Local peace zones as institutionalized conflict

Mitchell, Arnan; Christopher,; Nan, Susan Allen

doi:10.1080/10402659708426044

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Building peace in today's conflicts calls for long-term commitment to establishing an infrastructure across the levels of society, an infrastructure that empowers the resources for reconciliation from within that society and maximizes the contribution from outside. (Lederach 1997, p. XVI) Much of the more immediate impetus for theory construction came from praxis, the often grassroots-based localized peace initiatives (Mitchell and Nan 1997). These included various local peace committees and zones of peace created in regions as far apart as the Horn of Africa, Central America, and Southeast Asia (e.g., Garcia 1997;Hancock and Mitchell 2007;Lederach 1997;Lopez-Reyes 1997;Mouly 2013).…”

Section: The Origins Of Peace Infrastructuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peace Infrastructures

Kovács¹

2020

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peace infrastructures are persistent networks of institutions, organizations, and mechanisms that span various, potentially every level of a society, which contain expertise in conflict resolution or conflict transformation, and address ongoing or emerging conflicts within their respective areas of influence. Sometimes the individual components of such networks are also referred to as peace infrastructure. Usually, these peace infrastructures or their components are present in the context, in which case peacebuilding efforts aim at their strengthening, or they are created as part of a peacebuilding intervention.No universally accepted definition of peace infrastructures exists in the literature or practice. The most widely referred to, but by no means exclusively accepted one, is that provided by UNDP's Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, according to which an "infrastructure for peace is a network of interdependent systems, resources, values and skills held by government, civil society and community institutions that promote dialogue and consultation; prevent conflict and enable peaceful mediation when violence occurs in a society" (UNDP 2013).

show abstract

Section: The Origins Of Peace Infrastructuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peace Infrastructures

Kovács¹

2020

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of zone of peace has been around for sometimes. There are even arguments made for the ancient origin of this concept (Mitchell, Nan, 1997;Langley, 1997;Boulding in Afkhami, 2002: 12-13). In the contemporary context, peace zones are commonly known as designated non-conflictual areas in the middle of conflict zones.…”

Section: The Zone Of Peacementioning

confidence: 99%

Religions in Times of Peace: Conceptualizing the Practice of Interreligious Dialogue in the Post‐ Conflict Environment

Fitriyah

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article makes the case of collaborating the notion of interreligious dialogueand the concept of the zone of peace in an attempt to provide a more practical yeteffective channel of reconciliation in the context of post‐interreligious violence. There arethree critics implied throughout the article. First, that the current state of most ofinterreligious dialogue in post‐conflict settings is lack of two things, namely, the inclusivestructure that would allow non‐scholars and non‐clergies to engage in the theologicaldialogue, and a coherent structure for the currently diasporic efforts in interreligiousdialogue. Second, that the concept of zone of peace is severely limited, particularly due toits dependence on material modalities in forging the path of reconciliation toward peace.And third, that the elusive and elitist nature of interreligious dialogue in post‐conflictsettings, and the limited material modalities of the zone of peace can be expanded bycollaborating the two notions into an applicable zone of interreligious peace. Lastly, thepaper will take the case of the village of Latta in Maluku to present a practical context forthe zone of interreligious peace.Keywords: interreligious dialogue, zone of peace, post-interreligious violence

show abstract

“…Las dos comunidades están situadas respectivamente en el municipio de Samaniego, en el departamento de Nariño, fronterizo con Ecuador, y en el corregimiento de Las Mercedes, ubicado en el municipio de Sardinata, en el departamento de Norte de Santander, fronterizo con Venezuela. Ambas comunidades han buscado mantenerse imparciales en medio del conflicto armado y han usado métodos no-violentos para persuadir a los actores armados estatales y no estatales de respetar ciertas reglas del juego en su territorio y no atacar a la población e infraestructura civil, lo que les ha valido ser referidas como territorios de paz, un término usado con frecuencia en Colombia y equivalente al de zona de paz, más usado en la academia (Hancock & Mitchell, 2007;Mitchell & Allen Nan, 1996) 2 . En este artículo, definimos territorio de paz como territorio en el que la población civil se considera imparcial en el conflicto armado interno y establece reglas de juego para limitar las consecuencias negativas de la guerra.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

No a la guerra: resistencia civil en dos comunidades periféricas de Colombia

Mouly

Garrido

2017

DESAFÍOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artículo compara el accionar de dos comunidades que se declararon “territorio de paz” en Colombia: el municipio de Samaniego, en el departamento suroccidental de Nariño, fronterizo con Ecuador, y el corregimiento de Las Mercedes, en el departamento oriental de Norte de Santander, fronterizo con Venezuela. Estas comunidades comparten una situación similar. Fueron fuertemente afectadas por la guerra y se volvieron lugares de cultivos de coca. Frente a esta situación la población civil emprendió un proceso de resistencia no-violenta en contra de actores armados estatales y no estatales. Usamos una metodología cualitativa, que incluyó entrevistas, observación y análisis de fuentes documentales para comparar los resultados de estas acciones en ambos casos y entender las razones de su éxito o fracaso. Encontramos que tres tipos de razones pueden explicar los distintos resultados de estas acciones: i) las características del movimiento de resistencia civil, incluyendo la participación en el movimiento, su cohesión y su liderazgo; ii) las relaciones entre la comunidad y los grupos armados, y iii) el respaldo de actores externos. Finalmente, argumentamos que las negociaciones de paz a nivel nacional pueden potenciar las iniciativas locales de paz y que estas son importantes para la paz en Colombia.

show abstract

Local peace zones as institutionalized conflict

Cited by 12 publications

References 2 publications

Peace Infrastructures

Peace Infrastructures

Religions in Times of Peace: Conceptualizing the Practice of Interreligious Dialogue in the Post‐ Conflict Environment

No a la guerra: resistencia civil en dos comunidades periféricas de Colombia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About