Search Results

Writers in the field of conflict studies often use key terms in loose and contradictory ways, reflecting the reality that concepts have not been clearly defined. To encourage coherent usage of these terms the following definitions have been adopted for the purposes of the Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. Nevertheless individual authors on occasion have used some terms in a specific way in relation to the particular argument in their chapter. In these circumstances the special use of the term is clearly explained and otherwise the following definitions are general usage in the Handbook.

• Year 2004

[Абстрактный машинный перевод] Авторы, занимающиеся изучением конфликтов, часто используют ключевые термины в произвольной и противоречивой форме, отражая реальность того, что концепции не были четко определены. Чтобы способствовать последовательному использованию этих терминов, для целей Руководства Бергхофа по трансформации конфликтов были приняты следующие определения. Тем не менее отдельные авторы иногда использовали некоторые термины особым образом по отношению к конкретному аргументу в своей главе. В этих обстоятельствах специальное использование термина ясно объяснено, в противном случае следующие определения являются общими в Справочнике.

• Year 2007

Trilingual Glossary of terms for Conflict Transformation in Sri Lanka

ලංකාවේ ගැටුම් විපරිවර්තනය ත්‍රෛභාෂා පාරිභාෂික ශබ්ද කෝෂය

இலங்கையில் மோதுகை மாற்றுநிலையாக்கத்திற்கான அருஞ்சொற்பதங்கள்

• Year 2006

• Year 2013

In this reader's comment on our publication Berghof Handbook Dialogue No. 10 on Peace Infrastructures, the authors, using the case of Nepal, show how a perspective based on people's peace needs may help clarify the concept of Infrastructure for Peace. They also reflect on practical implications and potential developments in Nepal's peace sector.

• Year 2013
• Author(s) Prakash Mani Sharma, Jeannine Suurmond

Can infrastructures for peace – inadvertently or by design – be used to further state-building fashioned after the liberal peacebuilding agenda? This is the question Vincent Verzat is exploring in his reader’s comment to Berghof Handbook Dialogue No. 10. His article Infrastructure for Peace: A Grass-roots Way To Do State-building? takes a close look at the discourse and rhetoric used by international organisations and questions one of I4P’s role-models, the Ghanaian peace architecture

• Year 2014
• Author(s) Vincent Verzat

• Year 2010

The exchange between the lead authors and the discussants in this dialogue vividly illustrates the need to shift from a state-centric view, yet without entirely rejecting the notion of state. At the same time it shows the difficulties of integrating concepts of political order that do not correspond with the western-style Weberian/Westphalian state. Instead of advocating ideal-type, off-the-shelf models and blue-prints, the contributors to this dialogue argue that historically well-informed analysis, which leads to a deeper contextualized understanding of the local and regional situation on the ground, has to be the bedrock of any attempts for external assistance aimed at peace and development. They discuss evidence and counter-examples from Somaliland, Afghanistan, Liberia through to the Balkans and East Timor.

• Year 2009

In this Dialogue, practitioners and researchers reflect on the conditions of success or failure in peacebuilding and conflict transformation. The lead article expresses a lingering worry that complex economic and environmental crises, international factors of violence and war, and an underlying 'murkiness' of values may overwhelm the best efforts for social change and create a feeling that we are “just wasting our time”. The comments emphasize that values and approaches - as well as the international context, power politics and injustice - should be the objects of critical analysis. Investment in learning, honest self-reflection and critical peace research appear to be a must for effective practice. Others stress a need for more effective public mobilization for the effective prevention of violence. Many additional questions are raised and present food for thought for an ongoing debate.

• Year 2009

It has taken a few feedback loops, and now we proudly present this Dialogue. Norbert Ropers’ lead article lays out a rich array of systemic ideas originating from both research and practice, applied in the context of Sri Lanka. The respondents reflect, among other things, on additional tools and techniques, comparative experiences in Nepal and Kenya and the added value and utility of systemic conflict transformation.

• Year 2008