Joint Kroc-USIP workshop examines the tension between human rights and peace

The tension between pursuing truth and justice, on the one hand, and guarding a fragile peace generated by settlements or negotiated regime transitions, on the other, frequently places human rights and peacemaking practitioners at odds. To explore the implications of this tension for the research and teaching of peace and human rights, the Kroc Institute and the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) organized a 2-day workshop for college and university faculty. Participants at the work-shop included over 50 faculty from colleges and universities throughout the Midwest.

In setting the terms of reference for the work-shop, Pamela Aall, director of education at USIP, distinguished several dimensions of the tension between human rights and peace: the moral issues of whether the need to stop further killing justifies amnesty for or negotiations with war criminals; the tactical questions of whether exposing human rights atrocities will further efforts for peace; and operational questions concerning the appropriate sequencing of events in a peace process. In the policymaking context, Chester Crocker, professor of strategic studies at Georgetown University and chair of USIP’s Board of Directors, argued that human rights and peace-making are not incompatible. “Rather, it is the issue of sequencing which determines the lesser of evils in many situations,” Crocker said.

Participants considered the policy dimensions of this tension both at the diplomatic level and on the ground. Drawing on his experiences in Chile and India, former U.S. Ambassador Harry Barnes commented that looking at situations from both a human rights and peace perspective often produces a better understanding than either view could on its own. Urs Boegli of the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) observed how denunciation, mediation, and even ‘calls for peace’ can be dangerous for providers of humanitarian assistance on the ground, such as the ICRC. Participants explored these tensions in several difficult cases for rights and peace issues, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Guatemala, Colombia, and South Africa.

The workshop also considered the challenges of reconciliation, a term which carries religious, cultural, and political connotations that restrict its general application. The public legitimation of cultures of peace within society is nonetheless a critical element of peacebuilding, argued Scott Appleby, director of the Kroc Institute. Moreover, psychological studies indicate that reconciliation processes can break the cycle of violence by increasing social tolerance among victims of violence, reported Ervin Staub, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts. Participants also considered pedagogical approaches for both human rights and peace. Dinah Shelton, professor of law at the Notre Dame’s Center for Civil and Human Rights, and Julie Mertus, assistant professor of international relations at American University, argued that the legal model of addressing social issues had several weaknesses, and human rights activists need the analytical tools from peace studies in order to understand how to make human rights activities more effective. Roy Licklider, professor at Rutgers University, and Mary Mulvihill, a doctoral student at Notre Dame, identified several resources which peace studies faculty could use to teach effectively about the tension between peace and human rights.

Top of Page

Home > Publications > Peace Colloquy > Issue 1 (Spring 2002)