Idealistic Peace

Idealistic peace connected with perfect peace. Etymologically, the notion of “perfect peace”
goes beyond the reality of the world, and includes the religious aspects of peace. Only a
transcendental being has the power to shape such peace. Idealism as such contradicts the reality
of the world, reducing it to the realm of intuition and ideas. Thus, perfect peace goes beyond
the arena of human causal power. There is, however, a need to concentrate on the deeper,
transcendental aspect of perfect peace. The prospect of shaping such peace evades not just
empiricism, but even idealism. It is difficult to find a realization of such peace in the realm of
intuition and ideals, which proves that this “perfection” absolutely rules out the cognitive
capabilities of man not only, as Immanuel Kant put it, in the unifying power of reason but also
in the metaphysical power of mind. Perfect peace goes absolutely beyond human causal power.
This kind of peace was prophesied by Micah in the Old Testament, where it is written that
perfect (eternal) peace will come to pass with the advent of God’s kingdom on Earth. This non-
empirical and a priori view of peace assumes that the facts of human existence rule out the
possibility of shaping eternal peace because hatred, aggression, and lack of trust dominate in
the reality of interpersonal and international relations. Besides, human beings in their nature
are more egoistic than altruistic. However, by comparison with modern times, many authors
thought that the militarism of the Old Testament was a result of ignorance as well as of a certain
morality and mentality that did not presume the existence of any solutions to conflicts other
than war. Idealized constructions reflect the need to find the best possible social structure aimed
at its citizens’ happiness and the state’s good, which means a primary emphasis on securing
internal peace, whose function to help shape international safety. A strong and fair state
guaranteed safety for its citizens by securing internal order and possessing adequate military
power to protect itself against any potential aggression. Plato was one of the earliest
practitioners of the exercise of constructing a perfect state, in his Republic. This creator of the
first philosophical system sketched a vision of a perfect state, ensuring happiness for
individuals and also guaranteeing their safety. Plato’s state was an opposite to conditions of
threat.

Liberal theory of peace

Liberal theory of peace- As it was previously mentioned, liberalism is one of the main
approaches to peacebuilding. Liberal peacebuilding takes its roots in Immanuel Kant’s idea of
perpetual peace, according to which republican states tend to be peaceful because their
governments respond to the citizens and their system is based on the rule of law. Hence,
republican states have strong incentives to behave lawfully in the international arena. At the
same time, peace can be threatened by other regimes and this is in the interest of republican
states to seek the establishment of the rule of law in international relations. It is believed that
peacebuilding activities will bring desired outcomes if they are focused on building strong
institutions supporting good governance, the rule of law and democratic principles
benchmarked from the Western societies. Peace is an ultimate aim and interest of every state,
from the liberal point of view. In addition, economic prosperity and interdependence are
believed to reduce the risk of war and institutions – to be able to resolve insecurities between
states. Liberal approach to peacebuilding focuses on the argument of the universalism of human
rights, on economic cooperation and existing interdependences that foster peace with
democratic peace theory going even further by arguing that democratization creates a solid
foundation for peace and stability. Liberals do not share the belief in the contradictory nature
of interests between states, but maintain that they are in harmony. Very often this argument is
supported by bringing up the sphere of economic relations, where states are interested in
cooperation and conducive climate for it because in the end, it is beneficial to all. The recent
Russia’s attack on Ukraine shows, however, that economic incentives may not be enough to
prevent war. Despite the fact that a clear message was sent to Russian decision-makers
regarding the economic sanctions that will follow in case of aggression, this did not wage on
the decision to start the war. Belief in democracy as a remedy to conflicts is also shared among
liberals, who claim it as the justest and the most inclusive system. As it was fairly noticed by
Bolesław Balcerowicz, in contrast to the realist school liberalism exposes not what divides the
states (potential conflicts or wars), but what unites them and creates conditions for potential or
real peace Liberal peace concept provides that peace is based on the following elements: the
rule of law, democratic participation, social justice, “a political culture of constructive and
peaceful management of conflicts,” state’s monopoly over the use of force. Sustainable peace,
according to the liberals, is maintained on the three pillars: democracy, economic
interdependence and international organisations.

Realist theory of peace

Realists have not contributed much to the research on peacebuilding so far, however, the
current urge to a new post-liberal framework for peacebuilding allows for new perspectives in
this domain. It does not come without challenges.
One of them is related to the established conceptualisation of peacebuilding versus the common
understanding of peace by the realist camp. When realists speak about international security,
they mean the absence of violent conflict between powers, which can be achieved by a balance
of power, alliance formation, nuclear deterrence or lack of threats for security and other core
interests of the countries. Thus, it lies within the negative peace definition and does not include
issues, such as long-term stability, justice and development. Peace as an absence of physical
violence covers the scope of other types of peace operations, such as peace-making and
peacekeeping. However, peace entailed in the peacebuilding term is much broader, what makes
it difficult for the realists to engage in such a discussion. Boleslaw Balcerowicz partly solves
this problem with new dialectics in this discussion. Instead of peace versus war, he proposes
peace and non-peace division, considering at the same time the period of peace as strategic
pause. This conceptualization allows for more flexibility in approaching peace. A situation of
non-peace does not necessarily mean war, it can include crisis, conflict below the war scale,
disrupted peace or threat of war. Realists believe that conflicts are intrinsic and rather
impossible to eliminate. They are caused by factors like the existence of an expansionist state,
territorial issues, fragmentation and polarization processes, contradictory interests of societies
or states, and assistance to allies. Thus, the state can react to the posed threats by initiating
conflict or a conflict can be driven by the will to expand state’s power or to help the allies. At
the same time threats are not always real, but can be misperceived. In realist logic, peace
becomes a value when it is in the interest of a state. For example, because it provides an
opportunity for economic growth, and thus for the expansion of power. If the status quo is
peace and is favourable for a state, because it has a dominating position, then this state would
also be interested in maintaining peace. According to Michael Fowler, a state’s preference for
peaceful cooperation over a violent conflict is always a strategic decision. Undoubtedly as the
realist school is not homogeneous, understanding of peacebuilding among its different fractions
can also be diametrically different. It can already be seen in the example of the differing
approaches in offensive and defensive realism. While for offensive realists maximizing power
is the main national interest, they would argue against most of the peacebuilding activities and
peace operations, because they are costly, time and resources consuming, hence draining the
power of a state. As long as the intervention does not serve the crucial national security
interests, a state should refrain from it. Moreover, states would be interested in keeping the
peace, if it provides them with a position of power. Defensive realists, who value above all
security of a state, on the contrary, are more supportive of interventions and peacebuilding
activities. In the defensive realist logic, regime change can result in an adjustment of the
regional or global balance of power in the intervening state’s favour, so it can maximize its
security. Similarly, security cooperation, export of ideology, building alliances and investing
in the cooperation with the like-minded contributes to the security of this state.