Peaceshaping

Global agencies, framed by peace institutions, are struggling to prevent or constrain existing conflicts, letalone new ones. Numerous nations and organisations exacerbate enmities through the pursuit of power,‘security’, greed and self-interest. In doing so, some actively undermine the institutional rationale oforganisations such as the United Nations (UN). Generations of activists, scholars, diplomats, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and UN organizations have attempted to ‘fix’ peace institutions aswell as challenge those who undermine them2. As such, all parties are engaged in ‘institutional work’ -the ‘purposive action aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions’3.We argue that there are two distinct but interrelated categories of institutional work with greatconsequences for peace institutions: ‘peaceshaping’ and ‘warshaping’. We define peaceshaping as thedisruption of institutions which sustain enmity and the creation and preservation of institutions whichconstrain enmity and build amity. Conversely, we define warshaping as the disruption of institutionswhich sustain amity and the creation and preservation of institutions which constrains amity and buildsenmity.

Publication Details

Journal
Figshare
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28466357.v1
Primary Topic
Peacebuilding and International Security
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Peaceshaping

Figshare
Peacebuilding and International Security
article

Peaceshaping

article en

Abstract

Global agencies, framed by peace institutions, are struggling to prevent or constrain existing conflicts, letalone new ones. Numerous nations and organisations exacerbate enmities through the pursuit of power,‘security’, greed and self-interest. In doing so, some actively undermine the institutional rationale oforganisations such as the United Nations (UN). Generations of activists, scholars, diplomats, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and UN organizations have attempted to ‘fix’ peace institutions aswell as challenge those who undermine them2. As such, all parties are engaged in ‘institutional work’ -the ‘purposive action aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions’3.We argue that there are two distinct but interrelated categories of institutional work with greatconsequences for peace institutions: ‘peaceshaping’ and ‘warshaping’. We define peaceshaping as thedisruption of institutions which sustain enmity and the creation and preservation of institutions whichconstrain enmity and build amity. Conversely, we define warshaping as the disruption of institutionswhich sustain amity and the creation and preservation of institutions which constrains amity and buildsenmity.

Figshare
Openalex Percentile: Top 42%
Peacebuilding and International Security
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Peaceshaping · Figshare (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS