Theorizing peace parks

Two models of collective action

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

In a reversal of the historical role of territory in intergroup conflict, the article focuses on an emergent notion of territory as an instrument for peace. In this article, the author begins to theorize about the mechanisms by which so-called peace parks might act in resolving conflict and ushering in regional stability. Two models are utilized that differ in their portrayal of how these parks might work. The first model, built on a game-theoretic foundation, provides insight into incentive mechanisms by which parties might agree to a border park. Furthermore, the model sheds light on whether these parks might serve as vacant buffer zones or, alternatively, active zones of cooperation. However, the game-theoretic model should be complemented by another, qualitative model that focuses primarily on how these interactions are embedded in history, culture, tradition, and group identity. To this end, the author develops a second model, which portrays institutions as structures of care. In the model of care, relationships are constitutive of identity, and institutions and practices (including war and peace) evolve in coherence with the web of relationships. It is the employment of mutually complementing analytics that might afford a deeper understanding of how these peace parks might actually serve as effective bridges for peace.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)563-581
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Peace Research
Volume43
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2006

Fingerprint

collective behavior
peace
History
incentive
history
interaction
Group

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Safety Research
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Theorizing peace parks : Two models of collective action. / Lejano, Raul P.

In: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 43, No. 5, 09.2006, p. 563-581.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{ee46fa85a62e426db84752e5fcc19cce,
title = "Theorizing peace parks: Two models of collective action",
abstract = "In a reversal of the historical role of territory in intergroup conflict, the article focuses on an emergent notion of territory as an instrument for peace. In this article, the author begins to theorize about the mechanisms by which so-called peace parks might act in resolving conflict and ushering in regional stability. Two models are utilized that differ in their portrayal of how these parks might work. The first model, built on a game-theoretic foundation, provides insight into incentive mechanisms by which parties might agree to a border park. Furthermore, the model sheds light on whether these parks might serve as vacant buffer zones or, alternatively, active zones of cooperation. However, the game-theoretic model should be complemented by another, qualitative model that focuses primarily on how these interactions are embedded in history, culture, tradition, and group identity. To this end, the author develops a second model, which portrays institutions as structures of care. In the model of care, relationships are constitutive of identity, and institutions and practices (including war and peace) evolve in coherence with the web of relationships. It is the employment of mutually complementing analytics that might afford a deeper understanding of how these peace parks might actually serve as effective bridges for peace.",
author = "Lejano, {Raul P.}",
year = "2006",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1177/0022343306066565",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "563--581",
journal = "Journal of Peace Research",
issn = "0022-3433",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Theorizing peace parks

T2 - Two models of collective action

AU - Lejano, Raul P.

PY - 2006/9

Y1 - 2006/9

N2 - In a reversal of the historical role of territory in intergroup conflict, the article focuses on an emergent notion of territory as an instrument for peace. In this article, the author begins to theorize about the mechanisms by which so-called peace parks might act in resolving conflict and ushering in regional stability. Two models are utilized that differ in their portrayal of how these parks might work. The first model, built on a game-theoretic foundation, provides insight into incentive mechanisms by which parties might agree to a border park. Furthermore, the model sheds light on whether these parks might serve as vacant buffer zones or, alternatively, active zones of cooperation. However, the game-theoretic model should be complemented by another, qualitative model that focuses primarily on how these interactions are embedded in history, culture, tradition, and group identity. To this end, the author develops a second model, which portrays institutions as structures of care. In the model of care, relationships are constitutive of identity, and institutions and practices (including war and peace) evolve in coherence with the web of relationships. It is the employment of mutually complementing analytics that might afford a deeper understanding of how these peace parks might actually serve as effective bridges for peace.

AB - In a reversal of the historical role of territory in intergroup conflict, the article focuses on an emergent notion of territory as an instrument for peace. In this article, the author begins to theorize about the mechanisms by which so-called peace parks might act in resolving conflict and ushering in regional stability. Two models are utilized that differ in their portrayal of how these parks might work. The first model, built on a game-theoretic foundation, provides insight into incentive mechanisms by which parties might agree to a border park. Furthermore, the model sheds light on whether these parks might serve as vacant buffer zones or, alternatively, active zones of cooperation. However, the game-theoretic model should be complemented by another, qualitative model that focuses primarily on how these interactions are embedded in history, culture, tradition, and group identity. To this end, the author develops a second model, which portrays institutions as structures of care. In the model of care, relationships are constitutive of identity, and institutions and practices (including war and peace) evolve in coherence with the web of relationships. It is the employment of mutually complementing analytics that might afford a deeper understanding of how these peace parks might actually serve as effective bridges for peace.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33747159046&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33747159046&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0022343306066565

DO - 10.1177/0022343306066565

M3 - Review article

VL - 43

SP - 563

EP - 581

JO - Journal of Peace Research

JF - Journal of Peace Research

SN - 0022-3433

IS - 5

ER -