| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
191570
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Environmental peacebuilding is the integration of natural resource management into conflict prevention, resolution and recovery so as to support peace and environmental sustainability. Most studies have been of cases where there is significant involvement of external (usually international) actors. They thus provide implicit support for liberal peacebuilding practice, which is itself the subject of much critique. Conversely, documented examples of environmental peacebuilding from below are rare. We analyse an endogenously emerging environmental peacebuilding institution, the customary tara bandu process in Timor-Leste. We explain the way tara bandu is used bottom-up to promote the sustainable use of natural resources and more peaceful relations. Tara bandu proves to be a successful, locally diverse environmental peacebuilding institution. We further show how recent attempts by international peacebuilders and state institutions to employ tara bandu have somewhat ignored the way it is deeply interwoven with local social and spiritual relations, and in so doing have jeopardized its legitimacy and efficacy. This suggests that attempts from outside actors to facilitate environmental peacebuilding may be constrained by a mismatch between theorized norms of social and environmental relations (such as ‘shared interests’) and local cultural particularities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
049882
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New York, Zed Books Ltd., 2001.
|
| Description |
vii, 184p.
|
| Standard Number |
1856497860
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 044217 | 333.7/BAR 044217 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
080835
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article develops a theory of peace as freedom that explains some important relationships between peace and development. It does this by critically examining and then synthesizing Johan Galtung's theory of peace as the absence of violence and Amartya Sen's theory of development as freedom. Galtung's theory of peace is clear on the meaning and causes of direct violence, but vague on the details of structural violence. Sen's theory helps overcome many of the problems associated with structural violence, although its focus on agents and the state tends to downplay the importance of larger-scale political and economic processes. In the theory of peace as freedom, peace is defined as, and in praxis is enlarged through, the equitable distribution of economic opportunities, political freedoms, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, protective security and freedom from direct violence. The institutions required for peace as freedom are considered, and it is suggested that the pluralist state is the best model for providing and maintaining peace as freedom. Some implications of this theory for existing and future analyses of the causes of violent conflict are discussed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
067231
|
|
|