Habermas and Rawls presented distinctive theories of new world order at the turn of the new century: the Constitutionalization of International Law and the Law of Peoples. Both theories aim to promote peace and justice all over the world. Unfortunately, their theories have been ignored by mainstream IR theorists. Since few scholars make a deep comparative study between Rawls’s Law of Peoples and Habermas’s Constitutionalization of International Law to reveal their crucial difference, this paper aims to fill this gap by clarifying their essential difference and preliminarily exploring how to formulate their proper relationship. I argue that Habermas’s project is a legalistic peace theory. In contrast, Rawls’s Law of Peoples is a modified form of democratic peace theory, putting hope for international peace on the improvement of the domestic political system of sovereign entities. Finally, I present a tentative suggestion to address their relationship, returning to Kant’s systems approach.

This article examines the possibility of establishing a Department of Peace (DOP) as a Department of the Government of Canada. The topic has been introduced in Parliament twice, as Bill C-447 in 2009 and as Bill C-373 in 2011, without any further actions beyond the formal First Reading. The introduction of the bills could only happen on the basis of significant support among Canadians. At present efforts to introduce the DOP continue, although in somewhat muted form. Based largely on oral interviews, this article assesses the potential for establishing a DOP in the context of the Canadian peace tradition as well as global developments. It concludes that a DOP has great potential to move the peace agenda forward but that, in view of the priorities of the current government and the general mood in Canadian society, it is not realistic to expect a DOP to be implemented at present.

There is little attempt by the Turkish government to end violence directed against queer people or to provide intervention and prevention services. This article explores the social and legal traditions that the Turkish state maintains to oppress the queer community and to prevent people from accessing their basic human needs. In order to understand violence orchestrated against Turkey’s queer people, it is important to explore some of the threats they face on an everyday basis. These threats include unemployment, harassment, discrimination, disowning/honor killings, denial of freedom of expression and freedom of association, and death. Finally, we explore the Gezi Park nonviolent protests as well as providing some important social change recommendations that Turkey must implement with international solidarity.

Critical and Emancipatory Theory (CET) of peacebuilding emerged as the sixth school of thought in Peace and Conflict Studies to critique the liberal and neoliberal approaches to peacebuilding. CET contends that liberal and neoliberal approaches to peacebuilding are discriminatory and biased, perpetrates the interest of Western elites, hinders the achievement of social justice, and considers the local as insignificant for peacebuilding. A call for the reformation of the liberal and neoliberal approaches necessitated the CET school of thought to outline certain principles and guidelines that could guide the practice of peace-building. Different methodologies, intervention strategies, principles and approaches that could guide praxis have therefore been advanced by scholars, researchers, and practitioners. This paper therefore examines and reflects on the multiplex methodologies in peacebuilding, the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach to understanding peace and peacebuilding, and the question of intervention in post-war peacebuilding, the principles that guide the implementation of peacebuilding from the lens of Critical and Emancipatory school of thought. This piece contend that CET approach may not be self-sufficient but would be the most appropriate way to decentralize the peacebuilding process and, as such, local or indigenous peacebuilding processes must be encouraged while acknowledging the salient role of the international community as well.

The paper examines the tension in the social construction of pandemic by doctors, traditional healers, and faith-based healers and considers the potential public health implications. Methodologically, the author uses a case study of Mwenezi District in Masvingo Province in Zimbabwe and draws on autoethnographic experiences to observe and analyse local level asymmetric confrontations as the Coronavirus pandemic unfolded. What emerges is how values, beliefs and scientific interpretations are contributing factors to conflict, and more significantly, the deleterious impact it has on mobilizing community action against the pandemic. Research findings reveal how untenable and inconceivable it will be to contain the pandemic without paying appropriate attention to apostolic sects and traditional healers. Interventions have so far ignored this social capital.

Though the heroic strides, accomplishments and sacrifices of many clerics who have led exemplary lives in the Catholic priesthood remain indelible, we are faced today with a preponderance of allegations and claims of clerical sexual abuse suggesting that both the Catholic Church and priesthood are experiencing crises of different kinds. Clerical sexual abuse is a contradiction of the life of chastity, one of the evangelical virtues which are corollaries of responding to the call to the Roman Catholic priesthood. How those evangelical virtues concern us and the needed critical family roles for addressing the challenges of clergy sexual abuse are often overlooked; but our lives are inter-connected. This article has been prompted by the need to see the other side of the problem, which is general huge family failures, and to awaken our consciences to assume our own responsibilities that would, by collective action, help to bring about positive and peaceful change.