Our Library

หนังสืออภิธานศัพท์เล่มนี้นิยามและอภิปรายถึงค�ำศัพท์ส�ำคัญ 20 ค�ำ ที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการแปรเปลี่ยนความขัดแย้งในการท�ำงานของมูลนิธิ Berghof ท�ำไมจึงต้องจัดท�ำอภิธานศัพท์อีกเล่มและท�ำไมต้องจ�ำเพาะ เจาะจงเป็นอภิธานศัพท์ว่าด้วยการแปรเปลี่ยนความขัดแย้งด้วย? ประการแรก กรอบความคิดเกี่ยวกับ “การแปรเปลี่ยนความขัดแย้ง” เป็นแนวทางที่ค่อนข้างใหม่และมีความแตกต่างชัดเจนในวาทกรรม ระดับโลกเกี่ยวกับความขัดแย้งและกระบวนการสร้างสันติภาพ การ แปรเปลี่ยนความขัดแย้งมีทัศนะว่าการด�ำรงอยู่ของความขัดแย้งเป็น ส่วนที่มีคุณค่าและขาดไม่ได้ในการเปลี่ยนแปลงและการพัฒนาสังคม แต่ไม่ได้มองว่าความรุนแรงเป็นสิ่งที่หลีกเลี่ยงไม่ได้ในความสัมพันธ์ และปฏิสัมพันธ์ระหว่างฝ่ายขัดแย้ง ด้วยเหตุนี้เอง แนวทางนี้จึงไม่ได้ มองว่า “การคลี่คลาย” ความขัดแย้งเป็นเป้าหมายส�ำคัญที่สุดหรือ สูงสุดของภารกิจ ตรงกันข้าม แนวทางนี้มีเป้าหมายที่จะวางรากฐาน ความสัมพันธ์เชิงสร้างสรรค์ระหว่างตัวแสดงที่ขัดแย้งกัน และช่วยวาง โครงสร้างที่จ�ำเป็นส�ำหรับสันติภาพที่ยืนยาว วิธีการที่ใช้คือการโน้มน�ำ สาเหตุที่เป็นรากเหง้าของความขัดแย้งไปในทิศทางที่ยุทธศาสตร์ การไม่ใช้ความรุนแรงสามารถจัดการปัญหาได้ส�ำเร็จอย่างยั่งยืน

• Year2016
• Author(s)Berghof Foundation

In some countries, more civilians are being killed by armed gangs and criminal organisations than in traditional combat. Still, these pockets of armed social violence – "undeclared wars" marked, among other things, by criminal, gang and/or urban violence as well as extremist violence – have long received much less attention than politically motivated forms of armed conflicts. As their effects — social-political destabilisation, in some cases coinciding with high numbers of victims — are becoming more pressing, national and international actors have begun addressing the phenomenon.

• Year2016

The last decade has seen a growing convergence of policy and research discourses among development, peace and conflict, and democratisation experts, with regards to the assumed benefits of inclusive transition processes from conflict and fragility to peace and resilience. The realisation that the social, economic or political exclusion of large segments of society is a key driver of intra-state wars has prompted donor agencies, diplomats and peacebuilding practitioners, as well as the respective academic communities, to search for the right formula to support inclusive and participatory conflict transformation mechanisms and post-war state-society relations. While these various stakeholders profess rhetorical commitment to inclusivity, the term is used in very different and sometimes even in contradictory ways. There are profound disagreements on who should be included in peace processes and political transitions, at what stage and to what end.

• Year2016
• Author(s)Véronique Dudouet, Stina Lundström

This report is part of a wider comparative research project generously funded by the German Foundation for Peace Research and implemented by the Berghof Foundation. With the title “Peaceful Coexistence? ‘Traditional’ and ‘Non-traditional’ Conflict Resolution Mechanisms”, the project analyses the patterns of coexistence between ‘traditional’ (indigenous, local, community-based) and ‘non-traditional’ (imported, liberal, state-based) approaches to conflict resolution based on field research in Colombia, Liberia and Northeast India. The main focus of the research project is whether the coexistence of traditional and non-traditional mechanisms of conflict resolution leads to tension and competition between these mechanisms, thereby potentially furthering conflict, or whether the coexistence leads to more (or better) conflict resolution options for the population, thereby promoting conflict settlement processes.

• Year2016
• Author(s)Priyankar Upadhyaya, Anjoo Sharan Upadhyaya

Our 2015 annual report lays out some of the activities implemented by our organisation and highlights key achievements of our work over the past year. It illustrates the manifold approaches that we employ as we support our partners in their efforts to transform violent conflicts and engage in cooperation towards peace.

• Year2016

Unser Jahresbericht 2015 informiert über einige Aktivitäten und Höhepunkte unserer Arbeit. Er gibt einen Einblick in die von uns unternommenen Anstrengungen, unsere Partner in aller Welt in deren Bemühungen bei der Überwindung von Gewalt und für den Frieden zu unterstützen.

• Year2016

Our response explores the application of these participatory and community-informed approaches in the context of Guinea-Bissau, where a community-based policing model, the Model Police Stations (MPS), had its genesis in participatory research. Participatory research has also informed activities in other areas,such as the prevention of gender violence. In 2011, for example, a comprehensive portrayal of the violence against women in the country resulted from the combination of quantitative data with qualitative research on perceptions (see Roque 2011).

• Year2016
• Author(s)Marco Carmignani, Fernando Cavalcante

Bernardo Arévalo de León and Ana Glenda Tager have written a succinct and substantive article, which adds to evidence of a shift from the centrality of war and conflict (armed and non-armed) in the study and practice of peace, towards a focus on violence, or rather that aspect of violence the authors call “armed social violence”. Violence, I argue, is the opposite of peace and this step towards recognising the wider expressions of violence is to be greatly welcomed. Violence is extensively studied, but in disciplinary silos. We lack a “converter” to enable us to interpret the learning from these various silos and to help us build new understandings of the varied mechanisms of violence reproduction and reduction. Despite nods to interdisciplinarity, academia reinforces the silos, while practice cannot easily embrace the complexity within and between each.

• Year2016
• Author(s)Jenny Pearce

We respond to the lead article from the point of view of conflict transformation practitioners from the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPCS), a non-governmental organisation based in Siem Reap, Cambodia, which focuses on strengthening and supporting the peace processes in the Philippines and Myanmar and peacebuilding efforts in Sri Lanka. We thus operate within contexts involving state and non-state armed groups engaging or previously engaged in political conflict, and any exposure we have to armed social violence emerges from this context.

• Year2016
• Author(s)Karen P. Simbulan, Laurens J. Visser

The essay by Bernardo Arévalo de León and Ana Glenda Tager constitutes an important and welcome contribution to a much-needed dialogue on alternative ways to address non-conventional armed violence in Latin America. It offers a critical reference point to move away from the militarised and repressive strategies that have been privileged by most Latin American countries, towards an integral approach that aims to create the necessary conditions to build peace in a feasible and sustainable manner (Arévalo de León/Tager 2016, 20-21). The following response is based on my own research dealing with the sociological and historical underpinnings of armed social violence in Mexico and Central America. It also builds on my experience as a practitioner working within a citizen security framework geared towards the adoption of more integral and sustainable approaches to violence in Latin America.

• Year2016
• Author(s)Gema Santamaría