Carnegie Wateler Peace Prize – 2024 Award Ceremony
Speech “Peace and Justice in the International Order” –
Prof. dr. mr Lonneke Peperkamp
26 November 2024
Introduction
In the world today, with rising tensions, armed conflicts, and humanitarian tragedies, I would like to ask you: What do peace and justice mean, in the international order?
Hugo Grotius, the Dutch ‘father of international law’, envisioned a society of states governed by the law of nations. He stated: “We have an impelling desire for society, that is, for community, not of any and every sort, but peaceful.”[1]
Peace and justice are core values in Dutch history and society. Our constitution requires the government to promote the international rule of law. The Hague is the city of peace and justice. Our armed forces are entrusted with the protection of international peace and security. Dutch service members – some of them here today – have contributed to that by participating in peace missions across the world.
But what do peace and justice mean? They are grand concepts. Values to uphold, but which have also been violated throughout history, including of course our own. Ideals often invoked by the ‘international community’ and by national governments as political goals to be achieved by the deployment of armed forces. What these concepts mean in practice is experienced by these military servicemen and women: and more often than not, peace and justice in the ideal are quite unlike peace and justice in reality.
The just peace ideal
It is easy to recognize a shared responsibility, a moral duty perhaps, for the international community to act in the face of injustice. To help others when you are able to relieve suffering. To protect populations living under rights violating regimes, to foster peace after war, and to support the development of just state institutions. This responsibility has been a cornerstone of international relations; underpinning the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and shaping peacebuilding efforts. It reflects the idea that the end of violence alone is insufficient; true peace requires justice.
Many philosophers after Grotius have connected the principles of peace and justice. As opposed to a negative peace; which merely refers to stability and order, to the absence of violence, it is often argued that the international community should aim for a positive peace: a situation in which people can flourish and their human rights are secured by just institutions and a democratic government. After armed conflict, such positive peace refers to long-term stability where root causes of conflict are resolved, former adversaries are reconciled, and criminal justice is served.
The cost of peace
There are many of us who take peace for granted, perhaps I do as well, but the global trend is worrying: there are over 50 conflicts worldwide, the highest number since WW2, and the level of peacefulness deteriorated in almost 100 states.[2] The painful truth is that countless people are in need of protection.
Members of the Dutch armed forces have taken on this responsibility. Together with partners, they have provided protection in conflict zones, military assistance in challenging circumstances, humanitarian aid in times of need, and stability in areas of unrest.
They have dedicated themselves to protecting others, to making the world safer. And they continue doing so today, in Europe, Africa and the Middle-East. In fulfilling that duty, some have paid the ultimate price, while others live with lasting scars, both visible and invisible. To all those servicemembers, here today or elsewhere, I would like to say: thank you for your dedication and sacrifices.
The ideal in reality
They have achieved invaluable things for local populations, but, in reality, peace missions cannot create perfect justice nor a positive peace.
Because in our imperfect world, what peace missions can achieve is constrained by: power dynamics, competing interests, overambitious or limited mandates, by personal weaknesses, local resistance, cultural differences and the limitations of resources and political will.
It is important to recognize this gap between aspirations and reality. As guiding principles in the international order, ideals are not ideal. When they translate into political aims that do not sufficiently factor in the complicated reality on the ground, they set expectations that cannot be met.
In the international order, we need to balance idealism and realism, we need ambitions and reasonable expectations, we need to imagine a ‘realistic utopia’. Moreover, the international rule of law is fragile. It requires our enduring commitment to uphold these shared norms, even when that comes at a cost.
Conclusion
Does this mean that peace and justice should be redefined? The answer is yes and no.
Yes, when the ideal of a positive peace is set as a standard that proves unattainable in practice. To serve as valuable guidance for political decisions and peace missions, ideals must be tempered by the constraints inherent in global politics. For that purpose, peace with justice must be redefined as a moderate and attainable just peace.
No, because the rule-based international order that Grotius envisioned, the peaceful community we desire, remains a goal worth pursuing. Even when that vision feels distant or unattainable, every step towards it – whether large or small – is meaningful and worth striving for. Our servicemen and women have served, and serve today, to do just that.
[1] Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace (Prolegomena) 1625
[2] https://www.visionofhumanity.org/highest-number-of-countries-engaged-in-conflict-since-world-war-ii/