# data[].attributes.body
UN-Mission in Timor-Leste 1999 (Draft proposal) Key elements and aims Stages Steps -Stability (political / economic / social) -Security (human/individual and collective) -Sustainable development -Rule of law / Good governance / Accountability -Good governance ● Political settlement -A decentralized system with a strong foundation -Constitution / rule of law/ -Separation of powers -Capacity building ● Education ● Infrastructure ● Welfare -Decentralization → strong civil society -Anti-corruption system -Local - Agency / Localization (do what people want - bottom-up process) ● Civil society participation ● NGOs ● Local knowledge -Community resilience (be able to overcome the trauma of conflict and rebuild) -Human security -Resource distribution -Monitoring system Pre-UN Mission ● Collaborate with NGOs to collect information and provide humanitarian assistance ● Field research During-UN mission ● Use the bottom-up approach and engage the local ● Set up political settlement endogenous to the people Post-UN Mission ● Play a monitoring and evaluating role to ensure the success of the state- and peace-building process

# data[].attributes.body
Turko-Kurdish Conflict

IDEA:  A Peace Module to be introduced in the school curriculums

AIMS:

Aim to introduce concepts like equality and respect for all cultures and ethnicity, a cosmopolitan way of life at an early age and make this a part of children's daily life, given that they are the future generation.

Encourage cooperation (establish cooperative structures which are more likely to generate peaceful behaviour rather than conflictual competition)

Contributes to the development and betterment of the education system

Builds up useful skills for the students which can be used both in their professional life and their private life (eg. communication skills, analytical skills, conflict resolution, teamwork, etc.)

GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE: Two villages comprising a total of either population which are located far away from each other to ensure no prior contact before the intervention.

TARGET GROUPS:

1. For school children at an early age (Primary school):

Teaching them compassion, respect for humanity, cultural differences, basic values and how to approach everyone with kindness.

Introducing Turkish and Kurdish children to the history of the other in order for them to have familiarity with the other: teaching them about the historical heroes and events of the other side

Those heroes and events will be talked about with neutral perspectives: their depictions based on the writings of non-locals: Westernmost probably

EXPECTED OUTCOMES:

-Build a cosmopolitan view at an early age

-Teach them how to have a cosmopolitan vision - a world view that respects others, takes interest in multiple views, celebrates diversity and manifests the widest possible range of moral inclusion

1. Later on (Higher grades, secondary school):

Present history through a multilateral approach in order to engage in critical thinking with regards to the context of the historical events. This can create a better environment for positive change in the future while also avoiding repeating past mistakes.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES:

-Focus on developing the student’s analytical skills and their reflection skills to better understand the causes of conflict (reasons, actors, motives) as well as any possible solutions for such conflict.

-Encourage the students to ask questions and reflect on the events.

-Avoid being biased against certain religious beliefs or ideological view

-Make space for autonomous and creative thinking rather than predigest the conclusions made by the scholars, because predigestion is a part of fundamentalism that hampers or negates the cosmopolitan vision.

DURATION:

Perennial: An in-built module in both primary and secondary school curriculums, with an annual assessment to keep track of how effective the programme has been or any flaws it might have.

WAYS OF ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS:

-Make way for critical reflection

-Avoid making a division between the reflections of ordinary folks and intellectuals

-Able to make autonomous theories

Include an Annual survey

At the end of each year, there can be a seminar or conference arranged for the students to share their views about peace education, or there can be a tour for them at different conflict-prone areas and make them share their views about the solutions that come to their minds. That way the teachers will be informed about the mindset of the students - how they are thinking about different violence and conflicts. Moreover, the teachers will be able to sort out what issues should be added to their peace education programme.

# data[].attributes.headline
Logic of Peace and Logic of Justice(Part 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
Logic of Peace and Logic of Justice(Part 2)

# data[].attributes.body
Interpreting the Activity of International Tribunals

This section basically examines the dynamics behind the logic of Peace and the logic of Justice in order to put the debate into a broader Perspective.

First we take a look at supporters of both logics;

Supporters of Logic of Justice:

·         Wide majority of academia, spearheaded by Lawyers (wealth of articles)

·         Non-Governmental Organizations (e.g. Played a crucial role in the creation of The ICTY and later, moves towards International Criminal Court)

·         Media (helping put the issue of human rights abuses at the top of political agenda, thus strengthening the case for a tribunal)

Supporters of Logic of Peace:

·         Military Voices (General Morillon calling for an amnesty as wide-ranging as possible instead of institutions that might enhance aggression in the Field)

Secondly we take a look at the Ideology behind both logics;

Logic of Justice:

Characterized by strong commitment to a set of normative values enshrined in International Law.

Stems from; multi-centric Idealism

Logic of Peace:

Paramount Virtue here is order. Appears to be rooted firmly in real-Politik.

Stems from; ‘state-centric skepticism’

It is important to note here that the divide between these two logics can be read as an Inter-paradigm debate. MEANING; The tendency of actors to favor either appeasement or accountability is based on certain factors like Perception or Interpretation of conflict situations and not necessarily on rational or intellectual calculation. With some actors even mixing aspects of both concerns, depending on the audience being addressed.

The Tribunal Catharsis

Focus here is on the International Justice Process itself and its impact, notwithstanding, the expected outcomes of the process (i.e. how many indictments, trials and outcomes)

IMPACT;

The mere idea of the creation of ICTY in 1992 provided a wide range of actors with their raison d’etre.

Publishing results and indictments plus magnification of the Tribunal by the Media resulted in changes

Two Changes in the Field Resulting from Creation of Tribunals;

·         Victims felt a sort of RELIEF.

·         Accusations made to certain leaders weakened their support

Catharsis Proposition;

The tribunals seek to release tension in a controlled way to prevent it from fueling further conflict. However, to achieve Catharsis there must be 3 constitutive elements;

·         Purpose (remove ignorance and uncover and single out guilt)

·         Medium (testimonies of plaintiffs and witnesses)

·         Setting (take place in a distanced context which provide the subject with a feeling of safety)

CONCLUSION:

International Tribunals by facilitating Catharsis leads to the building of Peace WITH Justice, ultimately serving both logics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Logic of Peace and Logic of justice(Part 1)

# data[].attributes.subject
Logic of Peace and Logic of justice(Part 1)

# data[].attributes.body
The logic of Peace and the logic of Justice - (Colson, 2000) Basically how both peace and justice is necessary in achieving lasting peace. THE CRITICAL JUNCTURE OF OPPOSING LOGICS Ending hostilities - only the 1st step towards peace then transitional period-where a agreement can be arrived at by conflicting parties, but still even after this stable political and govt arrangements are needed for the transition from hostile conflict to something that constitutes of lasting, deeper, peace. Establishment of a long lasting peace is the expected conclusion of this critical juncture. → Whose characteristics are of tremendous importance to the peace that will follow. Basically, the transition between the end of a war and the establishment of peace appears as a critical juncture. 3 further complications: First of all, the transitional period might be complicated by the outcome of the conflict IF on the other hand --clear framework, successful mediation, protracted conflict is solved and turned into a win-win situation, then the critical juncture will be easier to handle- bc both parties share an agreement reached through mediation. , if fighting ends but no party is dominant enough to impose settlement, or no mediation settlement then the cj is longer and unstable. 2nd factor: interstate or civil war, no political body, deep hatred, reconciliation is then unlikely to appear soon..Countries can remain limbo-like juncture between overt civil war and real peace. 3rd factor -war fought in limits by /jus in bello/→ no dramatic consequences but that of violent conflict will hamper the peace building process. If conflict in itself has been packed with human right abuses → the memory of a bad past will surely impede the peace building process during the cj.. Then another concern between peace and justice emerges. Critical juncture has to deal with 2 concerns: peace and justice. Depending on the relevant actors and what they value: appeasement or accountability, they tend to follow either logic of peace or logic of justice. There are 3 elements that make up the cj between war and peace: 1) Absence of a clear victor (characteristics of civil war, then it conflict, closely ties, interwined communities, sharing long history) 2) A civil element to war (crammed with human rights abuses, practice of ethic cleansing) 3) And scope of atrocities, (shelling, other crimes affecting civilian populations) Consequently peace process drawn, also international tribunal was in place for serious violations!! Therefore-encompassed both approaches-peace and justice! Case of former Yugoslavia captures these ideas (examples to be explained) ^^mentioned above PEACE OR JUSTICE: CONFLICTING LOGICS – In reality many perspectives are balances, incorporating elements from both arguments 3 Typical sub-headings: Arguments are counted by the upholders of appeasement. 1) Realist account of the situation, in both situations-process depended heavily on goodwill of the conflicting parties. , int community has no power to control the situ on the field, peace concessions could be traded against immunity for local warlords. 2) the logic of peace has its own historical perspective, one key element: 'no loser, no trial' and if remembrance of the of past can be a cause of war, as the upholders of the logic of justice suggest, then it can be argued that the more memory and investigations, the less you promote peace. 3) 3rd the logic of peace - argues that creating tribunals will not propagate order in int society, and will prolong conflict. local leaders warlords might refuse to sign agreements and even intensify their acts of aggression to a) be on the winning side b) even if tried, make sure no one talks, eliminate many witnesses. 4) maintains that the creation of an int. tribunal raises substantial legal problems. 5) a distinct perspective within the logic of peace rejects the creation of int. mechanisms. Moving towards looking at how to interpret the activity of int.tribunals, by looking at relevant actors involved and examples. 1) MORAL CONCERN -Rooted in christian tradition or in Kantian position. They boil down to the notion of individual accountability & goes along with feelings of solidarity. 2) HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVEthis war as revenge for atrocities, supported by upholders of the logic of justice, ethnic cleansing has already occurred. (-) in the case of Yugoslovia-upholders of logic of justice argue here that the precedent was the permissive condition for another burst of violence five decades later. 3) propagation of ORDER IN WORLD POLITICS - Encompasses both perspectives to punishment in criminal justice. RETRIBUTIONIST- victims or victims family find relief in punishment. Only an int. tribunal can put an end to this cycle of violence. On the other hand CONSEQUENTIALIST approach- punishment has a deterrent impact that prevents the repetition of that breach.

# data[].attributes.body
It was quite interesting to see how quickly the dominant general populace feel threatened when the minority seek for their rights. The often 'us' against 'them' mentality sometimes creates this category of People as the 'Other'. By doing this they cast themselves in a vulnerable light and painting the 'Other' as banal.
Also, in a bid for cultural stability of Cultural formulation in order to create a unified identity some Indigenous people eg. Maori's of New Zealand create a sort of list of who or what it means to be a truly authentic Indigenous person. However, I find that rather than the intended purpose of unifying the Indigenous People, it tends to bring divisiveness. It essentially hampers alterity as it excludes all other forms of being Indigenous. It is like saying a Biracial Black Person is not black because of the color of their skin. By soo doing it ends up alienating and excluding a whole group of it's members by not being 'INDIGENOUS ENOUGH' ,whatever that may mean.
Furthermore, Foucalt made a mention of a sort of 'Biopower', which i find to be very interesting. This is because here Peace can not be determined to be only due to the absence of direct and physical violence or war. The dominant employs certain structural and cultural mans of violence ' which normalizes all forms of actions that affect the growth and well-being of indigenous people. By putting in subtle mechanisms in place to suppress violent change and ensure the continued occupation of indigenous lands, the dominant normalizes these actions. There is a sort of absolute war. We have to realize that a lack of resistance does not equate acceptance.
Assimilation in itself is a violent act. Because in order to accumulate a group into the general populace we must in essence erase and alter everything that gives the group their identity. It is like killing of the soul, what makes the person human. Then reprogramming them to accept the dominant culture forcefully, and either live or die by their rules.