Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies

The mid-20th century introduced existential risks—nuclear escalation, global ideological confrontation, and mass civilian vulnerability. Scholars and practitioners responded by building a field dedicated to understanding peace as rigorously as war.

"Peace research was born at the intersection of peace activism and the emergence of modern social science. Although war and peace have always been key issues in the field of international relations (Kant, 1795/1991; Knutsen, 1997), it was only in the 1950s that calls arose for the systematic investigation of the conditions of peace as a special academic field or even a separate discipline. We are unable to identify the first person to use the term 'peace research', but Johan Galtung – the founder of PRIO and of this journal – was certainly an early user in a pacifist manifesto published in Norwegian (Galtung, 1959). At the time, backed by a double master's degree from the University of Oslo in statistics and sociology, Galtung was an instructor in sociology at Columbia University. At the same time he was active in the Norwegian section of War Resisters' International, which also published his book. One of the chapters called for the establishment of peace research institutes, in Norway and internationally. PRIO was founded in 1959 as the 'Section for Conflict and Peace Research' of the Institute for Social Research."

From Gleditsch et al. in Peace research – Just the study of war?. Read more here.

Read more about PRIO here.

Irenology treats peace as a multifactorial phenomenon: threats to peace, conditions for harmony, and the systemic interactions among individuals, communities, and institutions.

"Whereas there have been different approaches to studying peace, contemporary Western peace studies (or irenology, from the Greek "Irene," the goddess of peace) focuses on the analysis, prevention, de-escalation, and solution of conflicts by peaceful or nonviolent means, thereby seeking satisfactory outcomes for all parties involved, rather than winners and losers. This is in contrast to traditional international and so-called security studies, which focus on factors leading to victory or defeat in conflicts waged principally by violent means and to the increased or decreased "security" of one—but typically not all—of the parties involved. Because peace studies investigates the reasons for and outcomes of large- and small-scale conflicts, as well as the preconditions for peace, the discipline is also known as peace and conflict studies (PCS). Its focus allows one to examine not only war but also the various forms of violence, including structural violence—notably social oppression, discrimination, exploitation, and marginalization—while also addressing the effects of political, cultural, and physical violence. The rigorous analysis of peace and conflict lends itself, as well, to the assessment and promotion of various peacemaking strategies, in response to growing popular alarm about the many perils facing today's world."

From David P. Barash and Charles P. Webel in Peace and Conflict Studies (5th Edition): Barash, D. P., & Webel, C. P. (2021). Peace and Conflict Studies (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

UPEACE was established to cultivate scholarship and practice oriented to preventing violence, fostering justice, and developing the skills to construct sustainable peace.

On 5 December, 1980, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 35/55 which sets out in its annex the International Agreement for the Establishment of the University for Peace. The Charter of the University is an integral part of that agreement. Forty-one (41) countries have become Signatory States to the UPEACE Charter.

The University is established with a clear determination to provide humanity with an international institution of higher education for peace and with the aim of promoting among all human beings the spirit of understanding, tolerance and peaceful coexistence, to stimulate cooperation among peoples, and to help lessen obstacles and threats to world peace and progress, in accordance with Article 2 of its Charter.

Read more about UPEACE here.

Hits, insults, war—events we can point to and count.

Poverty, legal discrimination, lack of access—patterned harm built into institutions and norms.

Prejudices, "that's just how it is," religious or nationalist rationales that normalize harm.

• Philosophical/Religious — inner harmony; ideas like Shalom/Salaam.
• Systemic — balanced systems where parts function sustainably.
• Communal — the quality of relationships (e.g., Lederach’s “Enredos”).

Across perspectives, interdependence and constructive engagement with difference recur as conditions for durable peace.

Negative Peace reduces visible harm; Positive Peace builds systems that prevent harm.

Metrics built only on violent events undercount peace. Non-events are hard to observe; we shift toward indicators of resilience, inclusion, and equitable systems.

Positive Peace measures the presence of conditions that prevent violence: fair institutions, rights protections, access to basic needs, and trusted conflict resolution mechanisms.

We tend to see what we can describe. Expanding our language—beyond war terms—allows us to perceive peace dynamics and opportunities.

Game theory illustrates how communication and credible commitments can unlock cooperation, avoiding traps where "rational" choices yield harmful outcomes.

Conflict is permanent and can drive growth when managed without violence. The aim is transformation—shifting relationships and systems to handle difference constructively.