Peace Research and the Armament Process

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Johan Niezing
Keyword(s):  
1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Dunn

Taken together, these four volumes comprise the Conflict Series, and represent the fruits of work completed by John Burton, with others, in the last years of his formal academic career in the United States, at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, and at the Center for Conflict Resolution at George Mason University in Virginia. Burton has now ‘retired’ (though he still writes vigorously) to his native Australia, and that event, together with the appearance of these works, prompts this synoptic evaluation of them in the context of Burton's life and previous work. What makes this particularly interesting in the case of John Burton is that his career has been less than singular; first a civil servant, then a diplomat, then an academic, he moved from Australia, then to the United Kingdom and thence to the United States, with various stops along the way. Though he has written a great deal—books, articles and conference papers—and was a key participant in the organization of the peace research movement in the 1960s, especially the International Peace Research Association and the Conflict Research Society in the United Kingdom (and is described on the back cover of CRP as ‘the founder of the field of conflict resolution’), he was never a professor during his extended residence i n the United Kingdom at, first, University College, London, and then at the University of Kent, achieving that status only later, at George Mason University.


Peace Review ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 500-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Urdal ◽  
Gudrun Østby ◽  
Nils Petter Gleditsch
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 235-237
Author(s):  
Lothar Brock

Whether or not, and how, ‘security’ and ‘peace’ go together has always been an issue of discussion among peace researchers. The focus on peace instead of on (military) security was constitutive for early German ‘critical peace research’. The inception of S+F can be regarded as an attempt to bridge the divide between peace and security studies. In this regard, the title of the journal was programmatic. It served a useful purpose when, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, peace research (with important exceptions, of course) tended to move towards critical security studies combined with a reductionist understanding of peace as ‘comprehensive security’ and as a label on a tool box for civil conflict management (in the ‘new wars’). In this context, S+F reminded the community of the need to maintain the distinction between peace and security. The journal also offered the space for debating this distinction in terms of the different logics of peace and security.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document