justice ensures peace and prosperity essay

Peace and Justice Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

While conflict, used interchangeably with a clash or violence, refers to a state of opposition between people, views, or objectives, violence “…is any condition that prevents a human being from achieving her or his full potential” (Cortright 7). The issue of conflicts has become a daily subject as cases of killings, bombings, and assassinations continue to occur at an alarming level. Racial, color, religious, tribal and economic differences are the major fuels behind conflicts.

Peace, on the other hand, refers to the prevailing conditions in the absence of conflicts and violence. As clashes continue to persist around the globe, playwrights, among other people, have resolved into addressing the issue, the causes, effects, and the possible solutions. According to Terry George, the director of the famous Hotel Rwanda film, the world is yearning for people who can courageously campaign for peace and justice.

Hotel Rwanda , the fascinating composition of Terry George, brings to light the most horrifying upshots, as contemporary history unfolds. It features both tribal and religious conflicts as they occurred during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

It is a sensitive account of the Hutus of Rwanda, whose genocide campaigns saw the death of thousands of the marginalized Tutsis, upon whom the departed Belgian colonizers had bestowed power. Revolving around a prominent hotel in Kigali, George features Don Cheadle as the manager of the hotel and a representative of the majority Hutus, the wealthy tribe that enjoys majority of the country’s resources.

His wife stands in for the minority Tutsis. She is the least happy as she watches her people suffer harassments and severe beatings. She pleads to her husband to help them despite being a Hutu. As the violence intensifies, killings of the Tutsi begin based on race, religion, and social status. As the European clients and staff force their way out of the country, Paul becomes in charge of the visitor’s hotel.

He cannot tolerate the mass killings anymore and therefore opts to transform the hotel into a refugee camp for the Tutsis, a step that his Hutu people perceive as betrayal. However, from this courageous step, he ends up preserving the lives of at least 1238 Tutsi people. However, the director qualifies in his good way of demonstrating peace and justice, as this is his objective.

The aforementioned subject of conflicts and violence dominates the movie. Nevertheless, efforts of nurturing peace and justice still stand out. The director features both tribal and religious conflicts as observed, not only in Rwanda, but also in the world allover. The majority Hutus clash with the minority Tutsis claiming, “We are the majority. Tutsis are the minority. Hutus must kill all the Tutsis…” (George). From these words, the director brings to light death as one of the many the consequences of conflicts.

The singling out of a Paul from his people, Hutus, to bring salvation to the minority Tutsis is subject to discussion. As Paul struggles to foster peace among the Tutsis, he is welcomes conflicts from the other side, who view him as a traitor, validating Cortright’s words that “Peace does not mean the absence of conflicts” (7). Patriotism is more than love for ones country.

It entails the willingness and sacrifice of ones own people. According to this theory, Paul is a traitor, rather than a patriot and is subject to a stern punishment. However, the director strategically presents Paul’s bold step of going against the majority, who are never right, to picture him as an epitome of the few who are able to stand for peace and justice, not based on gender, tribe, and religion, to quote a few.

Hotel Rwanda qualifies in driving home the point that, if one person could single him/herself out of the action of the majority, the peace, justice, love, and harmony could carry the day. This film will prove relevant in the coming weeks because the students will find it easy to understand the subject about conflicts and violence. This must-watch film presents a good way of demonstrating peace and justice.

Works Cited

Cortright, David. Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas . Cambridge University Press, 2008.

George, Terry, dir. Hotel Rwanda. Lions Gate Films, 2004. Film.

• Disease in The News
• Dynamics of the Relationship between Central Government and Regional Administrations in Spain since 1978
• Ethnic Conflicts and Misrepresentation of Rwandan Hutus
• In-class Reaction Paper: Rwandan Genocide
• The Rwandan Slaughter: Reasons and Participants
• The Construction of the Postmodern Subject in Professional Writing
• The Syrian Conflict: An International Crisis
• Some of the most significant innovations of the 20th Century
• How the AIDS Epidemic Has Affected the World on a Political, Social, Economical Way
• Apartheid, Its Causes and the Process
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, February 20). Peace and Justice. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-and-justice/

"Peace and Justice." IvyPanda , 20 Feb. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/peace-and-justice/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Peace and Justice'. 20 February.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Peace and Justice." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-and-justice/.

1. IvyPanda . "Peace and Justice." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-and-justice/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Peace and Justice." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-and-justice/.

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Core essay: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

DOI link for Core essay: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

DESCRIPTION

Core essay on Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions by Stephen Browne and Thomas G. Weiss (City University of New York, USA)

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

• SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
• DEVELOPMENT & SOCIETY
• PEACE & SECURITY
• HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS
• HUMAN RIGHTS

On SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

When the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted, Goal 16 was seen as truly transformative, formally linking, for the first time at the United Nations, development, peace, justice, and good governance. Some of its more ambitious targets include significantly reducing all forms of violence, ending abuse and violence against children, promoting the rule of law, reducing illicit financial flows and corruption, and developing accountable and transparent institutions.

But Goal 16 was not adopted without controversy. Many countries argued against the intrusion of peace and security, and even more so justice, considerations into the development sphere, and would have preferred that the goal be dropped altogether. Other countries maintained that this goal was central for them and that their support for the 2030 Agenda hinged upon it.

Nearly three years later, progress on Goal 16 is uneven, and there is considerable doubt that it can be achieved at its current implementation rate. Challenges arise in all countries, including Canada, and are likely to become more acute given current trends, particularly those related to violence.

Violence worldwide is on the rise and becoming increasingly complex and multidimensional. Almost half the world’s people have been affected by political violence over the last fifteen years, with lower-income countries bearing a disproportionately high share of the burden of armed violence. Yet developed countries are not immune — in many parts of the developed world, different forms of violence are also on the rise. Canada itself faces domestic challenges in addressing issues of violence and homicide, particularly against women and children.

Canada is also facing challenges in other related areas of Goal 16. Issues of justice for Indigenous Peoples have been much debated but insufficiently addressed over the past four decades. Comprehensively combatting transnational organised crime and illicit financial flows are elusive goals for Canada as well.

The challenge will be linking these subnational priorities with national strategies.

A common impediment for countries attempting to implement Goal 16 is the yawning gaps in reliable data, making it difficult to measure progress in meeting the goal’s targets. Fragile and conflict-affected states, in particular, often have incomplete, imperfect, or a total lack of data. The countries of the world vary hugely in their capacity to collect, monitor, and track indicators.

Moreover, obstacles to reaching the goals of SDG 16 are increasingly encountered in urban areas. Populations in cities are expected to increase to almost 70 per cent by 2050, and cities register higher homicide rates than rural areas. The challenges found within ‘fragile cities’ — characterised by rapid, unregulated urbanisation; high levels of inequality, unemployment, and violence; poor access to key services; and exposure to climate threats — mean that Goal 16 must be addressed at the subnational level.

In this context, one possible approach to accelerate the pace of implementation is to link national and local-level policies, providing greater support to subnational governance institutions. Local and regional governments in many countries have already recognised this, arguing that new institutional arrangements and channels of coordination need to underpin more effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, as well as more responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making. This is necessary for local governments to become more responsive to their communities, and for states to deliver on Goal 16.

Positive initiatives are currently underway that illustrate how this is happening. New forms of participatory decision-making — such as in budgeting and in enhancements to city housing, service delivery, and slum conditions — have led to improvements in public security and urban safety. Local governments have been working internationally and nationally to share relevant information and innovative, frequently data-driven, solutions.

The challenge will be linking these subnational priorities with national strategies. For example, Canada’s progress in implementing its Federal Sustainable Development Strategy 2016–2019, which focuses on the environmental aspects of the SDGs, does not sufficiently account for Goal 16, even though one of the aims of the strategy is to build safe, secure, and sustainable communities. However, at the provincial level, many strategies overlap with the SDGs — without specifically mentioning them — focusing on employment, education, and environmental concerns, but less commonly on violence and justice.

Achieving implementation of Goal 16 is a daunting task globally, for poorer countries in particular. The plethora of targets and indicators aiming to guide them tends to create white noise. Some countries have been felt disempowered by the ambition and wide spectrum of the 2030 Agenda, as much as they have been able to harness its potential for energising society. This has represented an obvious downside in practice to the United Nations’ otherwise admirable effort to design an all-encompassing agenda.

National governments will get to showcase their achievements at the United Nations High Level Political Forum, which is reviewing Goal 16 in 2019. Until then, greater effort is required nearly everywhere to achieve implementation of national policies towards this goal. Improved links between the national and subnational levels will move us all in the right direction.

This essay is part of Awakening — a collection of essays and artwork exploring sustainable development, organized by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, Canada.

David M. Malone

Dr David M. Malone is Rector of the United Nations University and Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Insight and Analysis from Foreign Affairs Practitioners and Scholars

Established 1996 • Raymond F. Smith, Editor

Promoting Peace and Prosperity Through the United Nations

By thomas r. pickering.

Editor’s note: The author was U.S. Ambassador to the UN 1989-1992.

Franklin Roosevelt knew a good thing when he saw it. In 1943, in the midst of a military campaign for American survival in the Pacific and clawing our way back against Nazi Germany in the Atlantic, Roosevelt put bright people to work to shape what would come next. International cooperation under the League of Nations had twice failed – the U.S. resolved to stay out and the League’s weakness led to World War II.

To fix it, Roosevelt took the name for the victory coalition of that great crusade – the United Nations – and fashioned an international organization to promote peace and prosperity through cooperation. Isolationist opposition in the U.S. endured, but many leaders of both parties had the vision and perspicacity to know that friends and allies working together made sense in achieving both objectives. Failure dogged the pursuit, but in Korea, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and the Balkans the organization made a real difference in war and peace.

Americans have now been through four years of disdain and disparagement about the United Nations and the Trump administration’s failure to understand or make good use of it. Chinese and Russian opposition did not help. The Biden team comes to power with the challenge – how can we use more effectively Roosevelt’s vision to promote peace and prosperity on the planet?

  Two paths are open to us. One is right before our eyes, widely used but seldom understood and even more rarely appreciated – the 24 Specialized Agencies that all together make the world run. The second, the Security Council, raises more daunting political obstacles and trenchant barriers but is well worth a new look and investment.

International Agencies Making the World Work

The second half of the 19 th century saw the early blooming of a new trend coming from a simple problem to be solved. How can we make the national postage stamp carry a letter across international boundaries to anywhere on the globe? The Universal Postal Union, a treaty among states, was the result. More importantly, it started the development of a system that continues to this day. Instead of just paper mail, it covers electronics with the International Telecommunications Union, which makes sure radio frequencies are fairly assigned and the internet as a technical matter works effectively and efficiently.

But communications are not the only matter facilitated by these little known and widely ignored treaty agencies that literally make the international activities of the world grow and prosper. Bankers come together around a Basel agreement, maritime and civil aviation move safely from London and Montreal. Labor (and business) is protected and organized in Geneva. Almost anything we can think of now from health to atomic energy and from the environment to trade is part of a system of agencies whose charters and governance are organized by international agreements, whose members are states. Without these agencies the world would not function – and they would then have to be re-invented.

These agencies are all part of the United Nations system. They have independent governmental arrangements and raise their own funds to support their mission. They work closely with the Secretary General of the United Nations to coordinate their activities, exchange views, and assure effectiveness and efficiency in carrying out their missions.

They work quietly, almost always behind the scenes, and come in for attention most often not when they deserve praise for tasks well done, but when they are faulted for failing in one fashion or another. The pandemic has elevated our attention to the World Health Organization (WHO), a body where its members cooperate but have few obligations to do so beyond preserving their publics from the devastating impacts of health dangers run out of control, from AIDS to Ebola to Covid-19. Clearly some greater tightening of reporting responsibilities by states through the WHO, fuller transparency, and increased cooperation could be of real benefit.

When we think about the United Nations and what it means to woman and mankind – when we think of these bodies defined by acronyms like WHO, we should not have to be reminded that their mission is to make sure we live safely, care for each other, assist when the need comes, and cooperate to meet the many health and other challenges of modern life.

Devising an Organization to Make the World a Safer Place

During World War II, when it was certain that an international organization that could only act by unanimity had failed to preserve peace, ideas for a new organization turned to something different and more radical. With fewer than 60 countries in the world in 1945, a group of eleven states was thought to be about right to make critical decisions on war and peace in the then-new United Nations Security Council. The larger, victor states in the war would become permanent members – China, Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the U.S., known as the P-5. Six others chosen three each year for two years at a time from the major regions of the word would complete the roster of members.

To offset the failings of the League of Nations Council, the body was given, by the treaty establishing it, the opportunity to make decisions mandating compliance by all member states of the United Nations. To assure the big victor states joined and were there to provide significant military forces if needed to ensure peace, they were given permanent seats and a veto over decisions of the Security Council. In 1964, as the number of member states grew, the Security Council was increased to 15, including ten non-permanent members, five of which would be elected for a two-year term every year.

For most of the Cold War the Council, with rare exceptions, was limited in its capacity to reach decisions in cases of conflict by the injection of Cold War differences into the decision-making process. For a short time in 1990, with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, that faded away, and there were no vetoes in the Council’s action in the face of that aggression. First the Council imposed sanctions on Iraq and, when that showed its limitations in producing an end to the aggression, it authorized the use of force. Since then, for the most part, growing differences among big powers have blocked the unanimity required for the Security Council to act effectively to deal with threats to international peace and security.

Finding Better Ways to Deal with Conflict

The veto alone has not been the sole cause of failure. Differences over just how far resolutions should go in dealing with actions that threaten peace have played a role – weaker resolutions have been insufficient to block or end conflict. In part, this condition has reflected bilateral differences between the U.S. and Russia and the U.S. and China. But a world in turmoil through failure to reach diplomatic accord in New York reflects a strong need to seek a better relationship among the permanent members of the Council. None of them benefits from discord and unresolved disputes that lead to wider conflict. The challenge is a real one for the Biden administration as well as for China and Russia. And increasingly, we see no benefits from wider open use of force. Suggestions now for a summit meeting of the P-5 to deal with differences and related strategic stability talks between permanent members of the Security Council and a summit meeting of democracies can begin a process of enabling greater cohesion in dealing with conflict around the globe.

In the past, it has been suggested that the use of the Security Council veto might be tempered by an agreement not to use a veto unless three or more of the permanent members agreed to do so, perhaps beginning in cases where blocking genocide was at the center of the action to be taken. Following the end of the Cold War and in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, this may have been politically possible. Today it seems much less likely, even with the new dangerous rebuilding and modernization of nuclear arms and delivery vehicles going forward in the U.S., China, and Russia.

While such mechanical solutions of the veto might seem wise and even appropriate, there is not yet a widely shared view of what constitutes an existential danger to be avoided and how and in what way to address that problem. What is clear, however, is that in the absence of effective diplomacy, more and more issues are going to be left on the table to fester and grow. It is also clear that neither conventional force nor, God forbid, nuclear weapons, provides a realistic and enlightened answer to the issues involved.

Keeping Open the Lines of Diplomatic Communication

What has proven to be realistic in the work of the Security Council is keeping open the lines of diplomatic communication with a degree of transparency that provides for a truthful rendering widely of the concerns at stake and innovative efforts to resolve them. States are unwilling to accept now that other states will render full judgment on their activities. But coalitions and alliances do provide a degree of persuasive capacity of the equity and justice of decisions both to avoid conflict and determine outcomes with which they can live.

Much of the world is concerned with the fragility of the international system and attacks against it have gained ground. However, alternate ways of deciding issues have not been widely proposed nor have they brought about significant adoption of the alternatives tilted toward autocracy and dictatorship. The UN Security Council remains an option for settlement, just as do all the other means of peaceful resolution from judicial settlement to mediation and good offices. And clearly, they should prevail over the use of force as a method for dealing with threats to peace and security and settling the issues that arise in that regard.

Great powers have learned to solve problems diplomatically when force poses the alternative of mutual extinction. It has been true about nuclear weapons, at least in part. With China it also may be true with climate change. The Biden administration sees climate change as a planetary challenge impacting significantly the U.S.; China perhaps even more has tilted in the same direction. The door is ajar for cooperation and leadership by both. Competition thwarts the goals of survival and prosperity; cooperation secures these goals. Cooperation on existential issues also opens the door for working together on lesser but not insignificant problems in the common interest.

Many years ago, in India, I had a visit from Robert McNamara, then both a former Secretary of Defense and president of the World Bank. We were both deeply concerned about nuclear proliferation and India, Pakistan, and Israel as states which had become or were about to become members of the nuclear weapons club. He accepted the idea that, while extremely hard to sell, the elimination of all nuclear weapons would be the only way to ensure they were not misused or to avoid a catastrophe unfolding by accident. Once begun there was no known way to stop cascading use of such weapons. But the serious question arose of what happens if someone seeks putative advantage by making such weapons clandestinely. McNamara’s thoughts turned to an idea that some weapons should be preserved to be used by the Security Council as a deterrent – and in which the permanent members of the Council would have a role. We both recognized that there were flaws in the approach that stemmed from lack of trust among the states whose voice would be critical in managing such a deterrent.

Within weeks the next American administration will have to decide whether to continue New Start and subsequently whether to negotiate a more extensive follow-on. We are not yet to the point McNamara was challenged by, but with the right decision on extending New Start we could be moving toward it.

Missile defense has its own complications to offer. With low numbers of deliverable weapons on each side, even a technically less than perfect defense system becomes more likely to be disruptive in potentially protecting a first strike. But with no weapons available for offensive use does it become a safeguard against clandestine breakout? No easy answers here.

Thomas R Pickering is former U.S. Under Secretary of State. He served as Ambassador to Russia, India, the United Nations, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, and Jordan as well as Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environment and Science and Executive Secretary of the State Department.

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Essay: The Constitution

When the American Founders declared independence from Britain, they explained that they were doing so because its government was violating their inalienable rights, which include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” As they organized to fight the British and write the Declaration of Independence, the American colonists formed a confederation of states with some basic agreements called “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.” The Articles of Confederation enabled them to cooperate in waging the Revolutionary War and to speak with a single voice when negotiating for weapons and trade with countries like France.

Soon after the war ended, however, many Founders began to argue that the Articles of Confederation were not adequate to secure the rights they had fought to defend. Any law or treaty established under the Articles could be ignored by a state government. Citizens of one state could be treated with unfairly negative bias by courts in another state. States were beginning to tax one another’s products, threatening to undermine American prosperity by hampering free trade.

“The peace of the whole,” argued Alexander Hamilton, “ought not to be left at the disposal of a part” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 80, 1788).

Americans had battled one of the most powerful nations on earth because its king trampled their rights. Now many believed they faced the opposite problem: a government without enough authority to pay its debts, guarantee equal treatment before the law, or fund a small defensive army.

As states sent delegates to a convention organized to revise the Articles of Confederation, many ideas emerged about how a national government should work. Despite their differences, most delegates agreed that government should be constrained from abusing citizens’ rights while also possessing sufficient power to protect those rights. They also understood that whatever they proposed needed approval from legislatures in most of the states, which meant that they also had to take into account local interests and concerns.

Their goal—as they eventually explained in the opening sentences (the Preamble) of the Constitution—was “to form a more perfect union.” Many who think the word “perfect” can only mean “flawless” miss what the Constitution’s framers intended. They weren’t claiming that the Constitution would make for a flawless national government. They were using the definition of “perfect” that meant—especially in their day—“complete” or “lacking in no essential detail.” In other words, they desired a true union of states, with enough authority to bind them and their citizens, yet with a universal set of rights and freedom for people to make most governmental decisions in their states and communities.

The Constitution’s preamble also reveals that its framers believed the system they devised—by dividing government into branches that would check one another’s exercise of power, and listing specific government powers in order to ensure rulers wouldn’t imagine they had more authority than intended—would “establish justice” for its citizens.

Justice meant that citizens would be treated equally and fairly by their government and also have their persons and property protected.

This more perfect union, rooted in ideas of freedom, individual responsibility, and justice, would help to “insure domestic tranquility” between states and their citizens and also provide “for the common defense.” Our national government would have courts to handle disputes between states or between citizens of different states, as well as the power to raise an army if foreign enemies threatened our lands or people.

“Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States,” painting by Howard Chandler Christy

Instead of a mere collection of states as a “firm league of friendship,” the ratification of the Constitution by state conventions would recast the nation as a sovereign entity authorized by “We, the people of the United States.” It would have a government with specific and limited authority. Its leaders would be expected to “promote the general welfare,” meaning they would only pass laws that benefited the nation as a whole and not merely narrow or local interests.

This new, federal government would not make most decisions or take responsibility for making people’s lives better. That would remain the responsibility of individuals and families acting independently or joined together in their communities. That is why the Founders placed such a strong emphasis on virtue. They knew that no government could ever establish peace and prosperity without citizens who were willing to work hard, take care of their families, and stand up for freedom and justice. The job of the federal government would be to protect the freedoms people needed to govern themselves, pursue religion as they saw fit, engage in commerce, and live peaceably alongside one another.

It was designed to “ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

United States Constitution

Although delegates disagreed on many points (for example, how to balance the power between the large and small states), they produced a document that they believed gave their proposed national government the necessary power to protect freedom while shackling it with the necessary restrictions to keep it from becoming a tyranny. John Adams wrote John Jay from his diplomatic assignment in Europe:

“A result of accommodation and compromise cannot be supposed perfectly to coincide with everyone’s idea of perfection…But, as all the great principles necessary to order, liberty, and safety are respected in it, and provision is made for corrections and amendments as they may be found necessary, I confess I hope to hear of its adoption by all the states” (John Adams to John Jay, December 16, 1787).

Related Content

The Constitution

In 1787, many Americans were concerned that the Articles of Confederation did not grant enough power to the central government to protect the rights of the people. Under the Articles, the national government was unable to regulate commerce, taxation, currency, treaties, and protect the rights of individuals and states. The states called a delegation to meet in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and from that convention the new Constitution was born.

Essay on Peace

500 words essay peace.

Peace is the path we take for bringing growth and prosperity to society. If we do not have peace and harmony, achieving political strength, economic stability and cultural growth will be impossible. Moreover, before we transmit the notion of peace to others, it is vital for us to possess peace within. It is not a certain individual’s responsibility to maintain peace but everyone’s duty. Thus, an essay on peace will throw some light on the same topic.

Importance of Peace

History has been proof of the thousands of war which have taken place in all periods at different levels between nations. Thus, we learned that peace played an important role in ending these wars or even preventing some of them.

In fact, if you take a look at all religious scriptures and ceremonies, you will realize that all of them teach peace. They mostly advocate eliminating war and maintaining harmony. In other words, all of them hold out a sacred commitment to peace.

It is after the thousands of destructive wars that humans realized the importance of peace. Earth needs peace in order to survive. This applies to every angle including wars, pollution , natural disasters and more.

When peace and harmony are maintained, things will continue to run smoothly without any delay. Moreover, it can be a saviour for many who do not wish to engage in any disrupting activities or more.

In other words, while war destroys and disrupts, peace builds and strengthens as well as restores. Moreover, peace is personal which helps us achieve security and tranquillity and avoid anxiety and chaos to make our lives better.

How to Maintain Peace

There are many ways in which we can maintain peace at different levels. To begin with humankind, it is essential to maintain equality, security and justice to maintain the political order of any nation.

Further, we must promote the advancement of technology and science which will ultimately benefit all of humankind and maintain the welfare of people. In addition, introducing a global economic system will help eliminate divergence, mistrust and regional imbalance.

It is also essential to encourage ethics that promote ecological prosperity and incorporate solutions to resolve the environmental crisis. This will in turn share success and fulfil the responsibility of individuals to end historical prejudices.

Similarly, we must also adopt a mental and spiritual ideology that embodies a helpful attitude to spread harmony. We must also recognize diversity and integration for expressing emotion to enhance our friendship with everyone from different cultures.

Finally, it must be everyone’s noble mission to promote peace by expressing its contribution to the long-lasting well-being factor of everyone’s lives. Thus, we must all try our level best to maintain peace and harmony.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Peace

To sum it up, peace is essential to control the evils which damage our society. It is obvious that we will keep facing crises on many levels but we can manage them better with the help of peace. Moreover, peace is vital for humankind to survive and strive for a better future.

FAQ of Essay on Peace

Question 1: What is the importance of peace?

Answer 1: Peace is the way that helps us prevent inequity and violence. It is no less than a golden ticket to enter a new and bright future for mankind. Moreover, everyone plays an essential role in this so that everybody can get a more equal and peaceful world.

Question 2: What exactly is peace?

Answer 2: Peace is a concept of societal friendship and harmony in which there is no hostility and violence. In social terms, we use it commonly to refer to a lack of conflict, such as war. Thus, it is freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essay on Importance of Peace

Students are often asked to write an essay on Importance of Peace in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Importance of Peace

The essence of peace.

Peace is a state of harmony, free from conflict and violence. It is crucial for the overall well-being of individuals, societies, and nations.

Peace and Individual Growth

Peace promotes individual growth. It allows people to focus on their goals, fostering creativity and innovation.

Peace in Society

In a peaceful society, people can live without fear. It encourages cooperation, leading to societal progress.

Peace and Nations

For nations, peace ensures stability and prosperity. It allows resources to be used for development rather than warfare.

250 Words Essay on Importance of Peace

Peace, often misconstrued as merely the absence of conflict, extends far beyond this simplistic definition. It is a complex, multifaceted concept, encompassing aspects such as social justice, economic equity, and political freedom. The importance of peace, therefore, is inextricably linked to the overall well-being of individuals and societies.

Peace as a Catalyst for Progress

Peace serves as a catalyst for societal progress. In peaceful conditions, individuals are better equipped to focus on activities that foster personal growth and societal advancement. Peace facilitates the creation of a conducive environment for innovation, creativity, and intellectual pursuits. It is the bedrock of thriving civilizations and the prerequisite for the evolution of society.

Peace and Social Cohesion

The role of peace in promoting social cohesion cannot be overstated. Peaceful societies are characterized by respect for diversity, mutual understanding, and tolerance. These elements are vital for fostering social cohesion, facilitating cooperation, and promoting harmonious coexistence among diverse groups.

Peace and Sustainable Development

Peace is integral to achieving sustainable development. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals underscore the importance of peace, justice, and strong institutions. Without peace, efforts towards sustainable development are likely to be undermined by conflict, instability, and social unrest.

In conclusion, peace is not merely desirable, but essential. It is the foundation upon which societies thrive, fostering progress, promoting social cohesion, and facilitating sustainable development. As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, the importance of peace becomes even more pronounced. It is our collective responsibility to promote and sustain peace for the betterment of humanity.

500 Words Essay on Importance of Peace

Introduction, the role of peace in individual development.

Peace plays a crucial role in individual development. It provides the conducive environment necessary for individuals to grow, learn, and reach their full potential. In a peaceful environment, individuals can focus on their personal development, exploring their interests, and cultivating their skills without the constant threat of violence or chaos. Peace, therefore, ensures the mental and emotional well-being of individuals, which is crucial for their overall growth.

Peace and Economic Prosperity

Economic prosperity and peace are intrinsically linked. Peaceful societies provide the stability necessary for economic activities to thrive. Businesses can plan for the long-term, invest in new ventures, and expand their operations without the fear of sudden disruption. Furthermore, peace promotes trade and international cooperation, which are vital for economic growth. Without peace, economic development is stunted, leading to poverty and a lower quality of life.

Peace as a Catalyst for Social Progress

Peace and environmental sustainability.

The importance of peace extends to environmental sustainability. In times of conflict, environmental conservation often takes a back seat, leading to environmental degradation. Peace allows societies to focus on sustainable practices, preserving natural resources, and combating climate change. Thus, peace is essential for the survival of our planet.

In conclusion, peace is not just the absence of conflict, but a condition that nurtures the holistic development of individuals and societies. It is the backbone of economic prosperity, social progress, and environmental sustainability. The pursuit of peace, therefore, should be a priority for all, as it is the foundation upon which a prosperous and sustainable future can be built. The importance of peace, as highlighted, underscores the need for individuals, communities, and nations to work tirelessly towards its establishment and preservation.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Search the United Nations

• Member States

Main Bodies

• Secretary-General
• Secretariat
• Emblem and Flag
• ICJ Statute
• Nobel Peace Prize
• Peace and Security
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Aid
• Sustainable Development and Climate
• International Law
• Global Issues
• Official Languages
• Observances
• Events and News
• Get Involved

Preparatory Years: UN Charter History

The UN Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by representatives of the 50 countries attending the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco. Poland, which was not represented, signed it later and became one of the UN's original 51 Member States. The concept of international peace and security in the UN Charter began to develop with the ideas expressed in the Atlantic Charter in August 1941. But two months earlier, in London, a Declaration spoke of the need for global cooperation. 

1941: The Declaration of St. James Palace

In June 1941, London was the home of nine exiled governments. The great British capital had already seen 22 months of war and in the bomb-marked city, air-raid sirens wailed all too frequently. Practically all Europe had fallen to the Axis and ships on the Atlantic, carrying vital supplies, sank with grim regularity. But in London itself and among the Allied governments and peoples, faith in ultimate victory remained unshaken. And, even more, people were looking beyond military victory to the postwar future. On 12 June 1941 the representatives of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa and of the exiled governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia and of General de Gaulle of France, met at the ancient St. James’ Palace and signed a declaration which stated, in part:

A watercolor painting of the Saint James Palace in London by Thomas H. Shepherd.

That the only true basis of enduring peace is the willing co-operation of free peoples in a world in which, relieved of the menace of aggression, all may enjoy economic and social security; and that it is their intention to work together, and with other free peoples, both in war and peace to this end.

1941: The Atlantic Charter

The origin of the Charter of the United Nations can be traced back to the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by which Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, made known “certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world”.  This document, in its eighth paragraph, incidentally referred to the future “establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security”. 

President Roosevelt (seated left) and Prime Minister Churchill chat on deck of HMS Prince of Wales following church services during the Atlantic Charter meeting. UN Photo

1942: The Declaration by United Nations

On 1 January 1942, twenty-six States at war with the Axis Powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), subscribed to the common programme of purposes and principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter in a document, which became known as the 'Declaration by United Nations'.

Twenty-one other States adhered to that Declaration at a later date.

The Declaration by United Nations contained the first official use of the term 'United Nations'. The name 'United Nations' was coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The Declaration by United Nations issued in Washington, DC, on 01 January 1942. UN Photo/VH

Three years later, when preparations were being made for the San Francisco Conference, only those states which had, by March 1945, declared war on Germany and Japan and subscribed to the United Nations Declaration, were invited to take part.

Original Signatories of the Declaration by United Nations

The original twenty-six signatories were:  the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, Union of South Africa, Yugoslavia

Subsequent Signatories

Subsequent adherents to the Declaration were (in order of signature): Mexico, Philippines, Ethiopia, Iraq, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Colombia, Liberia, France, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela, Uruguay, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon.

1943: Moscow and Teheran Conferences

From 18 October to 1 November 1943, a Conference was held in Moscow, with the participation of the United States, the United Kingdom, the USSR and China. At the conclusion of the Conference, the participating Governments adopted a Joint Four-Nation Declaration in which, inter alia, they “recognize[d] the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security”. For the first time, the idea of establishing an international organization to keep the peace after the end of World War II was thus expressly mentioned in an official document. Following this Declaration, the four States concerned appointed national committees of experts that separately worked on the drafting of a charter for the future organization (there were, however, earlier efforts in this direction in the United States, with the work of the Advisory Committee on Problems of Foreign Relations established on 27 December 1939, which was officially pursued by the State Department from 1942 until the Conference of Dumbarton Oaks, in 1944).

Premier Joseph Stalin (at left), President Roosevelt (center) and Prime Minister Churchill (at right) meeting at the Soviet embassy in Tehran, Iran to discuss military strategy on 28 November 1943. UN Photo

From 28 November to 1 December 1943, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill and the Premier of the USSR, Joseph Stalin, met at a conference in Tehran, where they again confirmed their common policy, notably expressing their determination that their nations “shall work together in war and in the peace that will follow”, recognizing “the supreme responsibility resting upon us and all the United Nations to make a peace which will command the goodwill of the overwhelming mass of the peoples of the world and banish the scourge and terror of war for many generations”. They further announced their intention to “seek the cooperation and active participation of all nations, large and small, whose peoples in heart and mind are dedicated, as are our own peoples, to the elimination of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance” within a “world family of Democratic Nations” (Declaration of the Three Powers, Tehran, 1 December 1943).

1945: Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta

From 21 August to 7 October 1944, representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom met separately with representatives of the USSR (21 August-28 September) and of China (29 September-7 October), at Dumbarton Oaks in the context of the “Washington Conversations on International Peace and Security Organization” (or Dumbarton Oaks Conference). The reports prepared at the national level by each Government following the Moscow Conference were exchanged at the Conference. A steering committee was entrusted with reaching agreement on the main substantive issues and a Joint Formulation Group drafted a text resulting from such negotiations in the form of a treaty. The final document prepared at the Conference, issued on 9 October 1944, became known as the “Proposals for the Establishment of a General International Organization”, which constituted the initial working document at the San Francisco Conference, in 1945.

Representatives of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States meeting in the opening session of the Conference on Security Organization for Peace in the Post-War World at the Dumbarton Oaks Estate in Washington, DC, on 21 August 1944. UN Photo

Negotiations on the future international organization continued at the Yalta Conference, attended by President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill and Premier Stalin, from 4 to 11 February 1945. The Protocol of Proceedings of this Conference included a section devoted to the “World Organization”, which contained, inter alia, the decision of summoning a “United Nations conference on the proposed world organization” in the United States on 25 April 1945. This document specified the nations to be invited to the conference, as well as the text of the invitation to be issued.

Further support to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals was expressed at the Conference of the American Republics, held at Mexico City from 2 February to 8 March 1945.

One important gap in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals had yet to be filled: the voting procedure in the Security Council. This was done at Yalta in the Crimea where Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, together with their foreign ministers and chiefs of staff, met in conference. On February 11, 1945, the conference summoned the San Francisco Conference.

“We are resolved,” the three leaders declared, “upon the earliest possible establishment with our Allies of a general international organization to maintain peace and security… “We have agreed that a Conference of United Nations should be called to meet at San Francisco in the United States on the 25th April, 1945, to prepare the charter of such an organization, along the lines proposed in the formal conversations of Dumbarton Oaks.”

Invitations

The invitations were sent out on March 5, 1945, and those invited were told at the same time about the agreement reached at Yalta on the voting procedure in the Security Council.

The Death of President Roosevelt

Soon after, on 12 April 1945, came the sudden death of President Roosevelt, to whose statesmanship the plans for the San Francisco Conference owed so much. There was fear for a time that the conference might have to be postponed, but President Truman decided to carry out all the arrangements already made, and the conference opened on the appointed date.

• Quotes from key meetings and documents that led to the UN Charter - available at UN Pulse - Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• Yearbook of the United Nations  - The Dumbarton Oaks Conversations

Interview with Joseph Johnson - Chief of the International Affairs Division of the United States State Department in 1943.

While serving in this position, Mr. Johnson played a role in the creation of the United Nations, attending both the Dumbarton Oaks Conference (1944) and the San Francisco Conference (1945). In this interview Mr. Johnson recalls his experience at the UN. He elaborates on his participation at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, the San Francisco Conference and touches upon his role as a special envoy for the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine in 1961.

History of the United Nations

• The San Francisco Conference
• Preparatory Years: UN Charter History
• Predecessor: The League of Nations
• United Nations Emblem and Flag
• General Assembly
• Security Council
• Economic and Social Council
• Trusteeship Council
• International Court of Justice

Departments / Offices

• UN System Directory
• UN System Chart
• Global Leadership
• UN Information Centres

Resources / Services

• Emergency information
• Reporting Wrongdoing
• Guidelines for gender-inclusive language
• UN iLibrary
• UN Chronicle
• UN Yearbook
• Publications for sale
• Media Accreditation
• NGO accreditation at ECOSOC
• NGO accreditation at DGC
• Visitors’ services
• Procurement
• Internships
• Academic Impact
• UN Archives
• UN Audiovisual Library
• How to donate to the UN system
• Information on COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
• Africa Renewal
• Ten ways the UN makes a difference
• High-level summits 2023

Key Documents

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Statute of the International Court of Justice
• Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization

News and Media

• Press Releases
• Spokesperson
• Social Media
• The Essential UN
• Awake at Night podcast

Issues / Campaigns

• Sustainable Development Goals
• Our Common Agenda
• The Summit of the Future
• Climate Action
• UN and Sustainability
• Action for Peacekeeping (A4P)
• Global Ceasefire
• Global Crisis Response Group
• Call to Action for Human Rights
• Disability Inclusion Strategy
• Fight Racism
• Hate Speech
• LGBTIQ+ People
• Safety of Journalists
• Rule of Law
• Action to Counter Terrorism
• Victims of Terrorism
• Children and Armed Conflict
• Violence Against Children (SRSG)
• Sexual Violence in Conflict
• Refugees and Migrants
• Action Agenda on Internal Displacement
• Spotlight Initiative
• Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
• Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
• The Rwanda Genocide
• The Holocaust
• The Question of Palestine
• The Transatlantic Slave Trade
• Decolonization
• Messengers of Peace
• Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
• Digital Financing Task Force
• Data Strategy
• Information Integrity
• Countering Disinformation
• UN75: 2020 and Beyond
• Women Rise for All
• Stop the Red Sea Catastrophe
• Black Sea Grain Initiative Joint Coordination Centre

Request an Essay

Follow class ace :.

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Events

Peace and Conflict Diplomacy in a Turbulent World

Date:  Thursday, June 10, 2021  /   Time:  9:00am - 10:30am EDT

The practice of peace and conflict diplomacy — or the activities that states, international organizations and civil society employ to make peace and manage conflict — is increasingly challenged. The emergence of China and resurgence of Russia have shifted the rules of the game, creating risks of major power confrontation and competition over accepted international norms such as respect for human rights, state sovereignty and principled international engagement. Meanwhile, transnational threats such as the proliferation of violent extremism, cyberwarfare and climate-induced mass migration have introduced conflicts far different from those diplomats have encountered in the past.

These forces — together with growing waves of populism and Western isolationism after a series of failed foreign interventions — have eroded faith in the efficacy of diplomatic engagement and broken down the consensus on the merits of peace and conflict diplomacy. Can peace and conflict diplomacy survive in this discordant international environment?

A newly released edited volume, “Diplomacy and the Future of World Order,” offers answers to this question. Featuring essays from 19 scholars, the book explores the prospects for discord or collaboration around major security issues and considers how diverse strains of diplomacy may impact the foundation for global peacemaking and conflict management in an uncertain future.

On June 10, USIP hosted a conversation with several of the book’s leading authors and other experts on the project’s findings and its implications for the practice of peace and conflict diplomacy. Panelists debated how to adapt our diplomatic strategies to shape a more effective, agile and inclusive system of international cooperation, as well as considered how to make room for diverse voices — including regional organizations and civil society — while maintaining a sense of unity and common purpose.

Continue the conversation on Twitter with #Diplomacy4Tomorrow .

Lise Grande, welcoming remarks President and CEO, U.S. Institute of Peace

Dr. Chester Crocker, introductory remarks James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, Georgetown University

Ambassador George Moose, moderator Vice Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace

Ambassador Barbara Bodine Director, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy; Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy, Georgetown University

Ambassador Jean-Marie Guéhenno Distinguished Fellow, Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution

Dr. Fen Hampson Chancellor’s Professor, Carleton University; President, World Refugee and Migration Council

Dr. See Seng Tan Professor of International Relations, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies

Dr. Solomon Dersso Founding Director, Amani Africa; Chairperson, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights

Pamela Aall, closing remarks Senior Advisor, Conflict Prevention and Management, U.S. Institute of Peace

Related Publications

After Trading Prisoners with Russia: Can the World Negotiate with Putin?

Thursday, August 8, 2024

By: Donald N. Jensen, Ph.D. ;  Iuliia Osmolovska

Last week’s prisoner exchange with Russia — the largest since the Cold War, with 24 captives exchanged among seven countries — sparked hopes internationally that, just maybe, similarly determined diplomacy might help thaw the frigid relations between Russia and the West and open space for a negotiated end to Russia’s aggressions abroad. Unfortunately, the prisoner deal’s underlying message is that Vladimir Putin’s regime uses negotiations only when it sees the outcome, as it did last week, as a victory at the expense of its perceived enemies. The deal illustrates the narrowness of opportunity for any negotiated solution to settle the sides’ differences.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

China’s Global Security Initiative: Tilting the Balance in Central Asia

Wednesday, August 7, 2024

By: Abbos Bobokhonov

In recent years, Beijing has been reevaluating its conceptual framework for foreign policy, with a focus on enhancing its role in global governance. With the aim of transforming China into the world's leading country, Chinese leader Xi Jinping has put forward a number of new initiatives — including the Global Security Initiative (GSI) — as a way of creating new formats of cooperation between China and the countries of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Global South.

Economics ;  Global Policy

How America’s Trade Program with Africa Bolsters Security and Peace

Thursday, August 1, 2024

By: Thomas P. Sheehy

America’s security and global influence in this 21st century will be significantly impacted by the world’s fastest-growing and changing region: Africa. A bipartisan consensus among U.S. foreign policy leaders is pressing the United States to intensify its engagements across the continent to counter rising violence and instability that is often rooted in poor governance and unmet human needs. Yet next year, America risks losing a powerful, cost-effective tool for building U.S.-African partnership, peace and prosperity. Last week, a gathering at USIP of African and U.S. business and policy leaders sharpened and bolstered critical arguments for renewing and enhancing this vital instrument: the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).

As Moldova Nears an Election, Russia Exploits an Unhealed Ethnic Rift

By: Elizabeth June;   James Rupert

In 2024, Russia’s hybrid war on Europe is notably targeting tiny Moldova, which, like Ukraine, is struggling for full independence from centuries of domination by Moscow. Specifically, Vladimir Putin’s government is campaigning to scuttle Moldova’s decision to join the European Union — and one strategy is to sustain opposition by the country’s minority Gagauz community. In just 11 weeks, Moldovans will vote whether to re-elect their pro-Europe president and ratify her government’s European choice. The Kremlin is sponsoring an opposition campaign that appears certain to lose those votes; Moscow may try instead to undermine the elections’ credibility, partly through political manipulation among the Gagauz.