International Journal on World Peace

Introduction to IJWP, March 2021

All human activity has environmental consequences. Some types of activity are highly destructive, while other activities can be sustainable. On the one extreme hunting animals to extinction, leveling forests, and disregard for the proliferation of toxic materials and industrial wastes is activity that makes the world inhabitable for human beings. At the other extreme is the call to depopulate the earth through forms of genocide so the environment is undisturbed by humans. Living in peace with the environment, and with each other, lies somewhere in the middle. A sustainable world requires both conscientiousness toward nature and other human beings, and continuous learning and adaptation with the help of science. Each of the articles in this issue touch upon some aspect of the environment and peace.

The first article, “Connecting Peaces: TBCAs and the Integration of International, Social, and Ecological Peace,” looks at the idea of transboundary conservation areas (TBCAs), which often serve as buffers between hostile nations. This is a concept that has been promoted in recent years, particularly after observing how natural life rebounded in the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea. However the authors argue that TBCAs have been vulnerable to social, international, and environmental conflict, and the there is little evidence they have contributed to international peace.

Introduction to IJWP, September 2020

This issue of IJWP marks the first time that our authors have used a constructivist approach to international relations. Constructivism begins with the premise that international relations are socially constructed and that states behave more on the basis of the identity of other states than on their material resources. In an excerpt from International Relations Theory, Sarina Theys, citing Alexander Wendt, explained constructivism as follows:

Alexander Wendt (1995) offers an excellent example that illustrates the social construction of reality when he explains that 500 British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the United States than five North Korean nuclear weapons. These identifications are not caused by the nuclear weapons (the material structure) but rather by the meaning given to the material structure (the ideational structure). It is important to understand that the social relationship between the United States and Britain and the United States and North Korea is perceived in a similar way by these states, as this shared understanding (or intersubjectivity) forms the basis of their interactions. The example also shows that nuclear weapons by themselves do not have any meaning unless we understand the social context. It further demonstrates that constructivists go beyond the material reality by including the effect of ideas and beliefs on world politics.

Using the example of Bhutan, wedged between Tibet and India, Theys shows how constructivism better explains that country’s posture towards India and China than conventional IR theories. She concluded her article stating “it is not only the distribution of material power, wealth and geographical conditions that can explain state behavior but also ideas, identities, and norms. Furthermore, their focus on ideational factors shows that reality is not fixed, but rather subject to change.”

Guest Editor: Norman K. Swazo, North-South Universtiy, Dhaka, Bangladesh

On 27-28 July, 2019, the Department of Political Science and Sociology and the South Asian Institute of Policy and Governance (SIPG) of North South University (NSU) in Dhaka Bangladesh, together with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), sponsored and convened an international academic conference—International Conference on Rohingya Crisis in Bangladesh: Challenges and Sustainable Solutions.

This special issue includes four papers that together provide background information on the history of the Rohingya “refugee” crisis, including perspectives accounting for bilateral relations and negotiations between the government of Bangladesh and the government of Myanmar, as well as recommendations related to multilateral engagements such as by UNHCR, regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and by diplomatic missions from the USA and China in particular.

Introduction to IJWP, September 2019

The relation of religion to governance is one of the most important yet disputed aspects of the modern state. Should a state merely administer services on a territory or should it use its force to impose a specific set of religious beliefs and values on all of its citizens and residents? And, if a specific set of values is imposed, should there be limits to what the state is allowed to impose? For example, should it merely define crimes as harmful to a citizen’s life or property, or should it be criminal to hurt someone’s feelings or express a view different than state policy? And, who determines state policy on religion: the ruling family, the will of the majority, or some constitutional process?

This issue of International Journal on World Peace contains three articles that relate to creating peaceful states in a world where many religions, belief systems, and schisms exist in almost every country. The first article on “The Syrian Conflict” by Nasreen Akhtar and Hala Nageen shows what can happen when the ruler, Bashar al Assad, favors government jobs and financial contracts for members of his own family and his minority religious group, the Alawi, who make up 11 percent of the population.

Religious favoritism always leads to the exclusion or second-class citizenship of others. Or, in a worst-case scenario, genocide. In the case of Syria, the Arab Spring created hope among these less-favored groups that a new system could emerge that either treated citizens of all religions equally, or reversed the tables and installed some other religious group, and their religious values, in power. This led first to civil war and secondly to foreign states and interest groups aligning with and supporting various factions. As in other historical wars, most contestants in Syria expect to impose their values on all citizens after their victory.

Introduction to IJWP, March 2019

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a saying that reveals the ambiguity of an emotionally charged word, “terrorism.” The word “terrorism” evokes fear in members of the group that might be attacked. A “terrorist” is a label used to classify a person as evil, dangerous, outside the law, and a target for removal from the streets. People often become so concerned for their security that they will cede more and more power to the government to remove the threat of terrorism, and to allow governments to suspend the human rights of a “terrorist.”

Many emotional labels or stereotypes are imposed on others to distinguish “good” and “bad.” Labeling a group a “terrorist group,” a “radical group,” a “racist group,” a “hate group,” a homophobic group,” an “extremist group,” or countless other terms, is a way of calling others the opposite of your group. Such labels cause social division and are used to justify tribalism, revolution, and government repression. They are a linguistic tactic used to deprive others of equal rights. The mass media often reports on these divisive and fearful labels because they sell “news.” People who normally consider themselves good, moral, and peaceful can be swept up into this group division and end up supporting acts of violence against members of enemy groups that they would never normally consider perpetrating on another individual in their own group. Reinhold Niebuhr poignantly initiated an academic discussion about this problem in his book Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932).

Continue reading →