR) theories is on regulating the
international system of states and thus maintaining peace as security, order or justice.
Important of these theories are as given below:
Theories of Peace-Building 35

3.3.1 Realist Theory of Peace Building

Realism focuses on the balance of power among sovereign nation-states based on an
understanding that the international system is anarchic and states are driven by interest
rather than idealistic norms. Peace building in realism refers to maintaining stability through
hegemonies power and through the preservation of interests.

3.3.2 Idealist Theory of Peace Building

In contrast to realist, idealism advocates for a world regulated by international organisations,
norms and standards. Peace building, therefore, aims at achieving peace between nations
on the basis of the establishment of norms and standards and through a super entity like
the UN, which can help in regulation and monitoring.

3.3.3 Structuralist Theory of Peace Building

A Marxist-inspired structuralism analysis focuses on justice and equality, and critically
analyses the power relations within the system. Peace building in this context is a
revolutionary approach to mobilize the masses in order to achieve radical change in the
international system.

3.3.4 Post-Structuralist Theory of Peace Building

Post-structural international relations reading also looks into issues of justice, equality and
power relations but puts the main emphasis on marginalised actors and discourses. Here
peace building is not about a common Meta narrative but about understanding differences
and including the discourses on every day peace of ordinary people into international
debates in an emancipatory sense. Peace building within international relations theory is
often not explicit. The framing of international relations theories has, however, inspired the
middle level theories which deal more explicitly with peace building.

3.4 THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO PEACE

BUILDING: DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
Five schools of thought can be distinguished within peace research. These schools use
different terminologies, and have different conceptual understandings, approaches and
actors. The history of these schools of thought is closely linked to the history and
evolution of the field of peace building. All schools present different approaches to
mediation between conflicting parties, whether between or within states. For many
decades mediation has been the main and dominant approach to peace building, but from
the mid-1990s it became clear that peace building required additional approaches. It is
also important to note that these theoretical schools are not linked to the conceptual
debate on the nexus between peace/conflict and development.

3.4.1 The Conflict Management School

This is the oldest school of thought. The focus of the Conflict Management School is to
end wars through different diplomatic initiatives. It is closely linked to the institutionalisation
of peace building in international law. The peace builders within the logic of this school
are external diplomats from bilateral or multilateral organisations. This theoretical approach
is referred to as outcome-oriented approach, which aims to identify and bring to the
leaders of the conflict parties to negotiation table. Its main focus is on the short-term
management of the armed conflict. Recent examples include the Camp David agreement
36 Introduction to Peace and Conflict Management

and the Sudan peace accord. The largest contribution of the conflict management school
is its focus on those in power who have the ability to bring large scale violence to an
end through a negotiated settlement. The Conflict Management School has been criticized
on the ground that mediators tend to concentrate solely on the top leadership of the
conflicting parties, are not always neutral in internal conflicts. The approach overlooks
deep causes of conflicts and thus cannot guarantee long-term stability of the peace
agreement. Conflict Management approaches have recently moved beyond an exclusive
concern with securing a peace agreement. Those now also focus on the conditions for
successful implementation of post-conflict peace building. Thus it is now possible to
distinguish between traditional and modern approaches to conflict management.

3.4.2 The Conflict Resolution School

The approach of the Conflict Resolution School is to solve the underlying causes of
conflict and rebuild destroyed relationships between the parties. Conflict resolution
approaches are based on legal mechanisms and conventional negotiation to settle disputes
by finding compromise solution. Under this logic, relations need to be rebuilt not only
between the top representatives of the conflict parties, but also within society at large.
This school was established in academic research in the 1970s, adopting strategies from
socio-psychological conflict resolution at the inter-personal level. The main focus of this
school is to address the root causes of conflict with relationship-building and long-term
resolution-oriented approaches. The biggest contribution of the conflict resolution school is
its perspective on peace building as identifying human needs and – perhaps most
importantly as Richmond notes – listening to the voices of unofficial and ordinary people.
The Conflict Resolution School has been criticized, especially by supporters of the
Conflict Management School, because the process is too lengthy to be able to stop wars.
Improving communications and building relationships between conflict parties do not
necessarily result in an agreement to end the war. Research has also found that while
relationships between groups can be rebuilt, this need not necessarily spill over to other
groups or the leadership of the conflict parties. An interesting example comes from the
assessment of the Norwegian-funded People to People Peace Program following the Oslo
peace agreement between Israel and Palestine in 1994. The Program funded many
dialogue projects between various Israeli and Palestinian groups, which while they
improved relations between participants, had no impact on the peace process at large.

3.4.3 The Complementary School

This school focuses on the possible congruence between the conflict management and
resolution schools. By putting the strength of these two schools together, it is a somehow
logical step that peace building is needed from the top and from below. In the early to
mid 1990s, different approaches developed that sought to overcome the dichotomy
between conflict management and resolution. The first was Ronald Fisher and Loraleigh
Keashly’s (1991) “Contingency model for third party intervention in armed conflicts.” This
aimed at identifying the appropriate third party method and the timing of interventions.
Based on Friedrich Glasl’s (1982 and 1990) conflict escalation model, the approach is to
de-escalate the conflict from phase to phase. According to Glasl, when a conflict is in the
early escalation phase, it is the appropriate time for resolution-oriented approaches, while
conflict management approaches, like official mediation, should be used when the conflict
is already on a high escalation level. After a peace accord has been reached, it is time
to revert to resolution-oriented approaches. Based on quantitative empirical research
Jacob Bercovitch and Jeffrey Z. Rubin developed an approach similar to the contingency
Theories of Peace-Building 37

model, but shifting the perspective from approaches to actors. In this approach it is not
important which mediators are the most effective, but who is more effective at different
stages of the conflict. The results are similar to those of Fisher and Keashly in that the
more the conflict escalates, the more powerful the third party should become.
The third strand of this school is the Multi-Track Diplomacy approach by Louise
Diamond and John McDonald (1996). This while recognizing that different approaches
and actors are needed to reach peace, seeks to make a clearer distinction between the
different approaches and actors by adopting a “track” concept. Track one involves
diplomatic peace building initiatives by governments and is in line with the Conflict
Management School. Track two represents the original conflict resolution school, while the
other tracks try to cluster other relevant actors. Complementary School received widespread
attention in scholarly circles for overcoming the conflict management/resolution dichotomy.
The main critique of this approach points out that in practice, different types of
interventions can take place at the same time and do not fully address the issue of
coordination.

Track Nine (inner circle):

Public Opinion/Communication
Track One: Government

Track Eight: Funding Track Two: Professional

Conflict Resolution

Track Seven: Religious Track Three: Business

Track Six: Activism Track Four: Private Citizen

Track Five: Research,

Training and Education

Figure 3.1: Multi-track Diplomacy

3.4.4 The Conflict Transformation School

This approach focuses on the transformation of deep-rooted armed conflicts into peaceful
ones, based on a different understanding of peace building. It recognizes the existence of
irresolvable conflicts, and therefore, suggests replacing the term conflict resolution with the
term conflict transformation. John Paul Lederach (1997) developed the first comprehensive
transformation-oriented approach. Building on the Complementary school, Lederach also
sees the need to solve the dilemma between short-term conflict management, and long-
term relationship building and resolution of underlying causes of conflict. His proposal is
to build ‘long-term infrastructure’ for peace building by supporting the reconciliation
potential of society. For a constructive transformation of conflicts, it is necessary to
identify and consolidate support structures that tend to strengthen peace. Positive
opportunities can be enhanced through the awareness of mutual dependence on each
other. He sees the need to rebuild destroyed relationships, focusing on reconciliation within
society and the strengthening of society’s peace building potential. Third party intervention
38 Introduction to Peace and Conflict Management

should concentrate on supporting internal actors and coordinating external peace efforts.
Sensitivity to the local culture and a long-term time frame are necessary. A key element
of this approach is to focus on peace constituencies by identifying mid-level individuals or
groups and empowering them to build peace and support reconciliation. Empowerment of
the middle level is assumed to influence peace building at the macro and grassroots levels.
Lederach divides society into three levels, which can be approached with different peace
building strategies (figure 3.2).Top leadership can be accessed by mediation at the level
of states (track 1) and the outcome-oriented approach. Mid-level leadership (track 2) can
be reached through more resolution-oriented approaches, such as problem-solving workshops
or peace-commissions with the help of partial insiders (i.e., prominent individuals in
society). The grassroots level (track 3), however, represents the majority of the population
and can be reached by a wide range of peace building approaches, such as local peace
commissions, community dialogue projects or trauma healing.

Figure 3.2: Lederach’s Levels of Peacebuilding

The largest contribution of the conflict transformation school is its shift in focus from
international to local actors, especially in terms of their capacities for peace building. It
therefore puts even more emphasis on civil society and ordinary people than the resolution
school. While in the resolution school these actors are subject to outsiders’ interventions,
within the conflict transformation school they are at the center of peace building. The
Conflict Transformation School has not been subject to fundamental critique. On the
contrary, it has become the leading school of thought in the field.
Theories of Peace-Building 39

3.5 THE ALTERNATIVE DISCOURSE SCHOOL OF

PEACE BUILDING
There is an emerging literature analysing peace building through the lens of discourse
analysis and advocating for an alternative approach to peace building. By deconstructing
the theory and the international practitioners’ discourse, they show that the peace building
discourse is trapped in the “liberal imperative” as only one model for peace building is
normatively accepted, i.e. the liberal peace. These authors claim that this kind of peace
building has become a self-referential system which has lost its connection to the real
world and needs of the people. In line with Foucault, the alternative discourse school
does not present a meta-alternative, but points to the need to refocus on the everyday
peace of ordinary people. A.B. Featherstone (2000) and Alexandro Bendaña (2003)
deliver the most radical interpretations: with a power analysis based on Foucault.
Featherstone considers the peace building schools as “part of an apparatus of power
which attempts to discipline and normalize”. On the basis of an analysis of Southern
voices, Bendaña comes to similar conclusions by emphasizing that peace building becomes
an inherently conservative undertaking seeking managerial solutions to fundamental conflicts
over resources and power, attempting to modernize and re-legitimize a fundamental status
quo respectful of a national and international market economy.
The alternative approach suggested here is one of transformative peace building which
leads to a post-hegemonic society where oppressed voices are listened to and respected.
It therefore also implies structural changes and the acknowledgment that peace building is
mainly a Western enterprise that needs to engage in a serious South/North dialogue. The
biggest contribution of this emerging alternative discourse peace building school is its focus
on ordinary people, oppressed voices, the analysis of power structures and an assessment
based on realities instead of normative assumptions. There is one main criticism that can
be established against it. While the need to give voice to alternative, oppressed actors is
clearly stated within the writings of the above mentioned authors, most of them do not
actually analyse these alternative voices. This seems an inherent contradiction to the very
alternative discourse for which these authors advocate. The main focus of these studies
is the liberal peace and actors of the international community therein, i.e. Western
governments and NGOs, the UN, etc. While this deconstruction of the governmentality of
the liberal peace is a valid approach that was long obsolete, the sole focus on the liberal
peace and its critique risks to be a counter-normative approach that might lead these
authors to fall into the very liberal trap they meant to attack.

3.6 SUMMARY
In sum, the evolution of the peace building discourse is connected to an underlying
understanding of peace. Thus, varying understandings of peace building have emerged, all
reflecting the tension between negative and positive peace, i.e. taking a narrow or wide
understanding of peace building. We find two main paradigms: sustainable peace building
with a wide understanding, and liberal peace building with a short to medium term
understanding, which almost equals state building. While the former has received most
attention from the mid to late 1990s onwards, the latter is the liveliest discussed and
disputed today. It is important to note that these concepts also have overlapping elements.
We have also examined the peace building in international relations theories but Peace
building within IR theory is often not explicit. The unit also presented five schools of
40 Introduction to Peace and Conflict Management

thought, which can be seen as “middle level theories” of peace building. These five
schools are conflict management, conflict resolution, complementary, conflict transformation
and the emerging school of alternative discourse in peace building. These schools use
different terminologies, and have different conceptual understandings, approaches, scope
and actors involved. The history of these schools of thought is closely related to the
history and evolution of the field of peace building. The different schools have had
different influences on peace building and practice has tended to adopt elements from
different schools. Although most theories tend to place an importance on the role that
mediation can play in peace building, Marxist and alternative discourse inspired middle
level theories tend to put more emphasis on this role than would be allowed by a more
realist-inspired model of conflict management. Despite the fact that second generation
conflict management has started to reflect on the involvement of non-state actors in the
negotiation process, we still lack in well-developed theories of peace building. Michael
Lund (2003) states that peace building is an under-theorized and over-conceptualised
concept. It also lacks sufficient empirical evidence to generate conclusions about its
relevance and effectiveness.

3.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1) Bring out the distinction between negative and positive concept of peace with suitable
examples.
2) What is peace building? Examine it in international relations theories.
3) Critically examine the conflict management theory of peace building.
4) Bring out differences between conflict transformation school and the alternative
discourse school of peace building.

SUGGESTED READINGS
Barash, D. (2000), Approaches to Peace. A Reader in Peace Studies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bendana, A. (2003), “What Kind of Peace is Being Built? Stock Taking of Post-Conflict
Peace building and Charting Future Directions”, Paper prepared for the International
Development Research Council (IDRC) on the 10th anniversary of An Agenda for Peace,
Ottawa, Canada.
Chetail, V. (ed.) (2009), Post-Conflict Peace Building: A Lexicon, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Diamond, L., J. McDonald (1996), Multi-Track Diplomacy, A Systems Approach to
Peace, West, Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Featherstone, A. (2000), “Peacekeeping, Conflict Resolution and Peace building: A
Reconsideration of Theoretical Frameworks”, International Peacekeeping 7 (1):190-218.
Galtung, J. (1969) “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research”, Journal of Peace Research
6 (3):167-191.
———, (1971) “A Structural Theory of Imperialism”, Journal of Peace Research 8:81-
117.
Theories of Peace-Building 41

———, (1975) “Three approaches to peace: peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace

building” in J. Galtung, (ed.) Peace, War and Defense - Essays in Peace Research,
282-304. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.
Gawerc, M. (2006), “Peace-Building: Theoretical and Concrete Perspectives”, Peace and
Change, 31 (4):435-478.
Jeong, H. (2005), Peace Building in Post conflict Societies, Strategy and Process.
Boulder, CO/London: Lynne Rienner.
Lederach, J. P. (1997), Building Peace. Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies,
Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
———, (2005), Moral Imagination. The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Paffenholz, T., C. Spurk. (2006), “Civil Society, Civic Engagement and Peace building”,
Social Development Papers, Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction Paper No. 36.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Smith, D. (2003), Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding. The Synthesis
Report of the Joint Utstein Study on Peacebuilding. Oslo: Peace Research Institute
Oslo.
Xenias, A. (2005), “Can a Global Peace Last Even If Achieved? Huntington and the
Democratic Peace”, International Studies Review 7 (3):357–386.