Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on the power of forgiveness
An essay about forgiveness
An essay about forgiveness
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on the power of forgiveness
Although pursuing peace and justice at the same time is ideal since the armed conflict would end, and the “bad guys” would have to pay for their wrong doing. Pursuing both at the same time is a difficult initiative due to the different paths undertaken when pursuing peace and justice, the two reasons this essay will focus on are the ideas of forgiveness within peace and fairness within justice.
Contemporary peace theorists refer to two types of peace: positive and negative peace. Positive peace refers the concept of conflict prevention, while negative peace is the absence of war. Assuming positive peace is desired, the movement towards peace must draw on the best traditions of society and emphasizes gradual change within an established political system. Therefore, within this perspective it is important that states understand the challenges they face, such as reducing their reliance on weapons and armed forces. The most haunting problem of the peace movement is the issue of addressing human rights abuses without using force during armed conflicts.
The doctrine of Responsibility to ...
A gesture that formerly connoted weakness grows to represent moral strength and provides a crucial step towards potential reconciliation. Within his text, Philpott expresses wholehearted belief in the power of apology stating, “Few acts undo the legitimacy of a crime more effectively than a perpetrator’s renunciation of it” (Philpott 205). Philpott describes the practice of apology as, “When a perpetrator apologizes, he condemns his own role in the political injustice and thus helps to defeat its standing victory from one angle. Yet, the victim retains his own freedom to decide how he will respond to the perpetrator and thus retains a measure of control over whether the standing victory of the injustice is defeated” (Philpott 264). Philosophically, the idea of apology within restorative justice and reconciliation could mark a reaffirmation of the fundamental moral principles of the community, promote national reconciliation, strengthen a principle of transnational cooperation and contribute to the improvement of international law and diplomatic relations. Following an apology, a relationship becomes possible between the perpetrator and the victim, which in turn creates the potential for a less hostile environment for the community, and marks a society’s affirmation of a set of virtues in contradistinction to a past of
In her, “Between Vengeance and Forgiveness,” Martha Minow discusses, not only the tandem needs of truth and justice that arise and intersect in the wake of conflict but also the duality existing between the notions of vengeance and forgiveness that surface as needs, particularly in a society recovering from violence. The central question of Minow’s work explores the idea that there may be a need for middle ground between vengeance and forgiveness. For the purposes of this work, in delineating first the needs of victims and then the needs of society at large in the wake of violent conflict situations, it may be asserted the Minow’s middle ground abides at the intersection of acknowledgment of harms and retribution for harms committed. To demonstrate
A responsibility is something for which one is held accountable. Often people say that one is responsible for one’s own words and actions; if something happens as a result of something one does one is responsible for it. But is it possible that something could be the result of various actions from different people who are therefore equally responsible, or is there always one person who is most responsible for the incident at hand? Such a situation where this question is relevant is present in the novel A Separate Peace by John Knowles. In the novel, the main character, Gene, ponders his responsibility for the death of his best friend, Phineas or Finny. After reading Gene’s account of the events that led to Finny’s death the reader may observe that there are three people who are all partially at fault for Finny’s death. Gene, a classmate named Brinker, and Phineas all had something to do with the incident, but who was most responsible for it?
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
The idea of a lasting, ideally global, peace has been present in the minds of people for centuries. The most notable formulation of this is Kant’s vision of perpetual peace. “He saw it as a condition that needed to be maintained by politics between states with governments which represented society and separation of power. From this basic framework stems the idea called “democratic peace theory” (pg. 82). Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) asserts that democracies do not generally fight other democracies because they share common norms and domestic institutions that constrain international, state actors from going to war. Sebastian Rosato states, “In practical terms democratic peace theory provides the intellectual justification for the belief that spreading democracy abroad will perform the dual task of enhancing American national security promoting world peace” (pg. 585).
There have been many humanitarians that strive to help countries suffering with human right abuses. People think that the help from IGOs and NGOs will be enough to stop human rights violations. However, it hasn’t been effective. Every day, more and more human rights violations happen. The problem is escalating. People, including children, are still being forced to work to death, innocent civilians are still suffering the consequences of war, and families are struggling to stay firm together. Despite the efforts from the people, IGOs, and NGOs, In the year 2100, human rights abuse will not end.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
Justice is perhaps the most formidable instrument that could be used in the pursuit of peace. It allows for people to rise above the state of mere nature and war with one another. However the fool believes that justice is a mere tool to be used to acquire power and rule at his own discretion. Can it be possible for anyone to be that virtuous? Or does power acquired in that manner actually come from somewhere else? Through justice it’s possible to produce a sovereign that is in harmony with the very people that constitute its power. The argument against the fool and for justice will proceed from this foundation.
“Just War” theory defines war as the absence of peace.Peace can be the absence of war, but finding peace in such judgmental groups is almost impossible. Nations, also known as enemies, will never come eye to eye. They differ in various areas for example religion and race. Inequalities between humans will always exist. Equally seeing the other as the same will lead to peace. Justice and peace go hand and hand. Peace is a thirst for justice in human society and while acting and behaving with fairness and mortality will settle conflicts without the use of arms. Peace, as many say, is a state of mind. It can be seen as a behavior almost. It can entail being a union. Coming together to see everyone as one and not seeing anyone as different. It is the absence of war, but until there is mutual trust in nations there will always be war. The absence of all conflict is not
The theory of democratic peace is a classical idea that has been cited repeatedly by scholars. While Kant was not a darling of democracy, he wrote about perpetual peace, which he describes would only happen if states achieve a form of civil constitution. To him, perpetual peace exists when a regime honors property owned by citizens and when citizens live equally being the subjects based on a representative government that is built on the premise of separation of powers. The theory of democratic peace is therefore built on the proposition that some negative elements of government can be disabled to make a nation thrive in an international arena. This majorly entails elements of war. This idea is strengthened by the fact that relations between states in an international setting are not provoked by benefits of one nation being a burden to another. Instead, these relations are based on a mutual benefit and togetherness. If that proposition is anything to go by, it loses it meaning when states behave contrary to what they suggest on an international platform. The internal structures of a state are paramount to such an atmosphere and when they lead a different style of relationship with other states, the theory of perpetual peace fails to hold any water. The behavior of states can only be explained...
DuNann Winter, D., & Leighton, D. C. (2001 ). Structural Violence . Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st. New York : Prentice-Hall.
When considering the concepts of human rights and state sovereignty, the potential for conflict between the two is evident. Any humanitarian intervention by other actors within the international system would effectively constitute a violation of the traditional sovereign rights of states to govern their own domestic affairs. Thus, the answer to this question lies in an examination of the legitimacy and morality of humanitarian intervention. While traditionally, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty and non-intervention has prevailed, in the period since the Cold War, the view of human rights as principles universally entitled to humanity, and the norm of enforcing them, has developed. This has led to the 1990’s being described as a ‘golden
For centuries, people all over the world have sought the idea of everlasting global peace. The basic framework of this idea was given by Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay “On Perpetual Peace”. In his work, he wrote that peace is not natural to human beings and that is why, governments representing societies and power, through the use of politics have to secure the condition of peace. Immanuel Kant’s essay “On Perpetual Peace” has given the starting point from which “Democratic Peace Theory” originates. With the development of politics and international relations, various forms of “Democratic Peace Theory” have occurred, but there is still one core concept, being the idea that democracy is a cause for peace. According to “Democratic Peace Theory”, democracies are more peace oriented than war, due to the fact that they would lose more if waging war than maintaining economical relations with the specific democracy. Also many scholars use historical data as evidence of how, two democracies wouldn’t fight each other, but in the past there have been few democracies as well as few wars. This essay will mainly focus on the concepts of “Democratic Peace Theory”, how they are relevant to modern times and if in reality peace is maintained only due to the fact that states have democratic regimes.
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_05/articles/883.html> [Accessed 2 March 2011] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report (2000) Human Rights and Human Development (New York) p.19
After decades of war in Afghanistan in late 2001, first attempts have already been made by Afghans and international organizations to consult the Afghan people on how to build capacities in pace-building which was an encouraging sign. However, the people in general are still too reluctant to speak about their suffering during the war. Instead, their current priority is to struggle for economic survival in the highly competitive post-conflict reconstruction business with its emerging social injustice. This pragmatic attitude causes a basic problem. If the past is not addressed, efforts to build a lasting peace are endangered. As lessons from other post-conflict societies have shown, national reconciliation contributes to overcoming the past and reuniting a war-divided society (Schirch, Rafiee, & Sakhi, 2013). There are several ways to bring about peace, stability and harmony in Afghanistan. This paper reviews some issues crucial for discussing and designing a strategy of national reconciliation. Moreover, for narrowing the gap between the rival perceptions there is also a need for an Afghan peace process to prepare the ground for peace-building and a future reconciliation process and implementation of an Afghan mechanism of national reconciliation including the ‘’lessons learned’’ from the post-conflict societies.