Social psychology and peace: An introductory overview

This paper begins by giving an overview of why and in which ways social psychological research can be relevant to peace. Galtung's (1969) distinction between negative peace (the absence of direct violence) and positive peace (the absence of structural violence, or the presence of social justice) is crossed with a focus on factors that are detrimental (obstacles) to peace versus factors that are conducive to peace (catalysts), yielding a two-by-two classification of social psychological contributions to peace, Research falling into these four classes is cited in brief, with a particular focus on four exemplary topics: support for military interventions as an obstacle to negative peace; antiwar activism as a catalyst of negative peace; ideologies legitimizing social inequality as an obstacle to positive peace; and commitment to human rights as a catalyst of positive peace. Based on this conceptual framework, the remaining six articles of the special issue

Streetwise Provocations: The Global Justice Movement's take on sustainable development

An examination of the role of the global justice movement in advancing core elements of the sustainable development agenda.

Recognition and Redistribution in Theories of Justice Beyond the State

We consider here how cultural and socioeconomic dimensions of justice beyond the state are related. First we examine cosmopolitan theories that have drawn on John Rawls's egalitarian liberal framework to argue that a just global order requires substantive, transnational redistribution of material resources. We then assess the view, ironically put forward by Rawls himself, that this perspective is ethnocentric and insufficiently tolerant of non-liberal cultures. We argue that Rawls is right to be concerned about the danger of ethnocentrism, but wrong to assume that this requires us to reject the case for substantive redistribution across state boundaries. A more compelling account of justice beyond the state will integrate effectively socioeconomic and cultural aspects of justice. We suggest that this approach is best grounded in a critical theory of recognition that responds to the damage caused to human relations by legacies of historical injustice.