--------------- MILLENNIAL REFLECTIONS ON INTERNATIONAL STUDIES C:oNVERGENCES BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT, SECURITY, FORE I G N SECURITY STUDIES AND PEACE STUDIES POLICY, AND INTERNATIONAL Louis Kriesberg POLITICAL ECONOMY Past Paths and F.uture Directions in International Studies Editedby MichaelBrecher andFrank P. Harvey AnnArbor THE liNivERSITrOF ?vfrCfilG.AN PRESS Converiences between Security Studies and Peace Studies 161 national relations approaches. Persons doing internationalsecurity CONVERGENCES BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL studies tended to draw from the realist approach and those doing SECURITY STUDIES AND PEACE STUDIES peace studies tended to drawfrom a liberal idealist or constructivist approach.1 Realists generally assume that states are unitaryactors seeking to maximize power. Liberal idealists, however, generally Louis Kriesberg stress the importance of diversedomestic actors, transnationalor­ ganizations, and normative factors. Realists emphasize the anar­ chic nature of the world system, and other approaches stress the varyingdegree of integrationand the shared ways of thinkingin the worldor regionsof it.i Peace studiesanalysts have generally drawnfrom a wider variety of fields of inquiry than have analysts working in internationalse­ curity studies. Many workers in peace studies have been more re­ ceptive, for example, to the perspective and insights of feminist thinking in international relations.a Thefeminist attention to the manifold roles of women in sustainingsocial life fits well with the concern of manyin peacestudies about the ways people at the grass f ntemationalsecurity studies andpeace studies arenot a single sub­ roots affect andare affected by so-called high politics.The emphasis fieldof internationalrelations. Analysts in securitystudies and those among many feminists upon the distinctivequalities of women has in peace studies have generallyviewed themselvesand been viewed contributedto studyingthe roles women have played in peace move­ by others as working in quite different domains. Some persons in ments and the roles they might play in countering wars and over­ each area have been critical or dismissive of the efforts of those in coming large-scale violence.• the other. Nevertheless, many persons across both areas actually Some peace studiesanalysts have also been relatively attentiveto share significant concerns and questions, such as how to avoid or to the possible impact of religion and of culture on war and peace.5 limitwars and other violent conflicts. Furthermore, the work being Analystshave shownhow religiousbeliefs, organizations, andlead­ done in each of these domains is increasingly overlapping. To en­ ers have contributedto mitigatingas well as to exacerbating violent hancethe possibilities of beneficial cooperation among analysts in conflicts. Additionally, some workers in the peace studies domain thesedomains, the past relations and the current movementstoward have been relatively attentive to transnationalsocial movement or­ convergence should be examined.Aft erdoing so, I will discuss prom­ ganizations andto criticalanalyses of global politicaleconomy. The isingoptions for the future. many trends constit,Utingglobalization have increased the power of multinational coiporations, and the persons who control those or­ Earlier Relations ganizations increasingly shape and use the global market for their benefit.' They also provide new opportunities for resistance and In previousdecades, many persons working in security studies and more egalitarian relations.7 many persons working in peace studies differedin several signifi­ Other differences arealso noteworthy. International securityan­ cant ways. For example, they tended to draw fromdiff erent inter- alysts have tended to assume the perspective of one primaryactor in aninternational conflict, typically their own country, while peace I thankthe followingpersons who readearlier drafts of thispaper and kindly gave me studies analysts tended to take a more global or systemic perspec­ theirco=ents: EileenBabbitt, JamesBennett, Volker Franke,and NilsPetter Gle­ ditsch. I, of course, remainresponsible for the observations andjucJ&ments made in tive. Persons in international security studies generally focused on thischapter. military means while persons in peace studies stressed nonviolent 163. 162 Conflict,Security, Forelin Policy, and International Political Economy Converiences between. Security. Studies and Peace Studlas International securityanalysts have examined in greatdetail, for Thosefactors includesystemic featuressuch as thenumber of major example, the nature of nuclear warheads and delivery systems and powers in tjie system, state characteristics such as type of gover­ theirimpact on military strategy.• Issues relating to deterrence-and nance, and relationship factors such as trading interd�pendency. to nuclear proliferation have drawn great attention since the end of Among other topics, considerable writing about crisis manage­ World War II. More recently, attention has been given to chemical ment and foreign policy decision making constituted areas where and bacteriological weapons and to terrorism. peace studies and international security studies have overlapped, Finally, international security analysts tended to concentrate on with some variance in emphasis. Thus, some persons in the inter­ avoidingwar (negative peace), whilepeace researchersoften stressed national security studies domain tended to assume that officials issues of justiceand equity (positive.peace)as well. Membersof each generally acted in termsof rationalcalculations of relativelyfixed camp also tended to differin their institutionalbases: those working national interests,while analysts in the peace studies domainoften ininternational security often were employed ininstitutes receiving emphasized group, normative,and emotional factors. Nevertheless, foundationand government funds, whilethose inpeace studiesoften some analysts identifiedwith each domain read and critiqued each were employed in colleges and in universities, and sometimes in other's work andinfluenced eachother. This may be noted in work nongovernmental socialmovement organizations. on the way officials from antagonistic states interact with each These differenceswere particularly strongin the United States in other in crises.1:i the early decades afterWorld War II.The differences arose in large Many professional associationsalso provided settingsfor informal partfrom varying career origins,intellectual traditions, and network and formalexchanges of ideas.For example, the InternationalStud­ associations. In the United States, an important tradition in peace ies Association has long includedan InternationalSecurity Studies studies, emphasizing nonviolence andsocial justice, initiallydevel­ Sectionand a PeaceStudies Section,and members from eachsection oped in church-related colleges. Thefirst peace studiesprogram was sometimes participated together on the same panels. Within the established in r948 at the Churchof Brethren-affiliatedManchester AmericanSociological Association, the Section on the Sociology of Collegein Indiana. In the late 1950s, research-orientedcenters began World Conflicts was established in the early 1970s andits member­ to be established, notably the Center for Research on Conflict Res­ ship always has included students of peace and of military forces. olution at the University of Michigan. Thename of the sectioncurrently is Peace, War, andSocial Conflict. Manyof the people engaged in securitystudies flourished in col­ The International Sociological Association included a Research ltge and university departments and international relations pro­ Committee on Armed Forces andSociety (RCor), and in 1980 that grams. They also were associated with academic andnonacademic· was reorganized to includesociologists studyinginternational rela­ institutes associated with the U.S. government and its armed tions, peace, andconflict resolution; the name of the research com­ forces-for example, RAND.9 As I discuss later, the divergence in mittee waschanged to Armed Forcesand ConflictResolution. 13 theory, research, and practice between people engaged in these two The differencesbetween the peace andsecurity domains have not domainshas hampered the members' work in each camp. been as greatin Europe as inthe United States. Thus, many European Some people, of course, did research and examined policy alter­ peace institutes included work related to alternative military doc­ natives that in some ways bridged these differences. One arena of trines. In varying degrees this was the case for the International shared interests was the causes of war and of peace; indeed, analyses Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), established in 1959; the De­ on this topic by Wright, Richardson, andDeutsch et al. were partof partment of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford, England, the important quantitative tradition in peace research and hence established in 19731 the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF); peace studies.10 Work in this tradition has continued among both theCopenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRII,and the Tampere peace researchers and international security analysts, as illustrated Peace Research Institute (TAPRI). In such European centers, ideas by thework of Singer, Isard, Leng, andVasquez. 11 Theyhave tended were developed, for example, about nonoffensive defense, which to analyze factors that might account for variations in warfareover many peace researchers argue contributed