Introduction
According to Marsden (2003), peace can be defined as the as a state of public tranquility or freedom from war. This means that for peace to prevail in a given public setup there has to be calmness initiated by the members of the society or community referred to as peacemakers.
Impacts of International relations theories on peacemaking and post-conflict recovery
In international relations, peace can be explained in three different theories which are:
- Realism
- Liberalism
- Constructivism
Mac Ginty (2003) asserts that the realism theory concentrates on the struggle for power amongst different states and portrays the hardships in doing away with conflicts or wars. It majors on giving reasons for war or imperialism as it focuses on competition for power or property amongst different states as it upholds the characteristics of American soviet rivalry.
Liberalism, on the other hand, advocates for a solution to peace. It is through liberalism that there would be economic interdependence amongst different states hence there would be no threats on states’ prosperity. Liberalism is also concerned with the democracy of a particular state (Hudson, 2005).
Democratic countries are said to promote peace by carrying out more peacemaking activities unlike authoritarian states (Marsden, 2003). In addition, Liberalism is said to bring unity among different states as it promotes the interdependence of international resources amongst different states.
For instance, the International Monetary Fund offers financial aid to different countries or states. The constructivist theory on the other hand advocates for useful changes in states. For example, a change in the Marxist agenda and the setting idea of capitalism in the current world has caused improvement peacemaking initiatives.
These three theories have a great impact in the peace making process described below as they set up the pace for peace making. Thomas and Tow (2002) assert, “They give advice as evident in the peace keeping techniques on how to approach conflicts and resolve them eventually through the most appropriate means”.
Historical context on how to end war
It is due to the efforts made by peace keeping organizations that brought the end of the cold war in 1989. This was brought about by the shifting priorities of individuals in different states.
In my own opinion, considering the fact that war brought about losses and lack of time to perform constructive obligations, it is always a good idea to neglect the competition for property or power amongst states but encourage interdependence amongst them. Langlois (2012) argues that war in most cases leads to destruction of what people are fighting for hence no benefit to any of the war parties.
Peace operations to end war or conflict
It is usually a good idea to come up with peace operations which are likely to contribute positively in peace keeping or peace building. For example, “Mission creep” was initiated in Somalia and Rwanda as a measure to calm war. Hudson (2005) asserts that in 2000, there was also a report on the panel on the United Nations peace operations that was meant to promote peace between countries.
Individual responsibility
Abass (2010) takes the stand that it is significant to note the shift of peace promotion from state hands to the hands of the individual. Individuals are said to be the prime objects of establishing peace between different regions.
The behavior of human beings determine so much on state tranquility hence peace starts from individual level to state’s level (Mac Ginty, 2003). This is according to International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report tabled in 2001 that calls upon individuals to exercise peace at individual level.
Human security
Human security is one of the most fundamental reasons for peace initiatives in a state. It is important to note that human security is held as being vital than the sovereignty of the state. This is mainly because human beings make up the state and without them the state cannot exist (Burke, 2012).
Therefore, it is significant to exercise human security as a measure to achieve peace in a state. This can be achieved by individuals employing liberalism in their peace making techniques.
Human intervention to end war
Dobbins (2005) suggests that in order to avoid conflicts or wars, human intervention should be employed and avoid military action unless war is the last resort to solve the conflict. Chapter VII of the UN Charter permits use of military force by the international community if peaceful measures prove inadequate though they still must be mandated by UNSC. Though there are many critics to this opinion, it still remains to be the most conscious decision by many governments.
Peace concepts
In the concepts of maintaining peace, the issue of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) is meant to provide security that boosts peace in an area. SSR (Security Sector Reform) is also involved in creating the right structure for peace keeping in the society. Bellamy et al (2008) argue that the government also takes up the obligation of maintaining peace to its people.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to assert that peacemaking is a vital role in the society that should be promoted from individual to the state’s level for the economic, social and religious benefits of the people. The theories of communication also add up to importance of peacemaking as they set a pace for peace building.
References
Abass, A 2010, Protecting human security in Africa, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bellamy, AJ et al. 2011, The responsibility to protect and international law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, Boston.
Burke, A 2012, An Introduction to International Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dobbins, J 2005, The UN’s role in nation-building: from the Congo to Iraq, RAND Corp, Santa Monica, CA.
Hudson, H 2005, ‘Doing’ Security as Though Humans Matter’, Security Dialogue, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 155-174.
Langlois, A 2012, ‘Human Rights’, in R Devetak, A Burke and J George (eds), An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.440-459.
Mac Ginty, R, 2003, ‘The Pre-War Reconstruction of Post-War Iraq’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 601-617.
Marsden, P 2003, ‘Afghanistan: the reconstruction process’, International Affairs, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 92–104.
Thomas, N & Tow, WT 2002, ‘The utility of human security: sovereignty and humanitarian intervention’, Security Dialogue, vol. 33, no. 2, pp.177-192.