„Peace“ is a very common term in political sciences. Anat Biletzki is examining in “The language-games of peace” how this term is used (or abused) in several sections of human life. He recognises a widely accepted consensus within the modern human society: Peace is good. Peace is seen as an universal aim, promoted by institutions, academics organizations and the media. It as a desirable end, a condition in which the global nations should live in the long-term. Biletzki sees in this consensus the danger of abuse through several people and institutions who want to use or abuse the perception of “peace” for their own goals, which under circumstances even could be war. Many people in history have promoted war as tool to achieve peace and therefore abused the consensual accepted term of peace to promote and legitimate war. This started with Aristotle who stated: “We make war that we may live in peace”. And also Kennedy had the opinion that “It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.” If these statements are true is questionable but without doubt they get exercised in international politics permanently. Germany was a fighting party in the Afghanistan war but it took the officials nearly ten years to use the term war for this military invade. The years before when officials were talking about it in public, the widely used term was “stabilizing mission”. This supports Biletzkis thesis of the possible abuse of the peace termination. Who could deny the legitimacy of a military operation if it´s honourable goal is peace, which is even included in the expression for the operation, “stabilizing mission”. The perception of peace as consensual accepted desirable “end” gets reproduced in several sections of human life, such as education, media, academia and politics. While dealing with an interesting topic, Biletzkis article has a clear lack of message. The possibility of the abuse of the term “peace” is worth to get examined but Biletzki let it remain an abstract thesis without closer description or proof. Instead he focuses on the fact that peace is seen desirable goal without stating, how this finding should possibly be controversial.
More than 1000 drowned refugees in only one week remind us of the problems that arises with the discrepancy between the extreme injustice distribution of security and wealth and the attempt of the western world to preserve its privileges by closing the borders to prevent too much immigration through refugees. C. Brown examines in “Borders and Identity in International Political Theory” in what ways the question of borders and identity haven been discussed and which changes emerged and are emerging due to a rising scope of globalization. He compares two differing perceptions of the relationship of borders and identities, namely the liberal/cosmopolitical and the communitarist/anticosmopolitical view. Liberals tend to see the only true identity in the membership of the human race while communitarists emphasize the individual background of a person not just as secondary but as basic setting of the characteristics of existence. Therefore communitarists see borders as essential for the human existence while they play a controversial role in liberal theory. Liberals don´t see any moral significance in borders, they are rather a tool for administrative convenience. But free movement worldwide challenge the world community with problems that are not to resolve. States are just able to provide a certain scope of welfare when they define a group of privileged people (their citizens) and exclude the rest of the world of the welfare program. It could be argued the European integration lead to the deconstruction of borders within the community but also to the strengthening of the borders between the European Union and the rest of the world. The libertarian answer to this problem would be the abolishment of welfare programs, any other kinds of public support and borders so that everybody can live wherever he can afford it. But it is questionable if the abolishment of borders, the creation of a “world state”, would be able to fulfil the integrative functionsthat state have to face nowadays. The most trivial wisdom o social science is the fact that identiy emerges through the separation of others. “The other” defines the “we”. Some argued that these lack of identity building could be compensated by new identities that refer to such things as virtual communities, kingdoms, clans, guild or universities. While these considerations remain theoretically and their practicability will be examined by a different generation, we must put our focus on the concrete answer of problems that we face today. Since totally free borders and a completely free movement would let to an uncontrolled amount of immigration which would let to chaos in the affected countries, the solution is to diminish the incentives for large scale movements. The engagement of western countries in wars leads to destabilizing effects and the uncontrolled distribution of power which leads to the necessity to flee. The rich world must provide stable conditions world wide and a minimum scale of social welfare. The correct start would be the pursuing of the millennium goals.