By Salma YusufExtract from a presentation delivered at a Seminar titled, ‘How can we have a Just Peace?’ held at Marga Institute, Centre for Development Studies on 30 August 2013As the discussion in Sri Lanka continues as to how justice can be achieved, it is worth identifying key ideas on the subject that could inform a possible way forward in cracking the somewhat binary stalemate that exists on the topic. The following is an attempt to provide fresh impetus and begin new thought on the subject that seeks a realistic, meaningful and constructive path to achieving the twin imperatives of nation building while not compromising on either.
The idea of linking justice with peace is not in itself new. What is relatively new, however, is that it has been in the focus of theoretical and empirical literature of conflict resolution and peace-making, as well as, in reconciliation studies in the last decade. Therefore, in that sense, the discourse on just peace has gained renewed significance in the last decade.
The concept of just peace implies that just peace is a unique kind of peace – that differs from other types of peace such as negative peace, positive peace, and stable peace according to leading scholarship on the subject reflected in the works of thinkers such as Allan and Keller.
According to Allan and Keller, the concept of just peace rests on the following assumptions: Peace is just only when it is based on justice, or includes justice in it; That the sides mutually recognize that the peace agreement is just; That peace is just only when it is not imposed on the sides and it is negotiated and accepted by them willingly and therefore, they do not have any reason or motivation to violate the agreement; That Just peace is a precondition for the durability of peace. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that other kinds of peace are not durable and maintained; That Just peace is a local phenomenon and limited to those directly concerned; and that the need for a just peace is required when one or both sides ask for it or even make it as a condition for conflict resolution.
TWO APPROACHES
Studies in the field indicate that there exist two basic approaches Just Peace: The first approach calls for a tight link between justice and peace because it sees the issue of justice as a major cause of conflict, and thus justice must be a foundation for peace. Hence it argues, that justice is required and necessary for peace. Peace cannot be discussed without reference to justice. Peace cannot be achieved without justice. Peace without justice is indeed not peace.
The second approach has two variants: the realist that denies any necessary link between justice and peace, while the liberal approach although does not negate this link in principle objects to the absolute conditional demands for such a link because it may prevent peace, especially when two concepts of justice are not compatible and even confronts each other.
WHY NOT TO LINK JUSTICE WITH PEACE
The discourse on just peace has evolved dramatically over the past decade even to the extent of questioning whether justice ought to be linked with peace in the first place. Arguments have been advanced on why not to link justice to peace:
The Realist approach refers mainly to the arguments of the procedural justice-making approach rather than to those of transitional justice, but it refers also to it. Another argument against linking justice to peace is that justice and fairness are not agreed concepts in international relations, and there are no objective criteria of justice and fairness. Moreover, parties may have conflicting conceptions of justice and fairness, and it is almost impossible to reach a consensus about the meaning of justice and fairness and of course their link with peace.
On the other hand, the Liberal Approach argues that peace is just by definition and there is no greater justice than peace. It argues that an unjust peace is not peace at all but a different type of solution. While it seems reasonable and logical to link justice to peace, the conditional link between the two and the use of the concept of just peace are wrong because they frame peace with a prescriptive sense which means an “ideal type of peace.”
Not making peace because it seems as unjust is justified at the outset, however, later on it might become clear that the greater injustice lay in not making peace at an available, given and opportune moment, and this demonstrates the danger that lies in using the expression unjust peace” (Beilin, 2006: 131).
THE EMOTIONAL AND RATIONAL CONVERGE
A possible third strand can be constructed in the form of an emerging discourse that seeks to engage the concerns of the two schools of thought, namely, is to include the issue of the injustice in the peace agreement as part of it, but to defer its coping and negotiating only to the reconciliation phase.
It is argued that because of the bitterness and the grievances, the sides are not emotionally ripe to deal with the issue of the injustice in the peace-making stage. Indeed, the literature on reconciliation regards the coping of past injustice as basic and part of the reconciliation process and not of the peace-making.
The implied assumption behind this conception is not only the fact that the sides are not ripe to deal with the injustice in the peace-making stage, but also because of the need to resolve the conflict and to put an end to the continued suffering or continuing injustice of the sides. Building peace and producing benefits of peace increase the attraction of the peace and easier the process of coping with the past injustice.
A paragraph form of a mutual commitment in the agreement augmented by a mediator’s guarantees, to look for a compromised solution to the justice issue will help to overcome justice being a barrier to achieving peace.
While the discussion on which approach best suits a particular context will and indeed must be the subject of deep deliberation, I want to close my remarks by suggesting that an approach that adopts the philosophy reflected in the emerging discourse has merit in that it seeks to embrace the rational aspect of peace-making by including the elements of justice through negotiation, but also engages the emotional aspect by deferring the discussion on the contents of justice and fairness to the reconciliation phase when trust, healing and conflict resolution are arguably and already well on the way, and where parties are in a better position to achieve justice acceptable to both sides. – Eurasia Review
