Conflict, Peace, and Security

Introduction
Major armed conflicts occurred in fifteen locations around the world in the year 2000.¹ In that same year, governments spent approximately $800 billion on military expenses, about $130 per human being, and employed over twenty million soldiers.² Wars killed more than 29,000 people in the year 2000.³ Although most efforts to stop war focus on various types of weapon technology, international cooperation, military alliances, and the elimination of terrorism, war also has major environmental impacts, threatening the survival of current ecosystems and increasing the flow of environmental refugees.

Verification and the Chemical Weapons Convention
Under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), most countries have agreed to destroy and stop any production of all chemical weapons by 2007.⁵ The CWC is the first globally verifiable multilateral disarmament treaty. It includes an unusually strong verification procedure, allowing an individual country to call for a “challenge inspection,” on short notice, of suspected plants in any other country. No call for inspection by the United Nations is needed to activate inspections under the CWC. Since the entry into force of the CWC in 1997, there have been more than 1,300 inspections in more than fifty countries.⁶

In comparison, the verification systems of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BWC) have failed. The definitions of banned materials are not precise. Inspections cannot be activated by a single nation, but rather must be approved by the United Nations Security Council.⁷ The BWC illustrates how critical verification details are to international agreements. Most arms control agreements have had less success than the Chemical Weapons Convention, but more success than the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention.

Nuclear Weapons Test Bans
The testing of nuclear weapons above ground and underwater was drastically reduced after the passage of the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), but the attempt to implement a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to ban underground nuclear explosions has stalled, as India has rejected the Treaty and the United States (US) Congress has failed to ratify it.⁸ France, India, and Pakistan have tested nuclear explosions since the CTBT was negotiated in 1996, and Russia and the US are conducting controversial “subcritical” nuclear tests that do not fall under the CTBT’s ban.⁹

Non-Proliferation
In an effort to stop the proliferation of various nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, countries that already possess these weapons are implementing non-proliferation strategies in order to prevent the development of weapons of mass destruction by nations that do not already possess them. By signing the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), all the nations of the world except three (India, Pakistan, and Israel) have committed to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to new countries. Nations that already possess nuclear weapons have pledged not to sell or give these weapons to other countries. In addition, nations that do not already possess nuclear weapons have pledged not to develop them. On occasion, nations have unilaterally given up entire classes of weapons, such as the decision by Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine to allow Russia to remove all the nuclear weapons left in those countries after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Nuclear Weapon Arsenals and Deployment
Russia and the United States have reduced their nuclear weapon stockpiles through the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Russia and the United States negotiated a START II Treaty to further reduce their nuclear weapons stock, but rapid changes in Russian economics and politics, and Russian opposition to the US pursuit of an anti-ballistic missile defense, prevented approval of the treaty by the Russian legislature. In lieu of this agreement, Russia and the US have signed (2002) a new treaty to reduce deployment of nuclear weapons by two-thirds, though the warheads removed from deployment may be placed in storage, rather than destroyed.

Missiles
Several countries have defensive anti-missile systems that function to defend limited areas from short-range missiles. In 1983 the United States announced its intention to build a national missile defense system that would protect the entire country from all incoming missiles. In 2001 the United States announced that it would withdraw from its 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with Russia—a treaty that had prohibited the development of a national missile defense system. By 2002 the US had spent approximately $70 billion on the research and testing of a national missile defense system that remains years away from deployment.

By participating in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), thirty-three nations restrict their exports of ballistic missile technology to other countries.¹⁰ The United States places sanctions on any country that violates the MTCR. The Regime is a project that has been coordinated by the United States and cannot technically be classified as an international treaty. A variety of efforts, including international treaties, multilateral regimes, technical conferences, and United Nations committees (e. g., the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism), are all used to regulate the growth of weapon stockpiles and weapons technology.

Conventional Weapons
Limits on conventional weapons are often negotiated in treaties between two nations and, on occasion, through multi-national treaties as well. A leading example of the latter is the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty (MBT), which has been ratified, acceded to, or approved by more than 130 nations. The MBT bans or regulates most types of land mines, which typically remain in the ground after military conflict, killing or injuring tens of thousands of civilians each year. The Treaty is also a leading example of the growing influence civil society is having on arms control agreements. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), founded in 1992, successfully enlisted the support of national governments for negotiations that led to a final treaty in just five years. In awarding ICBL and its founder its Peace Prize in 1997, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said that the movement “started a process which in the space of a few years changed a ban on anti-personnel mines from a vision to a feasible reality.”¹¹

Terrorism
The United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism was created in 1996 to supplement existing anti-terrorism treaties by drafting a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. As of early 2002, negotiations to precisely define the term “terrorism” were still underway. Depending on whether the definition includes only international incidents or all violent attacks intended to create terror, there are somewhere between a few hundred and several thousand terrorist acts in the world each year.¹²

Terrorism, as it is commonly defined, is more commonly practiced by armed groups rather than by governments. Most current wars are conflicts between governments and armed guerrilla groups using terrorist tactics, not direct conflicts between different countries. Since 1998 the US has bombed Sudan and invaded Afghanistan in attempts to eradicate terrorist groups. The terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, 2001, have accelerated domestic and international efforts to improve security procedures. International efforts to arrest terrorists and bomb their camps have changed diplomatic relationships, as countries like India and Israel seek to add terrorist movements in their countries to the global “War Against Terrorism.”

Attacks by terrorist groups can also lead to wider wars between nations. Israel’s attacks within its occupied territories have, to date, failed to stop an increasing level of terrorism by Palestinians. Tensions have been high between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir province, where Pakistani terrorists seek to drive India out of a majority-Muslim region. Military skirmishes between the two countries over this region are threatening to incite a larger, possibly nuclear, war between them.

NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) survived the Cold War as the world’s only major military alliance. NATO is an alliance of nineteen nations in North America and Europe that have pledged to “deter and defend against any threat of aggression” against one or more of the Treaty members.¹³ Since the decline of tensions between NATO and the Warsaw Pact (the alliance of the Soviet Union and several Eastern European nations, dissolved in 1991), NATO has redefined its mission through events such as the peace enforcement in Bosnia-Herzegovina and its invasion of Yugoslavia upon allegations of genocide in Yugoslavia’s Kosovo province.

United Nations
The United Nations Charter places “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” on the UN Security Council.¹⁴ Fifteen countries sit at any one time on the Security Council, and five of these countries—China, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France—have permanent seats. Charter resolutions require nine votes, including all five permanent member votes, to pass.

The post-World War II optimism that the Security Council could peacefully resolve international conflicts quickly faded with the Korean conflict and the decades-long stalemate of the Cold War. Since then, the United Nations has focused on peacekeeping missions, conducting fifty-three such missions to help conflicting forces end hostilities.¹⁵ A separate UN “peace-making” effort includes the facilitation of regional diplomacy in an effort to prevent various conflicts from arising in certain global regions. In the 1990s the United Nations also started establishing “peace-building” missions of election workers, police officers, mine-removal specialists, human rights observers, and other types of government assistants to help shattered nations address the root causes of their recent conflicts.

Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
Social movements have also joined governments and international organizations in an effort to resolve conflicts peacefully. The “peace movement” consists of thousands of international, national, and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) pursuing many different peace strategies. A leading effort of this social movement is the education of children and adults in many different countries on the various aspects of peace.

Peace education in US dates back to at least 1914, when women teachers of the American School Peace League published a popular curriculum for grade school children.¹⁶ “Peace Studies” grew into a more formalized academic field of inquiry following World War II. By the 1970s several universities on different continents had established degree programs in various aspects of peace study. For example, in Great Britain, the University of Bradford Department of Peace Studies has categorized its research topics into nine areas: conflict resolution, conflict prevention and regional security, dynamics of conflict, governance and security, international governance and security, foreign and security policy, peace and social change, democracy and participation, and peacebuilding in war-torn societies.¹⁷ Since then, Peace Studies has become an interdisciplinary field that incorporates political science, psychology, sociology, economics, and development studies. Scholars in this field provide research on diverse topics in an effort to support the work of diplomats and policy makers.¹⁸

In comparison with peace studies, conflict resolution is a more specialized, interdisciplinary field that has grown rapidly since the 1980s. Innovative methods of negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and other forms of communication are being taught in graduate programs devoted to many different areas, from family therapy to international diplomacy. Diplomats are helping disputing parties develop small projects that build trust in an attempt to assist with the negotiation of larger resolution packages.

Religious differences are widely recognized as one of the factors that can cause violent conflict, though many international relations theorists point to national ideology, competition for natural resources, desire for increased security, and class struggle as more important causes of wars, at least since the seventeenth century. In the twentieth century, many religious leaders and activists became mediators, monitors, and activists in efforts to prevent and halt various wars. Religious organizations have the independence and institutional capacities to fill unique roles in conflict resolution. For example, religious bodies are generally trusted to speak truthfully by warring populations, they can often mobilize international support for a peace settlement, and they continue to monitor human rights conditions and compliance with settlements in many countries.¹⁹

Feminist scholars have made major contributions to both peace studies and conflict resolution. In peace studies, scholars have examined the manner in which gender and oppression influence various types of conflict and war. Conflicts are better understood and better prevented when the role of gender is studied in such disparate settings as the gendered language used to describe military maneuvers, the sexual harassment prevalent in military barracks, and the cross-cultural commonality of mass rape as a war crime.

In conflict resolution, feminist analysis seeks to help disputing groups overcome impasses by considering how their relationships with third parties affect their positions. US management scholar Karen Proudford speaks of the “visibility” and “invisibility” of different relationships of third parties. She outlines how “the two parties engaged in an interaction can learn more about their own intentions, interests, and actions by considering the role of the in/visible third.”²⁰

Production and Testing of Nuclear Weapons
There have been more than 2,000 nuclear test explosions conducted by China, France, India, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States since 1945. More than 500 of these detonations were above ground or underwater. Nuclear tests conducted above ground create more dangerous radioactive fallout than underground explosions.²² The US government has estimated that the Nevada nuclear tests of the 1950s and 1960s have caused more than 10,000 fatal cases of human cancer.²³ The atmospheric release of radioactive materials is a matter of great international concern because it cannot be confined to a particular country. Air currents pick up the materials and can deposit high levels of radioactive fallout hundreds of miles away from the original release area. The release of atmospheric radiation is not simply confined to nuclear explosions. In the former Soviet Union, the amount of atmospheric radiation released during the production of nuclear weapons greatly exceeded the atmospheric radiation released during the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion.²⁴

Bombing of Infrastructure
In addition to the direct elimination of plants and animals, bombs create long-term environmental damage through the destruction of human infrastructure. Pollution increases dramatically when the infrastructure built to protect the environment—such as sewage treatment plants and the roads needed to transport waste—are destroyed through various war-related methods.

Industrial facilities are also prime war targets. Many of these targets are chemical- or petroleum-based factories and the bombing of these facilities have a strong negative impact on the environment. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Balkans Task Force, charged with responding quickly to the environmental effects of the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, identified four “hot spots” requiring immediate action. These “hot spots” included:

1. Toxins such as mercury and other dangerous chemicals that had spilt into a canal, threatening the Danube River
2. PCB and dioxin releases at the Kragujevac auto factory
3. Possible drinking water contamination at the Novi Sad oil refinery
4. The ongoing release of sulfur dioxide gas at the Bor ore smelting complex.²⁵

Land Mines and Buried Ordnance
Even after a war has ended, continued human and environmental destruction can occur through chemical or other toxic releases, as well as the accidental detonation of land mines buried during wartime. This often increases human and environmental casualty rates from war related events. In addition, the restoration of ecosystems after the use of war tactics such as bombing and the application of herbicides is often hampered by the grave danger of land mines. In order to restore ecosystems after conflicts, land mines must be removed before any significant environmental clean-up can occur.²⁶ In the US alone, unexploded ordnance contaminates about 1,500 military sites.²⁷ In some of these sites, such as the Camp Edwards military base on Cape Cod in Massachusetts, unexploded ordnance allows toxic explosives and heavy metals to continuously leach into the ground, threatening the drinking water of thousands of people in nearby areas.

Military Chemicals
Chemical releases by the military also include the direct applications of herbicides to eliminate various types of vegetation. The two most notable examples have been the US spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam and Laos in an effort to eliminate vegetation utilized as cover by opposing forces, and the US/Columbia effort to eradicate illegal drug crops funding Colombian guerillas through the mass aerial spraying of the herbicide Roundup. Other forms of military chemical tactics have also been used. Mustard gas, nerve gases, and other chemical weapons tailored to kill humans were used by the major combatants in World War I (1914–1918), by the Italians against Ethiopia (1935–1936), the Japanese against China (1938–1942), the Yemeni civil war (1967), and by Iraq against Iran and the Kurds of northern Iraq (1980–1988).²⁸

Recently political scientists have broadened the concept of “security” to consider how war, poverty, and environmental degradation threaten the security of individuals and their communities. This broader definition of “security” changes the focus of security studies from national military policy to protecting individual human rights. US military scholar Gregory D. Foster and international development director Louise B. Wise suggest, “The alternative is to construe security as something quite more than mere defense—the narrow domain of military affairs—and draw a filial link between individual security and national, regional, and global security, making it more difficult to dismiss circumstances that seem only to affect individual health, safety, and well-being as somehow unrelated to larger security concerns.”³⁰

By incorporating the new perspective on “security” with the original study of “environmental security,” the links between issues of war and the environment become clearer. Environmental stress can help lead to war, which creates additional stresses on the environment. This cycle threatens the security of individuals, communities, and national governments, as well as local, national, regional, and even global ecosystems. The study of “environmental security” may lead to more integrated efforts to promote both peace and environmental sustainability. ³¹

Environmental Refugees
A leading issue in environmental security is work to prevent the creation of “environmental refugees.” Severe environmental degradation can displace people from their homes, creating “environmental refugees” in a very similar manner as war creates “refugees.” “Environmental refugees” are defined as “persons displaced from their homes and homelands by degraded environmental conditions.”³² The common definition of the original term “refugee” is also becoming broader, and is now understood to include all people displaced from their homes by war, political oppression, economic need, or environmental destruction.

Environmental refugees are not included in the older definition of political “refugee” as adopted in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and thus environmental refugees are not included in most statistics of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

As of the end of 1999, UNHCR reported that there were more than twenty-two million political refugees.³³ As of 1999, the largest communities of political refugees were those fleeing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Burundi. Each of these refugee groups numbered more than 500,000.

British biologist Norman Myers estimates that between ten and twenty-five million environmental refugees currently have been displaced from their homes due primarily to desertification in Africa, large-scale development projects (e. g., large dams) in China, and natural disasters (such as hurricanes in Central America). The number of environmental refugees is likely to increase along with the increasing effects of global climate change. Many major coastal cities already suffer from the subsidence of coastal land due to aquifer depletion. Myers estimates that if global climate change causes a thirty-centimeter (one-foot) rise in sea level by 2050, the increased sea rise and the devastating effects of subsidence will create an additional 150 million environmental refugees from various island and coastal cities (e. g., Shanghai, Manila, Jakarta, Bangkok, Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Karachi, Lagos, Rio de Janeiro, and Buenos Aires).³⁴

Reports of an “international crisis” no longer solely refer to impending war. Many aspects of environmental degradation are now “international crises” as well, driving people from their homes just as war does. Increasingly, diplomats working to create peace and security must consider not only military and economic factors, but also the issues of oppression, poverty, and sustainable development that can lead to war, or that can facilitate peace.

Predictions about the future of conflict vary widely. Some political scientists believe that the US, with economic and military strength far exceeding any other country, will be able to instill a worldwide “Pax Americana” through the twenty-first century, similar to the “Pax Romana” period under the Roman Empire when there was little international conflict in the area controlled by the Romans. Others argue that the economic and military power of the US could be successfully challenged in this century, possibly by China, by the outrage of the world’s poorest peoples, or by the growing network of militant, terrorist-oriented fundamentalist groups located throughout the world.

Within the field of peace studies and conflict resolution, scholars are exploring how improved dialogue, negotiation, and international organization can strengthen peace-making efforts. Refinements in the conduct of multistakeholder dialogues can help governments and civil society find consensus on complex problems. Noting the self-interested nature of governments throughout history, US dispute resolution scholar Lawrence Susskind proposes innovative ways to increase compliance with international treaties, such as the posting of bond money by national governments which is then slowly recovered by each government as long as it continues to follow the treaty.³⁵ Scholars in fields from economics to religion have debated the connections between economic systems, cultural attitudes, and the tendency to choose war over negotiation and compromise.

Increasingly, war causes severe environmental damage, and severe environmental damage can lead to the instigation of additional war responses. Connections are growing between work to achieve peace and protect natural ecosystems and human health. The scope of the environmental and political challenges humans face are unprecedented. The human desire for peace has not yet succeeded, but the imperative of maintaining a sustainable environment could be the needed impetus to follow a new path.

Additional Information
For additional information on conflict, peace, and security, consider consulting our Conflict, Peace, and Security Links section.

Endnotes
1 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), SIPRI Yearbook 2001, updated n.d., http://projects.sipri.se/conflictstudy/Publications.html (cited 21 February 2002) 16. For the purposes of its statistic, SIPRI defines a “major armed conflict” in the year 2000 as “the use of armed force between two or more organized armed groups, resulting in the battle-related deaths of at least 1,000 people in any single year and in which the incompatability concerns control of government, territory or communal identity” and which in the year 2000 in particular “caused over 100 deaths.” The fifteen conflict locations consisted of (in approximate order of the estimated number killed) Russia (Chechnya), Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, India/Pakistan (Kashmir), the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Philippines, Angola, Eritrea/Ethiopia, Algeria, Colombia, Sudan, Burundi, Israel, Indonesia, and Sierra Leone.
Return to text

2 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Recent Trends in Military Expenditure,” updated n.d., http://projects.sipri.se/milex/mex_trends.html (cited 21 February 2002); Bureau of Verification and Compliance, U.S. Department of State, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1998, updated 2000, http://www.fas.org/man/docs/wmeat98/ (cited 21 February 2002).
Return to text

3 SIPRI, SIPRI Yearbook 2001. The casualty total of at least 29,000 was compiled from Appendix I. A.
Return to text

4 Michael Renner, “How to Abolish War,” Humanist 59, no. 4 (July/August 1999): 15–21. “Expanding bullets” flatten or disintegrate when entering skin, thus causing more severe wounds. Two further Hague International Peace Conferences have been held in 1907 and 1999.
Return to text

5 One hundred and forty-five nations have ratified or acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The forty-seven member countries of the United Nations that have not done so, as of December 31, 2001, are (in order of population) Egypt, Thailand, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Madagascar, Guatemala, Cambodia, Angola, Dominican Republic, Chad, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Sierra Leone, Libya, Kyrgyzstan, Central African Republic, Liberia, Republic of the Congo, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bhutan, Guinea-Bissau, Comoros, Solomon Islands, Djibouti, Cape Verde, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Vanuatu, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tonga, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Palau, and Tuvalu.
Return to text

6 Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, “Instant Briefing,” updated 2003, http://www.opcw.org/ib(cited 16 April 2003).
Return to text

7 Jonathan B. Tucker, “Putting Teeth in the Biological Weapons Convention,” Issues in Science & Technology 18, no. 3 (Spring 2002): 71–76.
Return to text

8 In order to become legally binding, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) must be ratified by all forty-four nations that possessed nuclear power or research reactors when the treaty was signed at the Conference on Disarmament in 1996. The thirty-one nations that have ratified the treaty are (in order of population): Brazil, Russia, Bangladesh, Japan, Mexico, Germany, Turkey, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Ukraine, South Korea, South Africa, Spain, Poland, Argentina, Canada, Peru, Romania, Australia, Netherlands, Chile, Belgium, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Slovakia, Finland, and Norway. The thirteen nations that have not ratified the treaty include: China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Viet Nam, Egypt, Iran, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Colombia, Algeria, North Korea, and Israel.
Return to text

9 Subcritical nuclear tests use “chemical high explosives to generate high pressures that are applied to nuclear weapon materials, such as plutonium . . . . They are called ‘subcritical’ because there will be no critical mass formed, i. e., no self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction will occur.” United States Department of Energy, Nevada Test Site, “U1a Complex: Subcritical Experiments,” fact sheet (March 2001), http://www.nv.doe.gov/news&pubs/dirpdfs/DOENV708_U1a.pdf (cited 9 July 2002).
Return to text

10 The thirty-three participating countries in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) are (in order of population): the United States, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Germany, Turkey, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Ukraine, South Korea, South Africa, Spain, Poland, Argentina, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Greece, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Hungary, Portugal, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Iceland. According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Non-Proliferation Project, twenty-five countries not participating in the MTCR possess ballistic missiles: China (both mainland China and Taiwan), India, Pakistan, Viet Nam, Egypt, Iran, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Yemen, Kazakhstan, Syria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Israel, Slovakia, Libya, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Armenia, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Non-Proliferation Project, “World Missile Chart,” updated 25 February 2002, http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/ballisticmissilechart.htm(cited 2 May 2002).
Return to text

11 The Norwegian Nobel Committee, “The Nobel Peace Prize 1997,” press release, updated 17 October 2002, http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1997/press.html (cited 17 March 2003).
Return to text

12 Jessica Stern, The Ultimate Terrorists (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999) 6.
Return to text

13 North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “A Short Introduction to the Alliance and Its Main Policies: The Fundamental Role of NATO,” updated n.d., http://www.nato.int (cited 7 March 2002). The nineteen member countries of NATO are (in order of population) the United States, Germany, Turkey, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Canada, Netherlands, Greece, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Hungary, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, and Iceland.
Return to text

14 Charter of the United Nations, Article 24, updated n.d., http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter (cited 7 March 2002).
Return to text

15 United Nations, “United Nations Peacekeeping: Preface,” updated 2002, http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/intro/intro.htm(cited 7 March 2002).
Return to text

16 Susan Zeiger, “Teaching Peace: Lessons from a Peace Studies Curriculum of the Progressive Era,” Peace & Change 25, no. 1 (January 2000): 52–69.
Return to text

17 University of Bradford Department of Peace Studies, Peace and Conflict Research at Bradford: Annual Report 2001, updated n.d., http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/peace/nletter/ARR_01.pdf (cited 28 May 2002) 1, 4–8.
Return to text

18 For example, US peace-studies scholar co-founded Global Education Associates to support peace studies education in conjunction with a variety of other human rights, environmental, and development efforts.
Return to text

20 Karen L. Proudford, “Viewing Dyads in Triadic Terms: Toward a Conceptualization of the In/Visible Third in Relationships Across Difference,” Center for Gender in Organizations Working Paper No. 16 (February 2003): 22.
Return to text

21 Jennifer Leaning, “Environment and Health: 5. Impact of War,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 163, no. 9 (31 October 2000): 1157–61, http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/163/9/1157 (cited 4 March 2002).
Return to text

22 Douglas Holdstock, “Nuclear Weapons, A Continuing Threat to Health,” The Lancet 355, no. 9214 (29 April 2000): 1544–47.
Return to text

23 Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute, “Progress Report: A Feasibility Study of the Health Consequences to the American Population of Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations” updated 2002, http://www.senate.gov/~harkin/specials/fallout-report/progress-report.pdf(cited 4 March 2002).
Return to text

24 Don J. Bradley, Clyde W. Frank, and Yevgeny Mikerin, “Nuclear Contamination from Weapons Complexes in the Former Soviet Union and the United States,” Physics Today 49, no. 4 (April 1996): 40–45. Bradley and Frank estimate that, through weapons manufacturing and testing, 1.7 billion curies of radiation have been released in the former Soviet Union and 3 million curies of radiation have been released in the United States, though much of the radiation is found in lakes and is not yet airborne. In comparison, the Chernobyl nuclear accident released approximately 50 million curies of radiation. A curie is a quantity of radioactivity; Bradley et al. write, “Human exposure to radioactive sources at a level of tens of curies can result in significantly harmful effects” (p. 40). Murray Feshbach and Alfred Friendly, Ecocide in the U.S.S.R. (New York: Basic Books, 1992), cited in Peter Szyszlo, “Chernobyl in Slow Motion: Radioactive Mismanagement in the Soviet Union—Part I,” Central Europe Review 1 (8 November 1999), updated n.d., http://www.ce-review.org/99/20/szyszlo20.html(cited 4 March 2002).
Return to text

25 United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment and Human Settlements, updated 1999, http://www.grid.unep.ch/btf/final/finalreport.pdf (cited 5 March 2002).
Return to text

26 Fifteen to twenty thousand people, from at least seventy countries, are killed or injured by land mines each year. Hundreds of millions of dollars per year are spent on land mine removal. International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Landmine Monitor Report 2001, updated 2001, http://www.icbl.org/lm/2001/ (cited 6 March 2002).
Return to text

27 Center for Public Environmental Oversight, “Military: Unexploded Ordnance,” updated n.d., http://www.cpeo.org/milit.html(cited 28 May 2002).
Return to text

28 Gert G. Harigel, “Chemical and Biological Weapons: Use in Warfare, Impact on Society and Environment,” report, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Non-Proliferation Project, http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/Harigelreport.asp?p=8&PublicationID=630 (cited 9 July 2002).
Return to text

29 Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases,” International Security 19, no. 1 (Summer 1994): 5–40, updated n.d., http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/evidence/evid1.htm(cited 28 May 2002).
Return to text

30 Gregory D. Foster and Louise B. Wise, “Sustainable Security,” Harvard International Review 21, no. 4 (Fall 1999): 20–23.
Return to text

31 Karen T. Litfin, “Constructing Environmental Security and Ecological Interdependence,” Global Governance 5, no. 3 (July-September 1999): 359–77.
Return to text

32 Foster and Wise, 22.
Return to text

33 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Refugees and Others of Concern to UNHCR: 1999 Statistical Overview, updated 2000, http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=STATISTICS&id=3ae6bc834&page=statistics (cited 7 March 2002).
Return to text

34 Norman Myers, “Environmental Refugees in a Globally Warmed World,” Bioscience 43, no. 11 (December 1993): 752–61.
Return to text

35 Lawrence E. Susskind, Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effective Global Agreements (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) 99–121.
Return to text