The concept of international peace
Peace has long been among the greatest values of mankind – for many, highest values. The most disadvantageous peace is actually far better than the simplest war. Peace is much more critical than justice. I support the best unjust fair peace for a real just war. There has never been a great war or perhaps a terrible peace.
However, we agree on what peace it is. The pacifists have made the interpretation that found all the violence awful. This significance is generally acknowledged among students and international scientists. This is the definition of the main dictionary.
Peace can withstand or even contradict conflict, violence and struggle. This can be related to an inner state (consciousness or even nations), or even to external associations. Or it may be narrow in the concept, in certain specific situations (such as a peace treaty), or perhaps overwhelmingly, covering a whole society (such as world peace). Peace can be dichotomy (exist or maybe not) or sometimes permanent, active or passive, abstract or empirical, normative or descriptive, possibly negative or positive.
Historical and contemporary use.
Western peace generally means no violence, in fact, especially the battle. Probably the most famous of today's peace is actually the absence of an opposing conflict. For example, this is the most important meaning of peace provided by the authentic Oxford English Dictionary. Among the various senses of peace, in all primary situations, independence and war, or even hostility, civil independence, independence from disturbance, independence from disturbance or possibly perturbation, independence of independence or interference with individuals.
Peace as antagonistic conflict, war or lack of violence, popular characterization of irenologists. Johan Galtung initiates an assessment of peace by accepting this principle: "Peace is in fact considered to be a lack of violence." This definition may be placed on internal or external conflict, violence or war, as well as on a narrow, middle range, and a comprehensive range. However, peace is seldom examined, and this typically means expressing a significant analysis or perhaps a lack of information on some apparent conflict. In fact, many irenologists are actually pacifists, or sometimes sympathize with pacifism, and hatred of violence inspired the investigation in this place. Whatever the inspiration, the peace of irenologists is in fact an empirical idea, which is typically descriptive but implicitly normative and certainly positive.
Even more clearly about the beneficial dynamics of sanity, in fact, are pacifists who believe that there is no end to violence, even self-defense. Peace is actually religion or philosophy. For some pacifists, this can also exacerbate the human condition, the attitude to mankind, and the spirit of love, compassion and forgiveness. For pacifists, non-violence is generally passive; but especially after the Second World War, the pacifist theories, non-violence (or perhaps resistance) were formed under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. The purpose of such pacifist movements is to overcome social injustice, especially through the non-violent cultural revolution, and to learn about peace to engage in faith, leadership, commitment, and crowd. The pacifists see peace in a positive and normative way, and the peace is considered to be the highest good.
Teachers in International Relations.
Many of the students of international relations who are likely to think in this field because of the pacifist inclinations. Peace is often a dichotomous state outside the nation states that separates war or violence. Most international relations work, in the context of peace, suggests a narrow, overwhelming lack of battle and violence. Peace is typically a passive state. Empirical too. Moreover, although they are generally sympathetic to pacifism, many students of international relations have admitted that in some situations war is inevitable. They keep the idea of peace there, they are more descriptive than normative, and understand that peace can contain negative and positive aspects.
This is a popular idea created by the Galtung and refers to the "lack of individual violence", not always a terrible peace. "Negative Peace" has 3 options. For beginners it is an empirical idea that is described by the structural principle of violence. Then, within the idea, it is matched by "positive peace", which is a constructive meaning for social justice. Thirdly, although the "negative" sign is based in essentially denotative terms, this peace is violated, if not by definition, the emotional impact, so that peace is social justice.
Galtung suggested this case, as it is obvious that he observed that this "negative peace" concept leads to "very easily the adoption of the law and the rationalization of order" societies or even "right wing extremism" The negative peace should therefore be utilized with due diligence as it is undesirable since it is not a communication. Every time I use bad peace here, without quotes, it is unjust or bad the peace of an emotion that needs to be seized from the context
Peace is a non-antagonistic conflict, non-violent and non-war state, often there is no existence (where there is no violence, no peace), and thus a dichotomy, whether external or internal may be nation states, human groups or humankind, although the external dominance of international relations is usually dominant and typically passive (recognizing that it can be active movement like the king and the gandh) i) Empirical and sometimes normative.
The fundamental problem with this concept of peace is in fact the remainder of the analysis and has no philosophical or theoretical purity. In general, circumstances, circumstances or causes of violence, or perhaps war, are in fact the focus and peace is in fact the supposed contamination of clear understanding and scientific knowledge or the behavior of behavior towards stopping war and violence. Obviously, there is the argument that "this is the peace of peace and I can choose whatever I like or maybe value," but good analysis usually shows this proof, hides the blind adoption of an institution or even tradition.
Peace as a lack of violence, or perhaps war, is triggered by many countless issues. Do we really want charity, co-operatives, or peace to equal the peace of slavery, slavery or injustice? We mean to signal that, since there is no conflict, peace in which no one resides is in fact like a loving and cooperative neighbor? If the lack of war is in fact peace, will we accept the peace to involve the mass executions, torture and slowdown of a dictatorship in the reserve regime? The aggressive states shaking on the edge of the war have the same peace as ordinary people who are tied by communication, trade, and aid by making the violence truly impossible? Is there no connection between conflict and peace that changes or peace issues are less likely or likely to cause conflict? If so, does it not mean that peace is actually an "something" that needs to be examined instead of the cultural vacuum? This kind of question suggests that there is a need to treat peace as an existent as it is done in the public as a public contract.