Difference between Peace-building and Peace-making
Peace-building is a continuous process and need not be triggered by a conflict. For example, a
few years after the end of a conflict a country, a country continues diplomatic efforts to prevent
future conflict. This can be done before a conflict breaks out also.
Peacemaking is the process of brokering a peace deal. It involves diplomatic effort and can in
some cases be forced by a third-party military force.
Peace-building
Peace-building is an intervention that is designed to prevent the start or resumption of violent
conflict by creating a sustainable peace. Peace-building activities address the root causes or
potential causes of violence, create a societal expectation for peaceful conflict resolution and
stabilize society politically and socioeconomically.
The activities included in peace-building vary depending on the situation and the agent of peace-
building. Successful peace-building activities create an environment supportive of self-
sustaining, durable peace; reconcile opponents; prevent conflict from restarting; integrate civil
society; create rule of law mechanisms; and address underlying structural and societal issues.
Researchers and practitioners also increasingly find that peace-building is most effective and
durable when it relies upon local conceptions of peace and the underlying dynamics which foster
or enable conflict.
History
In the 1970s, Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung first created the term peace-building through
his promotion of systems that would create sustainable peace. Such systems needed to address
the root causes of conflict and support local capacity for peace management and conflict
resolution. Galtung's work emphasized a bottom-up approach that decentralized social and
economic structures, amounting to a call for a societal shift from structures of coercion and
violence to a culture of peace. American sociologist John Paul Lederach proposed a different
concept of peace-building as engaging grassroots, local, NGO, international and other actors to
create a sustainable peace process. He does not advocate the same degree of structural change as
Galtung.
Peace-building has since expanded to include many different dimensions, such as disarmament,
demobilization and reintegration and rebuilding governmental, economic and civil society
institutions.
Definition
The exact definition varies depending on the actor, with some definitions specifying what
activities fall within the scope of peace-building or restricting peace-building to post-conflict
interventions.
Even if peace-building has remained a largely amorphous concept without clear guidelines or
goals, common to all definitions is the agreement that improving human security is the central
task of peace-building. In this sense, peace-building includes a wide range of efforts by diverse
actors in government and civil society at the community, national and international levels to
address the root causes of violence and ensure civilians have freedom from fear (negative peace),
freedom from want (positive peace) and freedom from humiliation before, during, and after
violent conflict.
Although many of peace-building's aims overlap with those of peacemaking, peacekeeping and
conflict resolution, it is a distinct idea. Peacemaking involves stopping an ongoing conflict,
whereas peace-building happens before a conflict starts or once it ends. Peacekeeping prevents
the resumption of fighting following a conflict; it does not address the underlying causes of
violence or work to create societal change, as peace-building does. It also differs from peace-
building in that it only occurs after conflict ends, not before it begins. Conflict resolution does
not include some components of peace-building, such as state building and socioeconomic
development.
Peace-building as a process of strengthening a society’s capacity to manage conflict in non-
violent ways. Conflict is natural in society and can lead to positive change. However, it can also
descend into violence.
Peace-building Principles
We put people at the centre of building lasting peace. While every situation is different, the
following principles guide our approach.
Local ownership
Putting local people at the heart of building peace
Building trust
Trust is the keystone of peace
Reaching out to all groups
Building peace involves everyone
Long-term commitment
Building lasting peace takes times
Process Matters
The process determine the results
Approaches to peace-building
There are two broad approaches to peace-building.
First, peace-building can refer to direct work that intentionally focuses on addressing the factors
driving or mitigating conflict. When applying the term "peace-building" to this work, there is an
explicit attempt by those designing and planning a peace-building effort to reduce structural or
direct violence.
Second, the term peace-building can also refer to efforts to coordinate a multi-level,
multisectoral strategy, including ensuring that there is funding and proper communication and
coordination mechanisms between humanitarian assistance, development, governance, security,
justice and other sectors that may not use the term "peace-building" to describe themselves. The
concept is not one to impose on specific sectors. Rather some scholars use the term peace-
building is an overarching concept useful for describing a range of interrelated efforts.
While some use the term to refer to only post-conflict or post-war contexts, most use the term
more broadly to refer to any stage of conflict. Before conflict becomes violent, preventive peace-
building efforts, such as diplomatic, economic development, social, educational, health, legal and
security sector reform programs, address potential sources of instability and violence. This is
also termed conflict prevention. Peace-building efforts aim to manage, mitigate, resolve and
transform central aspects of the conflict through official diplomacy as well as through civil
society peace processes and informal dialogue, negotiation, and mediation. Peace-building
addresses economic, social and political root causes of violence and fosters reconciliation to
prevent the return of structural and direct violence. Peace-building efforts aim to change beliefs,
attitudes and behaviors to transform the short and long term dynamics between individuals and
groups toward a more stable, peaceful coexistence. Peace-building is an approach to an entire
set of interrelated efforts that support peace.
There are many different approaches to categorization of forms of peace-building among the
peace-building field's many scholars.
1st Dimension 2nd Dimension 3rd Dimension
Taking Rebuilding basic Trauma Gender
away facilities, transportation counseling empowerment
weapons and communication Transitional Raising
Re- networks, utilities justice and environmental
integrating Developing rule of law restoration awareness
former systems and public Community Promoting
combatant administration dialogue economic
s into Building educational Building bridges development
civilian and health infrastructure between different Developing a
society Providing technical and communities civil society and
capacity-building Increasing human private sector that
assistance for rights can represent
institutions diverse interests
Creating legitimate and challenge the
(democratic, state peacefully
accountable) state
institutions
Peace-building Practice
In short, parties must replace the spiral of violence and destruction with a spiral of peace and
development, and create an environment conducive to self-sustaining and durable peace. The
creation of such an environment has three central dimensions: addressing the underlying causes
of conflict, repairing damaged relationships and dealing with psychological trauma at the
individual level. Each of these dimensions relies on different strategies and techniques.
The Structural Dimension: Addressing Root Causes
The structural dimension of peace-building focuses on the social conditions that foster violent
conflict. Many note that stable peace must be built on social, economic, and political foundations
that serve the needs of the populace. In many cases, crises arise out of systemic roots. These root
causes are typically complex, but include skewed land distribution, environmental degradation,
and unequal political representation. If these social problems are not addressed, there can be no
lasting peace.
Thus, in order to establish durable peace, parties must analyze the structural causes of the
conflict and initiate social structural change. The promotion of substantive and procedural justice
through structural means typically involves institution building and the strengthening of civil
society.
The Relational Dimension
A second integral part of building peace is reducing the effects of war-related hostility through
the repair and transformation of damaged relationships. The relational dimension of peace-
building centers on reconciliation, forgiveness, trust building, and future imagining. It seeks to
minimize poorly functioning communication and maximize mutual understanding.
Many believe that reconciliation is one of the most effective and durable ways to transform
relationships and prevent destructive conflicts. The essence of reconciliation is the voluntary
initiative of the conflicting parties to acknowledge their responsibility and guilt. Parties reflect
upon their own role and behavior in the conflict, and acknowledge and accept responsibility for
the part they have played. As parties share their experiences, they learn new perspectives and
change their perception of their "enemies."
The Personal Dimension
The personal dimension of peace-building centers on desired changes at the individual level. If
individuals are not able to undergo a process of healing, there will be broader social, political,
and economic repercussions. The destructive effects of social conflict must be minimized, and its
potential for personal growth must be maximized. Reconstruction and peace-building efforts
must prioritize treating mental health problems and integrate these efforts into peace plans and
rehabilitation efforts.
In traumatic situations, a person is rendered powerless and faces the threat of death and injury.
Traumatic events might include a serious threat or harm to one's family or friends, sudden
destruction of one's home or community, and a threat to one's own physical being. Such events
overwhelm an individual's coping resources, making it difficult for the individual to function
effectively in society. Typical emotional effects include depression and post-traumatic stress
disorder. After prolonged and extensive trauma, a person is often left with intense feelings that
negatively influence his/her psychological well-being. After an experience of violence, an
individual is likely to feel vulnerable, helpless, and out of control in a world that is
unpredictable.
Peace-building Agents
Peace-building measures should integrate civil society in all efforts and include all levels of
society in the post-conflict strategy. All society members, from those in elite leadership
positions, to religious leaders, to those at the grassroots level, have a role to play in building a
lasting peace. Many apply John Paul Lederach's model of hierarchical intervention levels to
make sense of the various levels at which peace-building efforts occur.
Because peace-building measures involve all levels of society and target all aspects of the state
structure, they require a wide variety of agents for their implementation. These agents advance
peace-building efforts by addressing functional and emotional dimensions in specified target
areas, including civil society and legal institutions. While external agents can facilitate and
support peace-building, ultimately it must be driven by internal forces. It cannot be imposed
from the outside.
Various internal actors play an integral role in peace-building and reconstruction efforts. The
government of the affected country is not only the object of peace-building, but also the subject.
While peace-building aims to transform various government structures, the government typically
oversees and engages in this reconstruction process. A variety of the community specialists,
including lawyers, economists, scholars, educators, and teachers, contribute their expertise to
help carry out peace-building projects. Finally, a society's religious networks can play an
important role in establishing social and moral norms.
Peacemaking
Peacemaking is practical conflict transformation focused upon establishing equitable power
relationships robust enough to forestall future conflict, often including the establishment of
means of agreeing on ethical decisions within a community, or among parties, that had
previously engaged in inappropriate (i.e. violent) responses to conflict. Peacemaking seeks to
achieve full reconciliation among adversaries and new mutual understanding among parties and
stakeholders. When applied in criminal justice matters, peacemaking is usually called restorative
justice, but sometimes also transformative justice, a term coined by the late Canadian justice
theorist and activist Ruth Morris. One popular example of peacemaking is the several types of
mediation, usually between two parties and involving a third, a facilitator or mediator.
Definition
The term "peacemaking" is used in several different ways. According to the UN, peacemaking is
"action to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as those
foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations; Pacific Settlement of Disputes." In
this sense, peacemaking is the diplomatic effort intended to move a violent conflict into
nonviolent dialogue, where differences are settled through representative political institutions.
The objective of peacemaking is thus to end the violence between the contending parties.
Peacemaking can be done through negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration.
International law provides another channel through international courts.
Peacemaking in Practice
Some geopolitical entities, such as nation-states and international organizations, attempt to
relegate the term peacemaking to large, systemic, often factional conflicts in which no member
of the community can avoid involvement, and in which no faction or segment can claim to be
completely innocent of the problems, citing as instances post-genocide situations, or extreme
situations of oppression such as apartheid. However peacemaking is a universal and age-old
approach to conflict at all levels and among any and all parties, and its principles may be
generalized and used in many different kinds of conflicts. In contemporary international affairs,
especially after the end of the Cold War, the concept of peacemaking has often been associated
to the imposition upon warring parties of a peace settlement, usually under the auspices of an
international organization. Peacemaking in smaller, traditional societies has often involved
rituals. For example, Alula Pankhurst has produced films about peacemaking among Ethiopian
communities.
The process of peacemaking is distinct from the rationale of pacifism or the use of non-violent
protest or civil disobedience techniques, though they are often practiced by the same people.
Indeed, those who master using nonviolent techniques under extreme violent pressure, and those
who lead others in such resistance, have usually demonstrated the capacity not to react to violent
provocation in kind, and thus may be more highly skilled at working with groups of people that
may have suffered through violence and oppression, keeping them coordinated and in good order
through the necessary, often difficult phases of rapprochement. Given that, and a track record of
not advocating violent responses, it is these leaders who are usually most qualified for
peacemaking when future conflict breaks out between the previously warring sides.
Methods of Peacemaking
Article 33 of the UN Charter specifies, "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration,
judicial settlement, [and] resort to regional agencies or arrangements" as modes of peaceful
intervention in violent conflicts. Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter also allow for sanctions,
blockading, and violent intervention in order to restore the peace between warring states. It is
important to note that all U.N. Charter justifications for peacemaking were based on the concept
of sovereign states. That is, there is no support for intervention in civil wars in the U.N. Charter
itself. However, the Agenda for Peace, written under the auspices of former Secretary-General
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, changes the conception to allow for intervention in civil wars. Other
modules have explored negotiation, mediation, and arbitration in depth. The following sections
will look at some of the methods of peacemaking not discussed in other modules.
Peacemaking Constraints: Political and Economic
Understood simply as an outside intervention in a violent conflict, peacemaking should imply a
few obvious things. First, outside interveners are unlikely to want to sacrifice their own troops in
order to make peace. This implies that the most peacemaking effort and energy should initially
be devoted to negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and the like. In fact, Chapter VI of the U.N.
Charter is largely devoted to this very concept. While the U.N. Charter does allow for active
military intervention under Chapter VII of the Charter, the ordering of processes in Chapter VII
clearly favors negotiation as a first step. This level of negotiation usually takes place at the level
of Track I diplomacy, negotiations involving high-level elites.
Track I diplomacy at this level of conflict is likely to be multinational in nature. Because the
potential costs of getting involved in negotiation and because the collective willpower of the
international community is stronger than any individual nation, multinational diplomacy in
violent conflicts has a higher probability of initiation and success. These two issues, troop
commitments and economic and political costs, represent basic constraints on peacemaking
actions, but peacemaking also entails certain moral obligations as well.
Moral Obligations to Peacemaking
States that are party to the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter have implied, though not
legally binding, obligations to intervene in cases of genocide, disturbances to international peace,
and other cases of human devastation. Article 33 of the U.N. Charter states:
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by
negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to
regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their
dispute by such means.
International Courts
Boutros-Ghali suggests in the Agenda for Peace that the International Court of Justice would be
an effective tool for peaceful adjudication of disputes.[8] In the case of interstate wars or the
threat thereof, the ICJ would be an effective entity for settling disputes. Two problems exist,
however: first, only states can be party to disputes in the ICJ. Thus, civil wars could not be
adjudicated in the ICJ. Second, the ICJ has no effective enforcement mechanisms. Thus, any
unfavorable decision made by the court is likely to be ignored. Other international courts exist
but their jurisdiction is more limited. The European Court of Human Rights and the European
Court of Justice are examples. Because international courts often lack enforcement mechanisms,
effective peacemaking strategies should rely on the threat of force, should other negotiating
strategies fail. Negotiation, arbitration, and mediation are still the first choice for third parties in
armed conflicts, but the threat of force should not be ignored.
Threat or Use of Force
Within the broader category of peacemaking is the concept of peace enforcement. The UN
defines peacemaking as the diplomatic efforts to end conflict, whereas peace enforcement is the
active use of force. Peace enforcement in this case is a separate but subsidiary concept within
peacemaking. It is therefore appropriate in this peacemaking module to discuss peace-
enforcement tools.
Example: Military Intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina
As stated earlier in this module, military intervention is not usually unilateral. A good example
of the methods and context of military intervention in a peacemaking context is the NATO
Implementation Force (IFOR) and Stabilizing Force (SFOR) in Bosnia. Prior to the General
Agreement Framework (The Dayton Accords) Bosnia-Herzegovina was rife with civil violence.
Operation Deliberate Force, begun on August 29, 1995, was a massive bombing campaign
against Serbia and Bosnian-Serb targets designed to halt Serbian attacks on safe areas and bring
Serbia to the negotiating table. Ultimately the action was successful and led in part to the
General Agreement Framework of December 14, 1995. Subsequent to Operation Deliberate
Force, NATO put in the Implementation Force for a year before changing over to the
Stabilization Force. What should be evident in this case is the fluid change and interaction
between active military intervention, first-track diplomatic efforts and peacekeeping forces.
Not all peacemaking efforts will proceed along the lines of IFOR/SFOR, but effective
peacemaking missions will shift fluidly between all the available tools. What this highlights, in
fact, is the small difference between second-generation peacekeeping and traditional
peacemaking efforts. First-generation peacekeeping was simply to guarantee ceasefires with
neutral interposition forces. Second-generation peacekeeping has evolved to allow flexibility of
function and mission, from guaranteeing ceasefires to election monitoring to subsequent peace
enforcement.
Conclusion
Recent theory on civil wars urges people to think of the conflict as a highly fluid situation.[13]
Peacemaking efforts are often closely intertwined with preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping, and
peace-building. Because of this, the diplomats and soldiers involved in these missions must
maintain high levels of communication in order to ensure common goals and shared information.
Peacemaking in the post-Cold War era occurs most often within states where battles lines are not
clearly drawn and the strategic situation fluctuates frequently. Peacemaking in this context is but
one tool to use in violent conflicts. By itself, it is insufficient to deal with intractable conflicts.
The hope, of course, is that preventive diplomacy will prevent the outbreak of violent conflict. In
the event that those efforts fail, third-party diplomatic efforts must continue in the form of
peacemaking. As a last resort, particularly in the face of widespread human devastation, peace
enforcement units must be seen as a viable solution. The point of peacemaking efforts --
diplomatic and otherwise -- is to get the opponents to the bargaining table, at which point
peacekeeping units can help to guarantee any agreed-upon ceasefire.
