This article reconstructs and analyses the origins of the European policy of externalizing border control, understood as a strategy of involving countries of origin and transit in the management of flows of migrants and asylum seekers and in counteracting irregular immigration, understood as the entry or stay of foreign nationals in violation of the rules set by the country of arrival. While the legal and political literature has mainly focused on the relationship with non-EU countries and the developments that have taken place over the last quarter of a century, this study shows how current European externalization practices began in the mid-1980s and how the countries on the southern periphery of the European Community (EC) have led the way in this process. Moreover, this research shows how the Schengen and Dublin systems, which still form the basis of European migration and asylum policy, were essentially driven by a logic of 'internal externalization', which then expanded to include European, Asian and, above all, African countries increasingly external to the EC and, later, the European Union (EU).

In this article, peace is conceptualised in a dynamic way. This new perspective requires radically new actions that do not focus on the opposition to war and violence, but aim to remove "the ground under the feet" of violence by imagining different worlds capable of achieving peace understood not as an end to war or to violence but as fullness of life for all. Alongside a process characterised by opposition and struggle against existing powers, albeit with non-violent methods, there is, in fact, another possibility: building the new reality from below without explicitly opposing the old one. This is what happens with the first Christian communities, in particular the Pauline communities which, without explicitly opposing the existing order, in their daily actions, they ignore it by building a new and completely alternative reality to the existing one. This new look involves the replacement of rigid binary classifications with classifications based on so-called "fuzzy" sets, not only with two values (peace/war, peace/nonviolence), but also capable of including zones of uncertainty through which to pass gradually. The proposed examples of the construction of "new worlds", taken from radically different contexts linked to the conflicts of the last century, will serve to illustrate this new perspective.

The collection of Enrico Berlinguer's writings and speeches on the subject of peace, edited by Alessandro Höbel, comes out in a timely manner when another war is being fought in Europe. Reading the texts makes it clear that in Berlinguer’s thought and action the link between foreign and domestic policy was central, and peace was seen as the condition for a new model of development on a global scale. Starting from the claim of autonomy from USSR in regard to the construction of an 'Italian way to socialism', to the elaboration of an idea of austerity understood as social justice in the relationship between North and South of the world, to the battle against the installation of the Euro-missiles, we can well say that for Berlinguer peace came first. The collection is opened by a skilful introduction by the editor, who also intervenes in the foreword to each chapter to historically frame the moment in which the speech or article was delivered or written.

Does a comparative approach to genocide in modern history make sense? Taking the Holocaust as a starting point, in this paper I analyse the use that has been made of the term 'Holocaust' and references to it - also as a moral and political category - in the international media and in the proceedings of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) where, for the first time, 'genocide' for the events in Srebrenica appeared among the charges. I first search for references to the Nuremberg Trial in the ICTY proceedings, in the press and in the words of politicians. I also highlight the use of a comparison with the holocaust in the ICTY proceedings and in official speeches. Secondly, I highlight in the media debate that has developed around the war in Bosnia references to what happened in Europe between 1943 and 1945, both to the establishment of concentration camps in northern Bosnia from 1992, and to the genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995. I therefore analyse images, headlines and articles from newspapers, mainly British and American, in which the holocaust is explicitly referred to. In conclusion, I intend to emphasise the influence of the holocaust in interpreting the events surrounding the Bosnian war and the extermination of Srebrenica not only in the public debate but also as a legal category.

The United Nations Organization (UN) was created with the main objective of maintaining international peace and security - especially after all the destruction left by World War II. The UN Charter, however, while allowing five countries to be granted the special status of Permanent Members at the Security Council (SC), along with the “right to veto”, did not predict the possibility of this right to undermine the entire functioning of the UN. Thus, the scenario of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, where a non-authorised use of force has been perpetrated by exactly one of the Permanent Members of the SC, sheds light to the fragility of the UN: this right to veto has granted Russia with the power to block the SC. This calls the General Assembly (GA) to act, but since its resolutions are not binding, they do not imply the need for obedience by any state. In front of this, the article, through the deductive method, based on bibliographical and documental research, presents perspectives about the UN’s role in the domain of peace and security, concluding that its limited possibilities to act make it necessary to seek broader responses within the larger scope of international law.

Call for papers

Johan Galtung: his life, work, and legacy

Johan Galtung, who recently died, was, as is widely known, a prominent Norwegian scholar, trained as a social scientist and statistician, and a principal founder of Peace Studies as an academic discipline. Galtung was also a prolific author and politically engaged conflict analyst and transformer. He was the main founder of the Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO) in 1959, the world’s first academic institute with “peace” in its name, and founded the Journal of Peace Research in 1964.

His research spanned a large number of important topics over 60 years, including peace and conflict, violence, peaceful conflict transformation, non-offensive defense, development strategies, a structural theory of imperialism, and a geopolitical theory of civilizations.

This is a call for papers for a special issue focused on the person, contributions, and legacy of Johan Galtung.

Guest Editor Valentina Bartolucci, an acknowledged Peace and Conflict Studies scholar, leads this special issue. The guest editor will write an introduction to the special issue outlining how, in line with the aims of the “Rivista Scienza e Pace – Science and Peace (SP)”, this special issue contributes to current debates regarding Johan Galtung and his legacy.

We are looking for academic articles of 20.000-50.000 characters in length (including spaces), in English, adhering to the “Editorial Guidelines” that can be found here, and that focus on one or more of the following themes:

- Galtung's life

- Galtung's theoretical contributions

- Galtung's practical contributions

- Galtung's legacy focused principally on critical examinations of his scholarly contributions

- further developments in peace and conflict studies

Submissions must be the original work of the author that have not been published previously, either in whole or in part, either in print or electronically, or that are soon to be so published. All submissions will be carefully considered, with no guarantee of acceptance. All submissions will be anonymously peer-reviewed.

Please submit an abstract of about 300 words no later than September 15, 2024. Upon acceptance, the final version of the paper will have to be sent no later than December 15, 2024 to Valentina Bartolucci (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

From 5 to 9 November 2024, the "Sciences for Peace" Interdisciplinary Centre (CISP) at the University of Pisa will host the Annual Conference of the European Peace Research Association (EuPRA): Towards Utopias of Peace. Theories and Practices of Peace, Hope and Resistance in Troubled Times. The related call for papers is accessible below.

Participants in the EuPRA 2024 Conference are invited to send their papers to "Scienza e Pace / Science and Peace", the CISP online open access journal, to be considered for publication. Papers received by the Editorial Board (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) before 31 January 2025, and accepted after a double-blind peer review, will be included in a monographic issue. Papers received after this date and accepted will be published in other mixed-topic issues.

Call for papers

"Peace cultures thrive on and are nourished by visions of how things might be,

in a world where sharing and caring are part of the accepted lifeways for everyone.

The very ability to imagine something different and better than what

currently exists is critical for the possibility of social change”

Elise Boulding, Cultures of Peace (2000)

We are currently facing an era of global crises marked by injustices, wars, pandemics, endemic violence and environmental disasters, not just in Europe but also worldwide. Elise Boulding's depiction of peace cultures, where it is not only permissible but desirable to question the limits of our imagination through utopian thinking, stands out as a beacon of hope and resilience, emphasizing the importance of unity and compassion. According to Boulding, our ideal visions for the future are not mere escapes from reality. Instead, they serve as catalysts for positive societal transformation, steering us away from violence and injustice towards a harmonious society (Boulding 2000, 29). With this in mind, we are calling on peace scholars, professionals, activists, and artists to collaborate and discuss potential directions and solutions for our challenging era.

Across Europe, nationalist sentiments, misogyny and racism have grown louder, gaining significant traction in numerous countries. Hate speech and group-based enmity are exacerbated with the use of modern communication channels like social media and other online platforms. At the same time, these forums and media also hold great potential for all those who want to counteract the current developments; a spirit of solidarity remains among peacebuilding practitioners, who try to break the patterns of violent communication online. This shows that people - including peace researchers - still have the ability to adapt, innovate and be creative in the face of adversity.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves:

- What are the Utopias of peace in Europe (and beyond) in this day and time?

- What lessons of resistance and resilience can we draw from peace research?

- How can peace research help us to comprehend and address sustained and emerging conflicts?

- What are the current power dynamics in Europe (and beyond) and what are their consequences for global peace?

- How can civil society resist violence and promote peace and stability?

- How can peace research contribute to societal diversity and inclusion?

- How do early career scholars and young activists address today's challenges?

We invite submissions of papers, roundtables, panels, and workshops related to peace in Europe and its neighbouring regions. We particularly encourage the newer generation of peace scholars and activists to respond. In line with the general principles of EuPRA, our emphasis is on promoting intersectionality, inclusivity, diversity, and equality, both as overarching themes and practical approaches in the conference. While we suggest several sub-themes for the conference in our Call for Papers, we are also open to considering topics spanning a wide range of interdisciplinary issues pertinent to peace research.

Themes

1. Arts and Peace

2. Nonviolence, Resistance, Activisms and Liberation as Peace

3. Geographies of Peace, Contested Spaces and Resistance

4. Youth, Peace and Security

5. New Conceptualisations of Peace and Decolonizing Peace

6. Political Economy, Ecological Economics, Degrowth and Peace

7. Democratic Participation, Social Movements and Peace

8. Global Health, Care, Peace and Justice

9. (New) Media and Peace

10. Feminist Peace Research

11. Math, Computer Science and Peace Studies

12. Peace Education and Philosophies

13. Disarmament and Peace

14. Mobility, Security, Borders and Diasporas

15. Peace Mediation, Peacebuilding and Dialogue(s)

16. Other: You can submit a topic suggestion if the above categories do not fit your paper, workshop, panel, or roundtable.

Submit your abstract

Please submit your proposals by completing the form (link below) by 29 February 2024.

To submit your abstract, create an account here or log in here.

Already logged in? Continue to the submission form.

All abstracts should be written in English.

The war in Ukraine has been going on for more than a year, without agreements on temporary 'ceasefires' or evidence of real negotiations. The difficulty in launching effective negotiations, the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO, and the remilitarisation of States, are re-proposing an international disorder scenario and reducing the spaces for 'third' and 'neutral' subjects, which should act impartially and guarantee justice and respect for international law. The article aims to rehabilitate the categories of 'neutral' and 'third' in international dispute resolution processes and raise problems and contradictions that their disappearance is causing for a world order of peace and security.

This article intends to point out the geopolitical and social impacts that the war in Ukraine-Russia will cause in the medium and long term, in relation to the multiple crises (energy, food, etc.), facing world society. The methodology is a comparative study between two ways of confronting capitalism from a Western and an Eastern bloc. In addition, we use the Transcend Method, which constitutes a way of thinking from Research for Peace perspective through a process of diagnosis, prognosis and therapy, accompanied by a bibliographic review of the latest events. The facts point to a crisis of capitalism and the provocation of confrontations to maintain its hegemony against other actors such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others, who are interested in a new world order in which the US ceases to be hegemonic. The Ukraine-Russia war is one factor in the multiple cards that are being shuffled to break globalization. The conclusion points to a new world order that will emerge as a more plausible one in which the US and China will clash in the coming years to build a new security paradigm with their respective satellites. This will further polarize relations between the US and the EU on the one hand, and China and Russia on the other, as extremes of future conflicts.

This paper aims to rethink the narrative of peace and war by highlighting some underlying conceptual misrepresentations in Peace Studies. Positive Peace is well established in Peace Studies as an original 'good' state (of man, of society) that has been broken, but which can be restored through the mitigation/elimination of 'negative' factors be they inequalities, dehumanizing technology, corrupt institutions, asymmetries of power. As if to say that the negative/evil is an accident of history and, by fighting it with positive means (empathy, charity, welfare, empowerment, economic interdependence, international agreements, etc.), negative/evil will have to reconcile with the good/the positive: underlying idea of peace and. conflict-free future societies This imperfect version did not consider the dialectic of opposites in its full meaning, ending up ostracizing the conceptions that raise distinctions on the 'goodness' of man. It translated them into almost exclusively intimidating aphorisms, spreading ambivalence towards war. The contract theory (Hobbes) wants to demonstrate that the State has the role of mediator and controller of selfish and destructive tendencies of individuals; in this way, it acts as the guarantor of agreements between individuals for mutual security (propitiating the idea of civil society). Sociality (Rousseau) is understood as a secondary, non-natural act, invented by human beings out of fear of the other and of the unknown, moved by both good and negative passions. In Vom Kriege (von Clausewitz) war is a tragedy led by misuse of politics: explaining it in its matrices and techniques has the aim of developing strategies for making both war and peace. Having rethought these cardinal concepts, and other cascading ones (primarily conflict and nonviolence), the paper tests their explanatory impact linking theory and praxis in regard to today’s war between Russia and Ukraine.