Nowadays peace became scarce. Expanding conflicts, terrorist attacks and the uncertainty so common to today's times put in question the value that was won after many years of war. The Constitution is free from regulations treating directly about peace. There are only few references to it. Perhaps, peace is a luxury for which we have to fight, and neither a right that must be protected nor freedom which we can/should use. Maybe it is not supposed to be talked about the right to peace, but about some kind of a privilege. Therefore, it would be necessary to admit, that there is a mistake done already in the subject of this paper. This area seems also to be interesting especially, when moving the optics and focusing on the actions and declarations of heads of states while implementing the common political objectives that are at odds with objectives of other/opposite countries. The word war is used like a substitute for terms ‘peace, freedom and prosperity’, or even worse, like a way to it. 

Peace is non–violence and there is only one way to achieve it: peace as structural and interpersonal non–violence. The daily non–violence is as instructive as the spectacular actions of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Peace education is better based on demonstration what we “can” than to postulate of what we should do. The Peace Studies prefer a resource–oriented approach to education instead of a deficit–oriented. Our central thesis is that the youth is living in a kind of transculturality, the best conditions for peacebuilding. Considering the increasing sensitivity we expected that latest in 2075 we will make the war a taboo. The central key to solve conflicts nonviolently is conflict transformation in trusting a spiritual third power in between the opponents, even secularized people. The peace education has to help us to discover the third in nonviolent activities. There is a lot of difficult issues that the non–violence has to reflect in future, including elimination of the extreme violence, reconciliation, an impact of economy, the peacebuilding’s relevance of structural measures. 

Although questions of peace are different in context, for specific questions today, we need a science of peace in a universal sense. It is true that sometimes talking about peace is too unspecified and therefore too general. The term peace in its common sense has passed its peak. Instead of talking about peace we prefer talking much more concretely and bindingly for example about (racism and) intercultural learning, (violence in family and) nonviolent education, (exploitation and) fair economic structures, (war and) nonviolent conflict transformation, (patriarchalism and) gender awareness, (ecological destruction and) animal protection. Developments of differentiation are positive. We can meet questions of peace on different levels of living together and in different parts of our life and therefore in a lot of terms describe special problem areas. Anyway we have to reflect on the universal dimensions as well as the principles of peace. Using the term makes sense furthermore.

The author attempts to define amnesty and describe conditions that must be met for amnesties to be in accordance with international law. This in turn involves an analysis of legality of amnesties. The paper also examines motivation for granting amnesty and desirability as well as the future of granting amnesties. In the end a nuanced approach is adopted highlighting the fact that amnesties are neither conditio sine qua non for a lasting peace solution nor ticking time-bombs for peacebuilding. This reflects the idea of this paper that justice is not an absolute and sometimes it might be necessary to let go and combine judicial and non-judicial mechanisms (including the disclosure of truth and reparations for the victims) in order to achieve sustainable peace.

This paper presents some remarks on the theory of hybrid activities. Analysis of relevant texts indicates that at present there is no real theory of hybrid activities. Interpretations and definitions of hybrid activities differ to some extent and certain important features are missing. For example, some authors opine that hybrid activities consist of simultaneous military and non-military operations. This opinion is not necessarily true as non-military activities can precede military activities. Monitoring this phase of hybrid activities is particularly important. The so-called “crisis management” covers (from the viewpoint of praxeology) a too narrow area.

Nowadays, international disputes appear in the public space, which results, for example, from the fact that the needs are unlimited and the goods are limited. Due to its specific nature, the international environment requires a compromise between the entities operating in it. A desirable direction in case of conflicts between international entities is to resolve them by peaceful means. In the international environment, one of the largest international organizations - the United Nations - is of great significance, especially in the field of maintaining international order and peace. In turn, according to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, it is possible to resolve international disputes by peaceful means, and among the characteristic methods used in this type of proceedings is the mediation method, the effectiveness of which allows, in the long term, to maintain the desired state of peace, strengthening the legal security of the state.

The Constitution - the Basic Law is the foundation of the organization in a given country. It defines the general principles of the functioning of internal relations, the competences of its most important elements, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen2. And the strategy can be perceived as the general outlines of the actions of competent leaders determining the far-reaching aim. It is characterized by a long-term strategic perspective, combining the set of with the strive for solutions that are beneficial not only for themselves, their surroundings, and supporters but also for the paradigm of the common good. Societies during, or immediately after the conflict, seek stabilization. That can be ensured by actions based on a strategy that takes into account the fundamental principles of internal relations. Combining those two paradigms, the Constitution, taking into account the rights of minorities, guaranteeing civil liberties and human rights, may be the basic factor of the strategy of the competent leader, aiming to post-conflict stabilization.

The importance of competent intelligence and secret diplomacy in the government of Ukraine

The article is devoted to secret diplomacy and intelligence in the context of Ukraine and its strategic partners. Topics are cross-sectoral and relate to political science, public administration and administration. The urgency is due to the fact that competent intelligence and secret diplomacy improve the quality of public administration and governance, which contributes to achieving the expected results in the field of security and defense. In conditions of armed aggression by the RF this is extremely important. Some weaknesses in the process of diplomatic relations with strategic partners, in the relations of the state leadership and intelligence at the present stage of Ukraine’s statehood have been identified. Options for increasing competence and cooperation are substantiated. For the first time at the level of the degree seeker, examples of incompetence in the relations between the state leadership and representatives of the intelligence services were summarized on the basis of the basic principle of the US Army “after action review”. It is proposed to expand the Normandy format of negotiations, involving the United States and Great Britain, with which Ukraine has secret diplomatic relations. The information provided in the article is not a state secret. But the author’s judgments concern the non-public side of government and international relations.

The Seville Statement on Violence (SSV) was originated by a launched UN-Committee of the International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA) in the late seventies of the past century. Its final product, elaborated by more than twenty scholars from different scientific disciplines and from all continents, was presented in 1986 at the VI Coloquio Internacional sobre Cerebro y Agresión (CICA) in Seville. Three years later, it was endorsed by the 25th General Conference of UNESCO in Paris. Its main message was that violence, and consequently war too, are avoidable and aggressiveness can be tamed. The present article comments what were the main reasons which urged to elaborate it, and some difficulties found on the way.

In the domain of interpersonal relations empathy has been widely regarded as a valuable tool for peacebuilding. Past research has shown that if enough empathy is extended to a victim of violence, insight into the victim’s plight tends to give pause to the aggressor and also prompt bystanders to help. While the victim is the sole recipient of empathy in an interpersonal conflict, elevating the concept of empathy from an individual level analysis to a group level analysis encounters further complications. In intergroup conflicts, both parties in the conflict stand to receive empathy. In light of this, one theoretical question is whether both kinds of empathy, those directed to the ingroup members and the outgroup members, have similar utilities in peacebuilding. We reference the literature on intergroup contact and intergroup threats, to scrutinize the role of empathy in intergroup conflicts. We argue that ingroup and outgroup empathy have the opposite effects on group violence – directing empathy to the outgroup results in the denouncement of aggression, whereas directing empathy to the ingroup may lead to a desire to counterattack. Thus, rather than boosting the overall amplitude of empathy, striking the right balance is the key of leveraging empathy towards peace.

Religion is perceived by several scholars as a source of conflict, violence, destruction and cruelty, despite all of these, a lot of people still believe in religion, they regard religion as source of peace, harmony, compassion, love and tolerance. So far as role of Islam in peace building and conflict resolution are concerned, Islam is no different from other religions, it also advocates same virtues as other religions do. But academic discourse on the subject largely identifies Islam with violence and conflict. This study is humble effort to illuminate those social capital that Islam has for establishing peace and resolving conflict, in the same time, this paper also examines Islamic approach toward peace building and conflict resolution by contextualizing Islamic texts as major source on the subject.

The paper examines the intricate relationship between armed conflict and regional integration, focusing on its role as an ‘undoing’ force in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) context. A significant element of development and economic cooperation in Africa is the perennial problem of violent conflict in almost all sub-regions. Moreover, organized crime is rising across the continent, coupled with the emergence of new forms of violence associated with today’s globalization and other post-Cold War phenomena. Globalization has led to greater interdependence among countries and fostered cooperation among states. However, a country’s internal conflict often has repercussions beyond its borders and threatens regional and global peace and stability. In addition, armed conflict can affect countries’ relations and state cooperation. Peace provides a good foundation for development and economic cooperation, while development ensures the permanence of peace. The central question addressed in this paper is whether constructive regional economic integration and cooperation can be effectively achieved while some African countries are experiencing armed conflict. A qualitative research approach is used to analyze how armed conflict will likely negatively impact the achievement of AfCFTA goals.