Operationalizing Positive Peace: Canadian Approaches to International Security Policy and Practice

  • D. Conor SeyleEmail author


In the late twentieth century, changing conceptions of violence, coupled with an increased awareness of the risk of genocide and mass atrocities, caused a reconsideration of what armed conflict looked like and how the world should respond. The Government of Canada developed and promoted an orientation toward a broad definition of security as an extension of their existing approach to international engagement and foreign policy. Through support for international bodies such as the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty as well as the explicit incorporation of the concept of human security into the Canadian development and security strategies and support for the Responsibility to Protect, the Canadian government effectively promoted broad concepts of peace and security in the United Nations and internationally.


  1. Acharya, A. (2001). Human Security: East Versus West. International Journal, 56(3), 442–460. Scholar
  2. Acharya, A., & Acharya, A. (2001). Human Security in Asia: Conceptual Ambiguities and Common Understandings. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Beyond the Washington Consensus-Governance and the Public Domain in Contrasting Economies: The Cases of India and Canada, Chandigarh (pp. 12–14).Google Scholar
  3. Annan, K. (1999, September 16). Two Concepts of Sovereignty. The Economist.Google Scholar
  4. Annan, K. (2000). We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century. New York, NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
  5. Axworthy, L. (1997). Canada and Human Security: The Need for Leadership. International Journal, 52(2), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banda, M. (2007). The Responsibility to Protect: Moving the Agenda Forward. Ottawa, Canada: United Nations Association in Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Bellamy, A. J. (2006). Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(2), 143–169. Scholar
  8. Bellamy, A. J. (2008). Conflict Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 14(2), 135–156. Scholar
  9. Bellamy, A. J. (2009). Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  10. Bellamy, A. J., & Drummond, C. (2011). The Responsibility to Protect in Southeast Asia: Between Non-interference and Sovereignty as Responsibility. The Pacific Review, 24(2), 179–200. Scholar
  11. Bernard, P. (2006). Canada and Human Security: From the Axworthy Doctrine to Middle Power Internationalism. American Review of Canadian Studies, 36(2), 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blatz, W. E. (1966). Human Security: Some Reflections. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bosold, D., & Von Bredow, W. (2006). Human Security: A Radical or Rhetorical Shift in Canada’s Foreign Policy? International Journal, 61(4), 829–844.Google Scholar
  14. Bosold, D., & Werthes, S. (2005). Human Security in Practice: Canadian and Japanese Experiences. Internationale Politik Und Gesellschaft, 1(2005), 84–101.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Symbolic Power. Critique of Anthropology, 4(13–14), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Capie, D. (2004). Between a Hegemon and a Hard Place: The ‘War on Terror’ and Southeast Asian–US Relations. The Pacific Review, 17(2), 223–248. Scholar
  17. Carpenter, C., Duygulu, S., Montgomery, A. H., & Rapp, A. (2014). Explaining the Advocacy Agenda: Insights from the Human Security Network. International Organization, 68(2), 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chapnick, A. (2011). A Diplomatic Counter-Revolution: Conservative Foreign Policy, 2006–11 over the Transom. International Journal, 67(1), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chapnick, A., & Kukucha, C. J. (2016). Conservative Foreign Policy in the Harper era. In A. Chapnick & C. J. Kukucha (Eds.), The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy: Parliament, Politics, and Canada’s Global Posture. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cheung-Gertler, J. H. (2007). A Model Power for a Troubled World—Canadian National Interests and Human Security in the 21st Century. International Journal, 62(3), 589–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Christiano, T. (2004). The Authority of Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(3), 266–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cingranelli, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (1999). Respect for Human Rights After the End of the Cold War. Journal of Peace Research, 36(5), 511–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and Grievance in Civil War. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), 563–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. (2015, November 6). Trudeau Government Renames Key Departments. Retrieved from:
  25. Cushion, C., & Jones, R. L. (2006). Power, Discourse, and Symbolic Violence in Professional Youth Soccer: The Case of Albion Football Club. Sociology of Sport Journal, 23(2), 142–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Daalder, I. H. (2001). Are the United States and Europe Heading for Divorce? International Affairs, 77(3), 553–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dallaire, R. (2004). Shake Hands with the Devil the Failure of Humanity in Rwanda. New York: Carroll & Graf.Google Scholar
  28. DFAIT. (1999). Human Security: Safety for People in a Changing World. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.Google Scholar
  29. Evans, G. (2016). Responsibility to Protect (R2P): The ICISS Commission Fifteen Years on (Simons Papers in Security and Development No. 54/2016). School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  30. Evans, G., & Sahnoun, M. (2001). Intervention and State Sovereignty: Breaking New Ground. Global Governance, 7(2), 119–125.Google Scholar
  31. Falk, R. A. (1999). Kosovo, World Order, and the Future of International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 93(4), 847–857. Scholar
  32. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Glennon, M. J. (2001). The Fog of Law: Self-Defense, Inherence, and Incoherence in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter Law and the War on Terrorism: Military Action against Terrorists Under International Law. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 25(2), 539–558.Google Scholar
  34. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from:
  35. Government of Canada. (1995). Canada in the World: Government Statement. Ottawa: Government of Canada.Google Scholar
  36. Government of Canada. (2017, November 28). The Peace and Stabilization Operations Program. Retrieved from:
  37. Grabosky, P. (2013). Organised Crime and the Internet. The RUSI Journal, 158(5), 18–25. Scholar
  38. Herman, E. S., & Brodhead, F. (1984). Demonstration Elections: U.S.-Staged Elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam and El Salvador. Boston, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  39. Herr, K., & Anderson, G. (2003). Violent Youth or Violent Schools? A Critical Incident Analysis of Symbolic Violence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(4), 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Holloway, S. K. (2006). Canadian Foreign Policy: Defining the National Interest. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  41. Human Security Centre. (2006). Human Security Report 2005: War and Peace in the 21st Century. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Human Security Report Project. (2013). Human Security Report 2013: The Decline in Global Violence: Evidence, Explanation, and Contestation. Vancouver: Human Security Press.Google Scholar
  43. Human Security Research Group. (n.d.). Retrieved from:
  44. Human Security Unit. (2009). Human Security in Theory and Practice: An Overview of the Human Security Concept and the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security. New York, NY: United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security.Google Scholar
  45. Ikenberry, G. J. (2002). America’s Imperial Ambition. Foreign Affairs, 81(5), 44–60. Scholar
  46. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. (2001). The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  47. Jessup, P. C. (1954). Should International Law Recognize an Intermediate Status Between Peace and War? The American Journal of International Law, 48(1), 98–103. Scholar
  48. Jockel, J., & Sokolsky, J. (2000). Lloyd Axworthy’s Legacy: Human Security and the Rescue of Canadian Defence Policy. International Journal, 56(1), 1–18. Scholar
  49. Kaldor, M. (1999). New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kamidohzono, S., Gómez, O., & Mine, Y. (2015). Embracing Human Security: New Directions of Japan’s ODA for the 21st Century (JICA-RI Working Paper No. 94). Tokyo: JICA Research Institute.Google Scholar
  51. Keating, T., & Murray, R. W. (2014). Mutual Constitution or Convenient National Interest? The Security Strategies of Canada and the United States Since 1991. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 20(3), 247–258. Scholar
  52. Kikoler, N. (2009). Responsibility to Protect. In International Conference: Protecting People in Conflict and Crisis: Responding to the Challenges of a Changing World. Retrieved from:
  53. Krause, K. (2008). Building the Agenda of Human Security: Policy and Practice Within the Human Security Network. International Social Science Journal, 59(s1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kunz, J. L. (1947). Individual and Collective Self-Defense in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. The American Journal of International Law, 41(4), 872–879. Scholar
  55. Luck, E. C. (2011). The Responsibility to Protect: The First Decade. Global Responsibility to Protect, 3(4), 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martin, M., & Owen, T. (2010). The Second Generation of Human Security: Lessons from the UN and EU Experience. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), 86(1), 211–224.Google Scholar
  57. McRobbie, A. (2004). Notes on ‘What Not to Wear’ and Post-feminist Symbolic Violence. The Sociological Review, 52(s2), 99–109. Scholar
  58. Moens, A. (2008). Afghanistan and the Revolution in Canadian Foreign Policy. International Journal, 63(3), 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mokyr, J., & Grada, C. Ó. (2002). What Do People Die of During Famines: The Great Irish Famine in Comparative Perspective. European Review of Economic History, 6(3), 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Murray, R. W., & McCoy, J. (2010). From Middle Power to Peacebuilder: The Use of the Canadian Forces in Modern Canadian Foreign Policy. American Review of Canadian Studies, 40(2), 171–188. Scholar
  61. Paris, R. (2001). Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security, 26(2), 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Remacle, E. (2008). Approaches to Human Security: Japan, Canada and Europe in Comparative Perspective. The Journal of Social Science, 66, 5–34.Google Scholar
  63. Richard Nossal, K. (2013). The Use—And Misuse—of R2P: The Case of Canada. In A. Hehir & R. Murray (Eds.), Libya, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention (pp. 110–129). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roosevelt, F. D. (1941, January 6). 1941 State of the Union Address: The Four Freedoms. Retrieved from:
  65. Rudnytskyi, O., Levchuk, N., Wolowyna, O., Shevchuk, P., & Kovbasiuk, A. (2015). Demography of a Man-Made Human Catastrophe: The Case of Massive Famine in Ukraine 1932–1933. Canadian Studies in Population, 42(1–2), 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simonton, D. K. (1979). Multiple Discovery and Invention: Zeitgeist, Genius, or Chance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(9), 1603–1616. Scholar
  67. Stairs, D. (1994). Will and Circumstance and the Postwar Study of Canada’s Foreign Policy. International Journal, 50(1), 9–39. Scholar
  68. Suhrke, A. (1999). Human Security and the Interests of States. Security Dialogue, 30(3), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thakur, R. (2002). Outlook: Intervention, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: Experiences from ICISS. Security Dialogue, 33(3), 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thomas, N., & Tow, W. T. (2002). The Utility of Human Security: Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention. Security Dialogue, 33(2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. UNESCO MGIEP. (2017, October 6). “There Is No Peace Without Development and There Is No Development Without Peace”: Ms. Tawakkol Karman’s Ahinsa Lecture Highlights the Importance of Working Towards Building peace and Sustainable Development. Retrieved from:
  72. U.N. General Assembly. (2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  73. United Nations. Charter of the United Nations (1945). Retrieved from:
  74. United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human Development Report 1994. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Vorster, H. H., & Kruger, A. (2007). Poverty, Malnutrition, Underdevelopment and Cardiovascular Disease: A South African Perspective: Review Article. Cardiovascular Journal of Africa, 18(5), 321–324.Google Scholar
  76. Wedgwood, R. (1999). NATO’s Campaign in Yugoslavia. The American Journal of International Law, 93(4), 828–834. Scholar
  77. Weiss, T. G. (2006). R2P After 9/11 and the World Summit. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 24(3), 741–760.Google Scholar
  78. Welsh, J., Thielking, C., & MacFarlane, S. N. (2002). The Responsibility to Protect: Assessing the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. International Journal, 57(4), 489–512. Scholar
  79. Williams, I. (2002). Writing the Wrongs of Past Interventions: A Review of the International Committee on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The International Journal of Human Rights, 6(3), 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wright, M. J. (1974). Should We Rediscover Blatz? Was His Psychology American, European or Uniquely Canadian? Canadian Psychologist/Psychologie Canadienne, 15(2), 140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OEF Research, One Earth Future FoundationBroomfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations