Concept of Peace in Peace Studies: A Short Historical Sketch

Prof. Masatsugu MATSUO

Institute for Peace Science, Hiroshima University

Abstract
This paper attempts to trace the development of the concept of peace in peace studies, by an
examination of studies on the peace concept and definitions of peace by peace researchers, from
two perspectives of peace value and peace sphere. It shows that the concept of peace employed
in peace studies has been expanded both in peace value and peace sphere to include more than
one peace value and peace sphere.

Introduction
In the present paper, I would like to attempt, as it were, a “peace study” on “peace
discourse” or more precisely on “discourse on peace in peace studies.” As Johan
Galtung once argued, “an important task in peace research has always been and always
be the exploration of the concept of peace” (Galtung 1981: 183). In spite of Galtung’s
appeal, there seem to have been few studies on peace concept worthy of note1). The
present paper is intended to be a small step along the path proposed by Galtung.
What I attempt is to trace the development of the concept of peace employed in
peace studies since its birth around 1960. More specifically, I will examine how peace
has been conceptualized and defined in peace studies, and what concept of peace has
been employed, and then, on the basis of the examination, show that the concept of
peace has been expanded into a more complex concept both in its content and in its
scope. In the examination, two perspectives of peace value and peace sphere are
introduced and employed as key criteria to analyze the conceptualization of peace and
measure the complexity of the concept of peace.
In studies on peace concept or peace image, two facets of the concept of peace
have come to be distinguished, though not always explicitly. These are what are called
“peace value” and “peace sphere” (or sphere of peace). The distinction was first
explicitly proposed by Matsuo (1984) and Matsuo (1985), though several previous
studies hinted at the distinction. The former, “peace value,” refers to the content or
substance of peace. It can be viewed as the component of peace. In contrast, the latter,
“peace sphere,” which was, as we will see shortly below, proposed first by Johan

- 13 -
Galtung, refers to the logical or cognitive, and frequently the only, space where peace
exists, whatever the substance may be.
In the first section, I will examine the development of the concept of peace
from the perspective of peace value. In the second section, an examination in terms of
peace sphere will be conducted.

1 Peace Values
1.1 Peace Values: Studies on “Peace Image”
In the earlier days of peace studies, there were various studies on peace concept, though
the term “peace image” was more frequently used instead of “peace concept.” These
studies on “peace image,” perhaps pioneered by Peter Cooper and followed by Trond
Ålvik, Leif Rosell, Magnus Haavelsrud, J.A.E.A. Ehly, Glenn D. Hook and others,
concentrated on children’s image of peace2). To our concern here, they adopted a rather
specific assumption on the nature of peace concept. Most of them basically assumed
that the peace concept of any particular child falls into one and only one of the four or
five (or any number) of apparently discrete categories and never takes a complex
structure where two or more categories coexist. For example, Cooper classifies peace
images (actually, children’s responses or verbal associations to “peace”) into the four
categories; “inactivity,” “respite,” “sociable activity,” and “reconciliation” (Cooper
1965: 4). The peace image was assumed to be a variable which takes only one of any
finite number of values.
It is Takeshi Ishida who first adopted a multi-value approach in the study of
peace concepts (Ishida 1969). His study was clearly multivariate unlike those of Cooper
and others. In his study, peace concept has a complex structure and can theoretically
take more than one (peace) value at the same time. Needless to say, Ishida’s approach is
much nearer to the real nature of the peace image. From this, it is obvious that the peace
image of any culture or group should be regarded as consisting of possibly more than
one component and should be examined and described accordingly. It is true of
whatever human group it may be or even to an individual.
Ishida was probably also the first to attempt at the comparative study of peace
concepts upon this assumption. As is shown in Table 1 below, in the comparison of
peace concepts of various ancient civilizations, he first assumed that any peace concept

- 14 -
can be seen as a set of components of peace, “peace values” or “peace substances” in
our terminology. He implicitly demonstrated that any peace concept is not a whole
which cannot be analyzed, but a configuration of components or peace values, and that
each component is accorded different importance or emphasis depending upon a human
collectivity such as civilization, culture, nation, society and so forth. Table 1 shows the
summary of his comparison.

Table 1 Concept of Peace among Different Cultures

source: Ishida (1969), 135
will of God tranquility
prosperity order
justice of mind
Ancient Judaism Shâlôm
Greece Eirene
Rome Pax
China(Japan) ho p’ing/p’ing ho(heiwa)
India Šânti

The table compares the words of each civilization which correspond to the
English word “peace” and shows the peace values which are emphasized or fostered in
the civilization concerned. For example, in the ancient Judaism, “will of God or justice”
and “prosperity” were the most important elements of peace, though such elements as
“order” or “tranquility of mind” were not absent.
It seems that four or five peace values are sufficient to highlight the differences among
the civilizations compared here, but, needless to say, peace values are not limited to
these. For example, obviously the absence of war (and armed conflict) should be
included. And some peace students would argue for the inclusion of the preservation of
environment as one of the most important peace values in our world.3)
It is worth noting here that, though not very explicit, Ishida’s attempt contains a
differentiation of peace spheres as well. If we compare peace values in the table such as
prosperity and tranquility of mind, it is clear that the cognitive or perceptual space in
which (economic) prosperity exists and that in which tranquility of mind exists are
different. Prosperity is said of a state, society, or city, town and so on, while tranquility
of mind is usually of the individual. This difference in peace sphere will be taken up in
the next section.
In this way, the range of peace values has been extended by the addition of new

- 15 -
peace values to the earlier (single member) set of peace values. The same process can be
seen in the development of the peace concept (or the definition of peace) embraced in
peace studies.

1.2 Peace Values: Conceptualization of Peace in Peace Studies

In the early years of peace studies, it was assumed that peace is the opposite of war.
Peace was defined as the absence of war, partially because the early peace studies was
strongly motivated by the reflection on the tragedies of the Second World War and by a
sense of crisis of human survival caused by the danger of a total nuclear war between
the two superpowers (Matsuo 2005: 19). From our perspective, it can be said that the
peace concept at the time consisted of only one peace value, that is, the absence of war.
In retrospect and generally speaking, peace studies at the time had two tacit
assumptions about the concept of war which further narrowed down the narrow scope of
the single peace value, that is, the absence of war. First, “war” was implicitly assumed
to be fought by major powers or at least only by states .This assumption left two
important research areas almost completely out of consideration: developing countries
and local and internal conflicts (Matsuo 2005: 45-47). For instance, internal conflicts
were left completely out of consideration by the famous Correlates of War Project,
launched at the University of Michigan (Small and Singer 1985: 8). One recent
summary of the academic achievements of the project still maintains this narrow
definition of war (Geller and Singer 1998: 12). One consequence of this was the fact
that systematic studies on local and internal wars were virtually neglected until the
seminal works of Istvan Kende (1971, 1978) appeared in the 1970s.
Secondly, war was assumed to be symmetric, that is, fought by states or
alliances of states with roughly equal power. According to this assumption, the Vietnam
War and other guerilla warfare were obvious anomalies, in addition to the fact that these
involved non-state warring parties. For these reasons, the narrow definition of war
became less and less employed.
In the conceptualization of peace as the absence of war, if there is a war, there
is no peace, and if there is no war, there is peace, however war may be defined. Peace
and war are, as it were, in the “zero-sum” relationship. This formulation of the
relationship between peace and war soon came to be perceived as too narrow and

- 16 -
inflexible, because it did not allow of the possibility of a “grey zone.” Accordingly,
attempts were made by such researchers as Kenneth Boulding (Boulding 1978: 43) and
Geoffrey Darnton (Darnton 1973: 113) to extend the relationship a little, making it a
little closer to reality. Instead of the dichotomy, both Darnton and Boulding admitted of
the “gray zone” between peace and war. But, in spite of these attempts at modification,
the essence of the definition of peace as the absence of war remained the same, because,
even in these modified formulation, the degree of peace always depended on the degree
of war, in what way it may be determined.
A real change in the peace concept occurred around 1970. The concept of peace
embraced by peace studies underwent a radical change at that time. From 1945 to the
1960s, there were no major wars contrary to the fear of researchers, though there were
many local wars. But, on the other hand, the so-called “North-South problem” emerged,
or more precisely, came to be perceived, as an urgent issue facing the whole world. The
recognition of the North-South problem awakened peace studies to tragic and miserable
situations in developing countries manifested in famines, poverty, underdevelopment,
and gross human rights violations. It is against this background that many peace
researchers began to ask whether the absence of war really meant peace. The question
can, from our perspective, be rephrased into the question whether peace consists of only
one value or whether the absence of war is the only peace value4).
It was Sugata Dasgupta who first went far beyond the absence of war and
proposed a new concept of peace. He proposed the notion of “peacelessness,” which
refers to the situations, especially in developing countries, where, in spite of the absence
of war, human beings are suffering just as much from poverty, malnutrition, disease,
illiteracy, discrimination, oppression and so on, as from war (Dasgupta 1968).
It is obvious that, in Dasgupta’s conceptualization of peace, new peace values
such as economic prosperity (or rather its absence or lack) and physical health are
incorporated into the proposed concept of peace as necessary components or conditions
of peace. It was a clear break from the previous concept of peace with the only one
component, the absence of war. Accordingly, once this definition of peace was accepted,
the absence of interstate war would not be the only one sufficient condition of peace.
Note here that Dasgupta’s new definition of peace involves the issue of peace
sphere as well. If it is assumed that the only sphere of peace that matters is the

- 17 -
international or interstate system, or, more precisely, the system of which the only
relevant unit is the sovereign independent state, peace can be defined as the absence of
war between or among states or alliances of states. Under this assumption, the
traditional definition of peace would be quite appropriate because peace could be
predicated only on the relationship between states or groups of states. As we saw above,
however, Dasgupta’s definition of peace contains such peace values as (the absence of)
poverty or underdevelopment, (the absence of) famine, (the absence of) insufficient
education (opportunities) and so on. It is clear that poverty and underdevelopment
cannot be a relation of sovereign independent state, much less famine and insufficient
education. Generally speaking, these peace values can only be realized at the level of a
domestic society or group within a state. Therefore, to be sure, Dasgupta’s concept
involved addition or incorporation of new spheres of peace as well, but we will
postpone the discussion of the peace sphere to the next section.
Efforts in peace studies to cope with the new global situation by elaborating the
concept of peace culminated in the epoch-making concept of peace based upon that of
“violence” proposed by Johan Galtung in a now classical article (Galtung 1969). To be
precise, it was not the concept of “structural violence” proper, as is often popularized,
but a new concept of peace and violence that Galtung advanced. The term “structural
violence” has, however, now become firmly established beyond any historical or
academic correction. Galtung forwarded a broader theoretical framework which could
deal not only with the issue of war, but also issues of poverty, disease and human rights
violations. The key to his proposal of a new definition of peace was a new concept of
violence. Galtung defined peace as the absence of violence, and not as the absence of
war (Galtung 1969: 167). Of course, the usefulness and validity of the definition
depends solely upon the definition of violence. What, then, is violence? According to
Galtung, violence is everything which prevents the full realization of innate somatic and
mental human potentials. To put it in a little different way, violence is anything which
produces a gap between the physical and mental potentials of human beings and their
actual conditions (Galtung 1969: 168). From this perspective of violence, poverty,
underdevelopment, oppression and other social ills afflicting billions of people largely
in developing countries can be seen as manifestations of violence, and, from our
perspective, their elimination should be viewed as important peace values or necessary

- 18 -
conditions of peace. Now, components of peace became large in number. Galtung was
successful, through his definition of violence, in establishing a comprehensive (or, some
may say, all-inclusive) concept of peace. To be sure, Galtung’s proposal involved the
incorporation of new peace spheres as in the case of Dasgupta, the issue will be taken
up in the next section.
After Galtung’s proposal, one could no longer argue that a peace concept
consisted of only one component. Any peace concept is theoretically composed of two
or more elements which we call peace values. And, as suggested in Ishida’s comparison
above, we can now think of the peace concept of a particular human collectivity as a
subset of peace values. There remains, however, one interesting issue unresolved. How
are peace values related to each other? What is the overall mutual relationship of peace
values? Up until today, few studies have pursued this line of investigation. Matsuo
(1983) may be one among the few. Adopting the method of association experiment, he
reported 13 peace values (Matsuo 1983: 16-20) and attempted to show the relationships
of the 13 peace values as is shown in Figure 1.

Fig 1 Structure of Peace Image of Japanese People

Source: Matsuo(1985), 10

In this figure again, we can recognize the relevance of peace spheres as well.
For example, take note of the appearance of such elements as “world,” “family,” and
“nature” in the figure above. This issue of peace sphere is our next topic.

2 Peace Spheres

- 19 -
Peace concept is, as we saw above, multivariate, or made up of more than one
component or peace value. But, peace concept can and should be studied from a
different perspective as well. As we suggested several times in the previous section,
peace concept involves another dimension, that is, the dimension of peace sphere.
This problem of the multidimensionality of the peace image was first suggested
by Glenn D. Hook (Hook 1978-79). Though he did not use the term nor raise the issue
quite explicitly, he stressed the importance of dimension other than peace value, arguing
that, in dealing with children’s peace “images,” it is very important to examine who they
think makes peace. This dimension can be referred to as the agent dimension (Hook
1978-79: 85).
But it was Johan Galtung who was the first to explicitly point out the
importance of sphere of peace. He classified various spheres of peace the world into
three types; that is, universalist, ingroup/outgroup oriented, and inward-oriented spheres
of peace as is shown in Figure 2 (Galtung 1981).

Figure 2 Three Spheres of Peace

source: adapted from Galtung (1981)

universalist

ingroup/outgroup oriented

inward oriented

The “universalist” concept sees the whole world as one, and thinks that only
the peace of the whole world is meaningful. The Roman concept of “pax” is the
representative of this concept. The “in-group-oriented” peace sphere first divides the
world into two parts: that is, its own group and other groups (out-group) or more
generally “self” and “others.” The criterion of distinction can be political, economic,
geographical, cultural or religious, or any combination of these. The concept is
interested only in the peace of the in-group or the peace within the group, and pays little
attention to outside groups. The third, “inward oriented concept of peace” emphasizes
the tranquility of the mind of individuals. It emphasizes the importance of the peace of
the mind.

- 20 -
 Through this proposal, the concept of peace became multivariate or multi-
layered in peace sphere as well. In retrospect, it was quite natural that the notion of
peace sphere (or some such notion) should be introduced. As was suggested above, the
(proposal of) introduction of new peace values in the conceptualization of peace
necessitated the introduction of new peace spheres as well. Despite Galtung’s proposal
of three peace spheres, studies on peace spheres have been few. The following table,
Table 2, shows one of the few such attempts. It shows the nine major peace spheres in
the Japanese peace concept in terms of the relative quantitative importance. The results
given in the table were obtained by means of a kind of content analysis based on the
samples of the Japanese word “heiwa” (“peace”) taken from Japanese paperback
fictions. Since the size of the samples is not large, the result is of course tentative. But it
will be sufficient to obtain a general idea of major peace sphere of the Japanese people.
In addition, Table 2 also lists peace values which are strongly related to each of
the peace spheres. It was because these pairs of peace spheres and peace values showed
a high degree of cooccurrence of contingency within the samples. This naturally raises
an interesting question about the mutual relationship between peace values and peace
spheres. Probably, as we hinted above, a particular peace value may have a close
connection with a particular peace sphere, or vice versa. But the exploration of the issue
is, at present, our future task.

Table 2 Major Spheres of Peace for Japanese People

source: adapted from Matsuo 1984, 62 and 68

Sphere Strongly related “peace value”

Japanese (English)
jinrui (human race) happiness
sekai (world) quarrel/trouble, hope
kuni (country) war prosperity
shudan (group) tranquility
machi (twon/city) war quarrel/trouble
mura (village) war quarrel/trouble tranquility
sense of security prosperity
katei (family) war sense of security
kojin (individual) war quarrel/trouble tranquility
shizen (nature) prosperity sense of security

- 21 -
 In this way, the peace concept has now come to be seen as composed of two or
more peace values and peace spheres, or as multi-valued and multi-layered.

Conclusion
The present paper briefly described the development of the concept of peace in peace
studies. It was traced in two respects: first, what kind of conceptualization of peace has
been employed in studies on the concept of peace, and, secondly, how peace itself has
been defined in peace studies. We began this short history of the concept of peace with
two assumptions. The first assumption was that any peace concept should be considered
to consist of possibly more than one peace values. The other one was that any peace
concept should be viewed as containing possibly more than one peace spheres. As we
have shown, both in studies on the peace concept and in the definition of peace itself,
the concept of peace in peace studies was extended from a single value concept to a
multi-value one, and from a one dimensional concept to a multi-dimensional one with
the introduction of the notion of peace sphere.
In this connection, we should point out the recent similar extension of the
concept of security in security studies (Buzan et al 1998: 2), as in peace studies (Wiberg
1992: 492, note 5). The concept of security has been broadened to include not only
military sources of threat armed conflict but also such non-military sources as
environmental degradation (global warming, scarcity of renewable and non-renewable
resources and the like), damages upon domestic economy caused by international
capital, organized crimes like drug traffics, massive human rights violations, population
explosions, refugees and uncontrolled population migration, infectious diseases etc, etc.
(Patman 1999: 4). Consequently, the concept of security now includes many issues as is
illustrated in Table 35).
As the table shows, the concept of security has been expanded form the
traditional national security of state both in “referents” and “sources of threat” to
security. Referents (those whose security should be guaranteed) now include not only
states but also societies, internal groups and individuals. At the same time, sources of
threat have come to include non-military threats like environment and economy.

- 22 -
 Table 3 Security: Referents and Sources of Threat
source: based on Paris (2001), 98

sources of threat
military,
Military
nonmilitary or both
national security redefined security
conventional realist e.g., environmental
states
approach to security and economic security
studies

referents intrastate security human security

societies,
e.g., civil war, ethnic e.g., environmental
groups
conflict, and democide and economic threats
and
to the survival of
individuals
societies, groups and
individuals

In this table, the expansion of the concept of security is explained in terms of

“referents” and “sources of threat.” The notions of “source of threat” and “referent” are
largely, if not completely, equivalent to our notions of peace value and peace sphere,
respectively. Thus, the development of the concept of security corresponds to that of the
concept of peace described above.
The expansion of the concept of security has now culminated in the concept of
“human security.” The concept of “human security” was first explicitly proposed in
1994 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in its annual report. It
emphasizes changes: (1) “from territorial [or state] security to people’s security,” and
(2) “from security through armaments to security through sustainable human
development” (UNDP 1994: 24). The first change is the same as the expansion in
referents from state to people (as a group or an individual) in table 3. The second
corresponds to the expansion in the sources of threats. The threats to human security
listed by UNDP range from economic, food, health, environment, political to personal
bodily integrity and community security (UNDP 1994: 24-25)6).
Judging from the development of the concept of security sketched above, two
tentative conclusions can be drawn. First, as a result of parallel development, peace and
security studies are now converging (Kriesberg 2002: 587), or we should say, the
concepts of peace and security have become very close to each other. For example,

- 23 -
recent peace studies anthologies increasingly emphasize the issue of security, pointing
out the changes in nature and scope of security, or in sources of insecurity (Balász 1993:
8, Boulding 1992: 3-4). Secondly, not only our assumptions about multi-valued, multi-
dimensional property of the concept of peace can be valid in other cases, but the
employment of the two categories of peace value and peace sphere have also been
validated to some extent.
The present paper attempted at the explanation of the development of the
concept of peace in peace studies. It raises new questions or puzzles as well. Among
them, following questions seem worth exploring, though the answers will show a great
variability depending upon the human groups in consideration.

In a particular peace concept of a given human group or in the generalized peace

concept, how are constituent peace values related to each other? This is a question of
the internal structure of the concept of peace in terms of the mutual relationship of the
relevant peace values as units.

How are peace values and peace spheres related with each other?

NOTES
1) Perhaps, Kende (1989) and Rinehart (1993) may be among a few exceptions.
2) These works have been followed by Hall (1993), Hakvoort and Oppenheimer (1993) and so
on. They focus mainly on children.
3) For example, see Kegley (1997), Pirages (1991), Wenden (1995: 14) etc.
4) Historically speaking, the idea that peace is more than the absence of war appeared as early
as in the 16th century (Kende 1989: 236-237).
5) The extension of the concept of security and its implications to peace studies are discussed in
some detail in Matsuo (2005: 173-177).
6) Of course, there have been criticisms against the expansion or “overexpansion” of the
concept of security just as against the expansion of the concept of peace. .Many have argued
like “[Peace studies had now become] “a black hole” [absorbing every social problem and like
after the fall of] “the tower of Babel” (Wiberg 1993: 10-11), ”[i]f human security is all these
things, what it is not?” (Paris 2001: 90-92), or “if everything that causes a decline in human
well-being is labeled security threat, the term loses any analytical usefulness” (Deudney 1991:
24).

REFERENCES
Ålvik, Trond (1968), "The Development of Views on Conflict, War, and Peace among School
Children," Journal of Peace Research, 1968, 2, 171-195
Balázs, Judit (1993), “Introduction,” Judit Balázs and Håkan Wiberg (eds.), Peace Research for
the 1990s, Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 7-8

- 24 -
Boulding, Elise (1992), “Introduction: What Is Possible?” Elise Boulding (ed.), New Agendas
for Peace Research: Conflict and Security Reexamined, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 1-6
Boulding, Kenneth E. (1978), Stable Peace, Austin: University of Texas Press
Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde (1998), Security: A New Framework for Analysis,
Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Cooper, Peter (1965), "The Development of the Concept of War," Journal of Peace Research,
2(1), 1-17
Darnton, Geoffrey (1973), “The Concept <Peace>,” Proceedings of the International Peace
Research Association Fourth General Conference, 105-116
Dasgupta, Sugata (1968), “Peacelesness and Maldevelopment: A New Theme for Peace
Research in Developing Nations,” Proceedings of the International Peace Research
Association Second Conference, Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum & Comp,
vol.2, 19-42
Deudney, Daniel (1991), “Environment and Security: Muddled Thinking,” Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, 47(3), 22-28
Ehly, J.A.E.A. (1972), Images of War and Peace: A Crossnational Study of Children's
Orientations to Conflict and Cooperation in the Global System, Ph.D. dissertation,
Northwestern University
Galtung, Johan (1969), "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research," Journal of Peace Research, 6(3),
167-191
Galtung, Johan (1981), "Social Cosmology and the Concept of Peace," Journal of Peace
Research, 18(2), 183-199
Geller, Daniel S. and J. David Singer (1998), Nations at War: A Scientific Study of International
Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Haavelsrud, Magnus (1970), "Views on War and Peace among Students in West Berlin Public
Schools," Journal of Peace Research, 1970(2), 99-120
Hakvoort, Ilse and Louis Oppenheimer (1993), "Children and Adolescents' Conceptions of
Peace, War, and Strategies to Attain Peace: A Dutch Case Study," Journal of Peace Research,
30(1), 65-77
Hall, Robin (1993), "How Children Think and Feel about War and Peace: An Australian Study,"
Journal of Peace Research, 30(2), 181-196
Hook, Glenn D. (1978-79), “Orientations to Peace among Canadian and Indian Children,”
Peace Research in Japan, 1978-79, 85-102
Ishida, Takeshi (1969), "Beyond the Traditional Concepts of Peace in Different Cultures,"
Journal of Peace Research, 6(2), 2, 133-145
Kegley, Charles Jr. (1997), “Placing Global Ecopolitics in Peace Studies,” Peace Review, 9(3),
425-430
Kende, Istvan (1971), "Twenty-Five Years of Local Wars," Journal of Peace Research, 8(1), 5-
27
Kende, Istvan (1978), "Wars of Ten Years (1967-1976)," Journal of Peace Research, 14(3), 227-
241
Kende, Istvan (1989), "The History of Peace: Concept and Organizations from the Late Middle
Ages to the 1870s," Journal of Peace Research, 26(3), 233-247
Kriesberg, Louis (2002), “Convergence between International Security Studies and Peace
Studies,” Michael Brecher and Frank Harvey (eds.), Realism and Institutionalism in
International Studies, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 584-597
Matsuo, Masatsugu (1983), A Semantic Analysis of “Heiwa (Peace)” through an Association
Experiment (Renso Chosa niyoru “Heiwa” no Imi Bunseki), IPSHU Research Report No.8
(Institute for Peace Science, Hiroshima University), (in Japanese)
Matsuo, Masatsugu (1984), “Space Where Peace Exists: An Analysis of Examples from Literary
Fictions (Heiwa no Seiritsusuru Ba - Fikushon no Yourei Bunnseki),” Hiroshima Peace
Science, 7, 55-76 (in Japanese)
Matsuo, Masatsugu (1985), "Japanese People's Image of Peace," PSAJ-Newsletter (Peace

- 25 -
 Studies Association of Japan) No.5, 8-10
Matsuo, Masatsugu (2005), Peace and Conflict Studies: A Theoretical Introduction, Hiroshima:
Keisuisha
Paris, Roland (2001), "Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?" International Security,
26(2), 87-102
Patman, Robert G. (1999), “Security in a Post-Cold War Context,” Robert G. Patman (ed.),
Security in a Post-Cold War World, Houndmills and London: Macmillan, 1-12
Pirages, Dennis Clark (1991), “The Greening of Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research,
28(2), 129-133
Rinehart, Milton (1993), "Understanding the Concept 'Peace': A Search for a Common Ground,"
Peace and Change, 20(3), 379-396
Rosell, Leif (1968), "Children's Views of War and Peace," Journal of Peace Research, 1968(3),
268-276
Small, Melvin and John David Singer (1985), "Patterns in International Warfare, 1816-1980,"
Melvin Small and John David Singer (eds.), International War: An Anthology and Study
Guide, Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 7-19
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1994), Human Development 1994: New
Dimensions of Human Security, New York: Oxford University Press
Wenden, Anita L. (1995), “Defining Peace: Perspectives from Peace Research,” Christina
Schäffner and Anita L. Wenden (eds.), Language and Peace, Aldershot: Dartmouth, 3-15
Wiberg, Håkan (1992), “(Re-)Conceptualizing Security,” Arms Control, 13 (3), 487-492
Wiberg, Håkan (1993), “European Peace Research in the 1990s,” Judit Balázs and Håkan
Wiberg (eds.), Peace Research for the 1990s, Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 9-25

- 26 -