The first 100 years: IR, critical security studies and the quest for peace

This paper argues that peace studies and the Welsh school of critical security studies both define themselves in opposition to the traditional view of security, with the only difference that the former goes through the concept of peace in voicing its critique of security. Pointing to some striking similarities in the epistemology, methodology and ontology of Johan Galtung and Ken Booth, it shows that the two studies have been driving on parallel roads and that they would profit greatly from joining forces. Being the kind of applied and anti-hegemonic science that scholars at Aberystwyth strive for, peace studies could provide the Welsh school with greater practical applicability and access to everyday life. The Welsh school, in turn, could endow peace studies with academic reputation and a solid critical foundation. This would not only put peace back on the agenda of IR, but also contribute towards the decolonization of the discipline.


Introduction
While the quest for peace is considerably older than the discipline of International Relations (IR), only in 1919 has this quest become recognized as a science in its own right when the world's first chair in International Politics was established at Aberystwyth University. Just as the purpose of promoting health gave rise to medical science, Carr (1995Carr ( [1939, pp. 3-4)-the fourth professor to hold that chairnotes, the purpose to obviate a recurrence of a war as disastrous as World War I created the science of IR. As students of IR can learn in almost every textbook, it is impossible to imagine the foundation of the academic discipline without the carnage of the Great War. 1 In light of this, it does not overstate the case to say that the traditional problem of IR, in fact, the problem to which IR owes its very existence, is that of how a lasting peace can be achieved. Although interstate warfare has largely given way to internationalized intrastate warfare over the course of the last 100 years, this problem has hardly lost any of its significance.
And yet peace is no longer a central concern to IR. Conspicuously, none of the contributions to International Relations' centennial special issue "Reflections on International Relations 1919-2019" deals with the issue of peace. The reason for IR's neglect of peace, Acharya and Buzan (2019) argue in their book The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at its Centenary, is that the story of IR has from its very beginning been the story of the West. While after World War I-a war "threatening to destroy European civilization itself" (Acharya and Buzan 2019, p. 29)-the emerging discipline was obsessed with war and the conditions that bring about peace, after World War II, when nuclear deterrence and institutional arrangements rendered great power war unlikely, peace moved from being a core-core issue to being a core-periphery and periphery-periphery issue. With the Western world 'pacified', the attention of (predominantly Western) IR scholars turned from peace to security.
The dissolution of the normative core of IR, Holsti (2019) deplores in his contribution to Global Affairs' centennial special section "IR 100 Years", has been accompanied by a fragmentation of the discipline. After security studies had ousted peace studies from the heart of the discipline, it fostered an in-house distinction between traditional and critical security studies that, in important respects, falls back on the earlier distinction between security studies and peace studies. Critical security studies, in turn, has disintegrated into an ever-wider number of (Welsh, Copenhagen, Paris, Manchester, Beirut, etc.) schools. While fragmentation is not wrong per se, especially not if it gives rise to non-Western voices, it becomes a problem when it creates similar but separated research agendas. Taking IR's centennial anniversary as an opportunity to reflect on the discipline's first 100 years, this paper suggests that in their critique of the traditional view of security, peace studies and the Welsh school of critical security studies have indeed been following similar paths without acknowledging their fellow travelers.
Lately, though, both seem to have arrived at a dead end: Wary of the concepts of positive peace and structural violence, "peace research has returned to its original agenda" (Gleditsch et al. 2014, p. 145), fueling voices that proclaim its "death" (Jutila et al. 2008, p. 625) and propose its revitalization as "critical peace research" (Jutila et al. 2008, p. 629). The Welsh school of critical security studies, on the other hand, has not been able to deliver on its self-imposed promise to foster emancipatory change, nourishing calls to lay it to rest (Browning and McDonald 2012) or, at least, deprive it of the prefix "critical" (Hynek and Chandler 2013, p. 47). The paper at hand argues that researchers of the two camps can only overcome this impasse by joining together: Being the kind of applied and anti-hegemonic science that scholars at Aberystwyth strive for, peace studies could provide the Welsh school with greater practical applicability and access to everyday life. The Welsh school, in turn, could endow peace studies with a solid critical foundation and the academic reputation that is being denied to this day. This would not only put peace back on the agenda of IR, but also contribute towards what Acharya and Buzan (2019) call "Global IR": A discipline that addresses the concerns of both, core and periphery.
I develop my argument in three steps: Section one depicts the impact of critical thinking on peace and security studies. Section two identifies some overlooked commonalities in the epistemology, methodology and ontology of Johan Galtung and Ken Booth. Section three argues that marrying peace studies and the Welsh school of critical security studies would provide the former with an urgently required academic home and the latter with a much desired playing field. I conclude that in such a marriage, the two studies should assume the name of critical peace studies, as peace connects much better than security with the emancipatory intent that lies at the heart of both studies.
Before I begin, three caveats are in order: first, while being sympathetic to critical approaches to peace and security, no attempt will be made to defend these approaches against their critics. This is because the aim of this paper is not to demonstrate the approaches' plausibility, but compatibility. Second, as I seek to contest past disciplinary divisions, I will not engage with the latest turns-critical feminist studies, critical military studies, critical war studies, critical terrorism studies, etc.-that add even more divisions to what is already a highly fragmented discipline. Third, since it is impossible to even review the work that has been published under the labels of critical peace studies and critical security studies in an article of this length, I will focus on the thought of those who came up with these labels and remain to be seen as authorities in their fields, Galtung and Booth. To indicate this, I will use the capitalized (and mostly abbreviated) terms Critical Peace Studies (CPS) and Critical Security Studies (CSS). With these caveats in mind, I will now turn to the first section of this paper.

Peace studies
As outlined above, the original intention of IR was to understand war in order to prevent it from reoccurring. Consequently, IR and peace studies, which were identical at the time, defined peace negatively as the absence of war. While security, too, was defined in negative terms as the absence of a threat, peace and security were widely treated as antagonistic concepts. "Much of this oppositionalism", Buzan and Hansen (2011, p. 105) point out, "was framed in the classic Realist versus Idealist mould of IR". When after World War II the tide started to turn against idealism and in favour of realism, replacing peace with security as IR's primary subject matter, peace researchers began to establish their own counter-institutions. In 1959, the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and the Center for Research on Conflict Resolution (CRCR) were founded, with the Journal of Peace Research and the Journal of Conflict Resolution becoming their main outlets. While researchers at PRIO claimed 'peace' for themselves, without IR holding much on to it, their American counterparts at CRCR avoided any reference to that allegedly pretentious label. With their focus on conflict resolution (as opposed to eradication) and arms control (as opposed to disarmament), researchers at CRCR managed to position themselves between the peace studies at PRIO and the security studies of IR, maintaining contact with both. The expanding Scandinavian peace studies community, 2 in contrast, cut all ties to IR. Instead, it attracted scholars from other disciplines as diverse as Anthropology, Biology, Economics, Physics, Psychology and Sociology who brought with them their positivist methodologies. The peace researchers who had originally been trained in historicist IR readily embraced their empiricism in order to counter IR's charge that peace studies, due to its normative orientation, was unscientific. Making themselves one with the behaviouralist revolution was seen as a chance to present their work as social science as opposed to an intellectual protest movement.
With its focus on negative peace and its commitment to positivist methods, peace studies had a long way to go to become the broad church that it is today. The first step was made in Oslo in 1964. In his Nobel Peace Prize speech, King (1964) claimed that we "must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but on the positive affirmation of peace". The distinction between negative and positive peace was subsequently picked up by the founder of PRIO, Galtung (1964, p. 2), who, in the editorial of the first volume of the Journal of Peace Research, defined negative peace as "the absence of violence" and positive peace as "the integration of human society". Being born into a family of doctors and nurses, Galtung came to compare negative peace to a curative therapy, ending already present violence much like a medicine cures a disease, and positive peace to a preventive therapy, creating the conditions that prevent the violence/disease from breaking out in the first place. However, by focusing on empirically observable ills, Galtung ignored the latent and invisible structures that can be a cause of great violence. This, at least, was the critique that Galtung was confronted with by the newly radicalized left of the late 1960s. In his 1969 article "Violence, Peace and Peace Research", Galtung responded to his critics by developing the notion of structural violence, which he subsequently compared to a virus that can cause great harm even though no overt symptoms of illness are visible. Galtung's analysis that most, if not all, violence is linked to deeper structures in society meant that his dual definition of peace had to be revised. At first, negative peace was redefined as the absence of personal/overt/ direct violence and positive peace as the absence of structural/hidden/indirect violence, but given that this turned the latter into a negative category, Galtung (1969, p. 168) construed it positively as human realization.

Security studies
Whereas in the interwar period IR was just another name for peace studies, in the early postwar period, it became tantamount to security studies. As indicated above, this thematic shift can be explained by the simultaneous theoretical shift from idealism to realism, which, in parts, is a reflection of the 'pacification' of the West. With security being part and parcel of IR, peace researchers were driven to the margins of the discipline, while some of the more liberal-minded sought refuge in International Political Economy (IPE), which-on a par with what today is known as International Security Studies (ISS)-established itself as a sub-field of IR (see Fig. 1). As Buzan and Hansen (2011, p. 58) note, "the two sub-fields [were] carving up the terrain of IR so that IPE claimed the cooperative, joint-gains side of the subject, with ISS claiming the conflictual, relative gains one". But whereas liberal-dominated IPE has always been open to dissident realist and critical voices in the form of mercantilism and Marxism, ISS "has been among the last bastions of orthodoxy in International Relations to accept critical or theoretically sophisticated challenges to its problematic" (Krause and Williams 1997, p. vii). Arguably, this was because liberal and critical voices had been successfully 'outsourced' to peace studies, allowing realism to lead a carefree life until the two made a comeback in the 1990s when the end of the Cold War put an end to the monopoly of the state-centric view of security.
It was in 1994 that in a Human Development Report and at a York University conference, the liberal and critical concepts of human security and world security-later also referred to as cosmopolitan security (Burke 2013) or global security (Burke et al. 2014)-were born. Given that both human security and world security consider the individual to be the ultimate referent of security, the concepts are often confounded. But they must be kept apart. As a liberal concept, human security tends to attribute human insecurity to illiberal regimes. While the "state remains the fundamental purveyor of security", the Commission on Human Security (2003, p. 2) writes in its report Human Security Now, "it often fails to fulfil its security obligations-and at times has even become a source of threat to its own people". World security, in contrast, locates the source of threat to the individual not so much in failed states as in a failed global capitalist and Westphalian system. Only by freeing people from "structural oppression", Booth (2007, pp. 101, 327) argues in his magnum opus Theory of World Security, will we be able to "overcome systemic human insecurity". What world security aims at, then, is not regime change, but emancipatory change, whereby emancipation refers to the freeing of people (as individuals and groups) from those physical and human constraints which stop them carrying out what they would freely choose to do. War and the threat of war is one of those constraints, together with poverty, poor education, political oppression and so on. (Booth 1991, p. 319) This definition, and the second sentence in particular, is remarkable in at least two respects. For one thing, Booth goes beyond the traditional definition of security as "the absence of threats" when he defines emancipation, which "theoretically" and "empirically is security" (Booth 1991, p. 319), as the freeing of people from both "the threat of war" and "[w]ar". Security, thus conceived, refers not only to the absence of a communicated intent to inflict violence, but also to an absence of violence itself, which drives us into the territory of negative peace, being defined as "the absence of violence". But Booth also makes inroads into the territory of positive peace when he defines security as the freeing of people from "poverty", "poor education" and "political oppression"-what Galtung would refer to as structural violence. Later, in a move reminiscent of Galtung, Booth (2005a, p. 22;2007, p. 107) even gave security a positive twist by redefining it as "living" (as opposed to merely "being alive"), providing people with "time, energy, and scope to choose to be or become, other than merely surviving as human biological organisms".
In this first section, it has been shown that peace and security studies, starting from a negative and reductionist definition of peace and security, have arrived, via different routes, at a positive and structuralist definition of peace and security. It was in 1964 that Galtung drew his famous distinction between negative and positive peace, extending the scope of peace to encompass not only being, but also wellbeing. This widening sets the stage for the deepening in 1969 when the conditions for well-being were sought at the global level. Peace studies' widening and deepening debates of the 1960s were to be "continued" and "mirrored" by security studies in the 1990s (Buzan and Hansen 2011, pp. 129-130). In 1994, 30 years after Galtung had begun to examine the nature of peace, the concepts of human security and world security saw the light of day, extending security downwards to the individual level and upwards to the global level. This deepening went hand in hand with a widening, for security threats at the individual and global level are less militaristic and more economic and environmental in nature. But poverty and pollution, while having severe effects on the individual and the globe, might not be as mortal as military obliteration (at least not in the short run), which warranted a redefinition of security as "survival-plus", with "the plus being the possibility to explore human becoming" (Booth 2005a, p. 22). Booth's definition of security as human becoming, in turn, is reminiscent of Galtung's interpretation of peace as human realization, which is why, after all the widening and deepening that has taken place in peace and security studies, the time is ripe for integrating peace and security studies, at least in their critical guises.

Commonalities
The commonalities between Galtung and Booth, and between CPS and CSS more broadly, have not gone unnoticed. Richmond (2007, pp. 257-258) and Jutila et al. (2008, p. 637) have pointed to their common notion of emancipation and Donnelly (2016, p. 272) has identified some "talking points", even though she believes the "language barriers" to prevail. Contrary to her claim that "critical peace studies and critical security studies … divide along a plethora of epistemological, methodological [and] ontological" (Donnelly 2016, p. 272) lines, I argue in this section that the two studies do in fact share the same epistemology, methodology and ontology. In further contrast to Donnelly (2016, pp. 273-274), I do not frame CPS as "an essentially contested concept" and CSS as encompassing "scholars from Aberystwyth to Copenhagen, to Paris", but devote myself to the thought of Galtung, who invented the term CPS in 1996, and Booth, who coined the term Critical Security Studies in 1991. "After Galtung," Patomäki (2001, p. 28) noticed in 2001, "few have developed the critical ideals and methodology of peace research. Apart from [Ole] Waever, Hayward Alker is almost the only person to make the exception". While over the last years, a few more scholars have contributed to that body of thought, most notably Richmond (2007Richmond ( , 2008Richmond ( , 2009Richmond ( , 2010Richmond ( , 2020, CPS remains to be centred on Galtung to this day. By way of comparison, CSS has attracted a large number of scholars who gather under the label of the Welsh or Aberystwyth school. This being said, the school is still reliant on Booth and Wyn Jones-to the point that it has been termed "Booth and Wyn Jones and their Aberystwyth students and collaborators" (Buzan and Hansen 2011, p. 205)-, which is why I will focus on these two scholars, and on Booth in particular.
While Galtung and Booth can be treated as emblematic figures of CPS and CSS, respectively, they have not been exempt from criticism. The controversy that surrounds the two thinkers is partly due to the fact that they started as hard-nosed positivists that only gradually came to adopt a post-positivist epistemology. Galtung's scientific objectivism is evident from his medical analogy, comparing peace/violence to health/disease, and his doctor metaphor in particular, picturing the peace researcher as a health scientist who, unaffected by the disease, makes an objective diagnosis. While conceding that no neutral vantage point "outside our conflict-ridden world" exists, Galtung nevertheless thought that the peace researcher had to "at least try the approach to objectivity known as multi-subjectivity" until "other bases of objectivity" are found cited in Lawler 1995, p. 51). In contrast, those with an outspoken political agenda "will probably find relatively few things of interest in peace research and rather turn to classical international relations studies for research foundations of their policies" cited in Lawler 1995, p. 51). Galtung believed that peace studies, like medicine, serves humanity in general, and no one humanity in particular, whereas IR and, hence, security studies are "limited to the author's immediate surroundings", as a result of which "the whole world is seen from the vantage-point of the nation-state" (Galtung 1971, p. 249). This is exactly the kind of ethnocentrism that Booth once engaged in and that he later came to deplore in "Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen Realist" (Booth 1997). While sharing Galtung's analysis of security studies, Booth does not draw the same conclusions from it. Given that all theory is for someone and for some purpose, those critical of security studies should "not make a claim to objectivity" but, on the contrary, "politicize" security to the benefit "of humankind in general and of the suffering in particular" (Booth 2007, pp. 30, 38). This is a conclusion that Galtung eventually arrived at, too. In a 1985 piece, he called on his fellow peace researchers to not keep their "values hidden under the mystifying slogan of 'objectivity'" (Galtung 1985, p. 143) and in his 1996 sketch of the present mode of peace studies, he no longer claims that it stands above politics but that it is part of it: [A]s the purpose of the whole exercise is to promote peace, not only peace studies, a non-positivistic epistemology is indispensable, with explicit values and therapies, rather than stopping once the diagnosis has been pronounced" (Galtung 1996, p. vii).
Parallel to Critical Security Studies, he calls this exercise Critical Peace Studies and defines it as "the systemic comparison of empirical reality (data) with values, trying, in words and/or in action, to change reality if it does not agree with the values" (Galtung 1996, pp. 9-10; see also Galtung 1985;Galtung et al. 2002). One may think that such overt normativity is closer to the utopianism of the discredited interwar idealists than to the CSS of Booth, but it is not, as will be shown in the next paragraph.
One definition of peace that Galtung (1964, p. 2) provided in his 1964 editorial was "the absence of violence". This immediately raised the question of what he meant by violence. Five years later, Galtung (1969, pp. 168-169) defined it as "the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual", whereby "the potential" is contingent on "the given level of insight and resources". With peace being the absence of violence, and violence being "that which increases the distance between the potential and the actual" (Galtung 1969, p. 168; see also Galtung 1996, p. 197), the task of the peace researcher can only be to decrease the distance between the potential and the actual. In other words, the peace researcher has to engage in "immanent critique"-an analytical method that was pioneered by the early Horkheimer and that Booth (2005b, p. 11; see also Nunes 2012, p. 352), one of the method's staunchest advocates, describes as "the idea that instead of moving forward on the basis of utopian blueprints one should look for the unfulfilled potential already existing within society". It is their common search for unrealized possibilities of greater freedom and equality that are immanent within existing structures, and their common effort to realize these possibilities, that makes Galtung and Booth not only epistemological but also methodological partners. 3 In his article "Violence, Peace and Peace Research", Galtung (1969, p. 170) not only defined violence, but also distinguished between different types thereof: "We shall refer to the type of violence where there is an actor that commits the violence as personal or direct, and to violence where there is no such actor as structural or indirect." In an analogous manner, Booth (2007, p. 101) draws a distinction between "direct threats of violence" and "the more indirect but no less real threats that come from structural oppression". With traditional peace and security researchers being obsessed with direct violence and the threat thereof, respectively, Galtung and Booth focused on indirect violence and the threat thereof, respectively. Yet peace and security, even if understood in structural terms, remained negative constructs. Eager to further mark out their critical projects from the traditional perspectives, Galtung and Booth construed peace and security positively-at times as human realization (Galtung 1969, p. 168) and human becoming (Booth 2005a, p. 22), at other times as the integration of human society (Galtung 1964, p. 2) and a more inclusive humanity (Booth 2007, p. 2). It was at this point that the violence/threat distinction and, as such, the peace/ security distinction got lost: whereas previously peace was about the absence of violence, and security about the absence of a threat thereof, now both were about the presence of one and the same good. Accordingly, Galtung and Booth do not only share the same epistemology and methodology, but also the same ontology.
Although Galtung, in many respects, has been well ahead of Booth, the latter has been hesitant to acknowledge the former's input. In Theory of World Security, Booth (2007, pp. 39-40) draws upon the metaphor of a pearl fisher who is plundering ideas from the two oyster beds of critical social theory and radical international theory. Chief among the first oyster bed is the Critical Theory of the early Frankfurt School that also left its mark on peace studies. As Buzan and Hansen (2011, p. 206) note: Critical Security Studies … has been the perspective to most explicitly pick up the Critical Theory Frankfurt School tradition that was part of Peace Research in the 1970s. This, however, did not happen as an explicit engagement with the latter literature, but through a reading of the Frankfurt School itself.
Radical international theory, the second oyster bed Booth draws from, includes the World Order School, feminist theorising, historical sociology, social idealism and, notably, peace studies/peace research. However, by degrading peace studies to a "second, lesser" (Mutimer 2016, p. 95) set of ideas, and by putting it on an equal footing with far less institutionalized studies such as the World Order School, peace studies remains at the margins not only of IR, but also of CSS. In fact, when pointing to the overlap with peace studies, proponents of CSS tend to do so, quite literally, in parentheses: Parenthetically, it should be noted that Buzan's broader conception of security ran parallel with some of the ideas of the Peace Researchers….
[Their] concern for the well-being of individuals rather than states, and the belief that real security could only be achieved through human emancipation, later became identified with the Critical Security Studies approach. (Bilgin et al. 1998, p. 143) Parenthetically, I submit that concern with epistemology points to the difference between critical security studies and much of peace research, two approaches that seem to have much in common. (Wyn Jones 1999, p. 132).
CSS's step-motherly treatment towards peace studies (which in the two quotations above is referred to, quite tellingly, as peace research) is indicative of the general tendency "of always reinventing the wheel, … of not reading what other people have written, either in the name of (sometimes proud) insularity, or else because one does not even suspect that what they might have written might constitute any contribution to the field" (Lefevere 1993, pp. 299-230). 4

Complementarities
Yet CSS would profit greatly from joining forces with peace studies. As Booth (1991, p. 325) pointed out in 1991, it "is in the area of practice where critical theory so far falls short". Ever since, it has been the self-imposed task of CSS "to engage with the real" (Booth 1997, p. 114) and to outline "what emancipation might mean in practice" (Wyn Jones 1999, p. 77). Invoking Gramsci's famous dictum that the validity of Marxism lies not in the assertion of its scientific truths, but in its ability to change things for the better, proponents of CSS are not getting tired to stress that their enterprise stands or falls by its practical performance: Providing a persuasive account of humanity's capacity is one thing, but it is the realization of that potential that must be the ultimate concern. It is this social transformation that is the point of critical theory, and it is according to its adequacy for this task that critical theory must be judged. As Nancy Fraser argues, "It is in the crucible of political practice that critical theories meet the ultimate test of vitality [sic!]" (Wyn Jones 2005, p. 228; see also Wyn Jones 1999, p. 6;Booth 2005c, p. 182;Booth 2007, p. 200).
If judged by the 25 years of its existence, CSS has not passed this test very well. Indeed, it has not "progressed much beyond grandiose statements of intent" and thus become the "fatally flawed enterprise" that Wyn Jones (1999, pp. 151-152) once warned against (Browning and McDonald 2012). As Mutimer (2016, p. 95) notes: "The approach to security which starts with Frankfurt School Critical Theory has, as yet at least, not produced a great deal of scholarship which seeks to analyse contemporary issues or practices of security".
Peace studies, in contrast, "has an impressive track record of involvement in developing and implementing practical solutions to security problems, often at local level" (Herring 2013, p. 47). While some would even go so far as to claim that it contributed to the end of the Cold War (Patomäki 2001, p. 728), there is little doubt that peace studies, taking "place simultaneously in the domains of theory, research, practice, and activism" (Booth 2007, p. 65), is well situated to lend CSS greater practical applicability. As Jackson (2018, p. 159) notes: [U]nlike CSS which remains a largely theoretical or academic field, pacifism and non-violence [and, one might add, peace studies more generally] has a long history of social movements, practical experiments and constructive projects …. CSS could gain a great deal through engaging with this history and practice, and with the bottom-up, practical and experimental kinds of theory it produces.
On the few occasions on which CSS has intervened practically, Hynek and Chandler (2013, pp. 47-48) argue, it has been top-down and, as such, not essentially different from the social engineering projects of the twentieth century that sought to instil emancipation from above: Emancipatory theorising was to start with the security of 'the poor, the disadvantaged, the voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless' (Bellamy and Williams 2007, 7) but the agencies of emancipation were Western states, international institutions and 'global civic culture', informed by the Western academic advocates of emancipation ….
If CSS does not want to end up as the hegemonic project it once sought to overcome, it should leave behind its universal blueprints and engage with what Richmond (2009, p. 570) calls the "everyday" by promoting and displaying "selfgovernment, self-determination, empathy, care, and an understanding of cultural dynamics". And yet it is unclear how these proposals "might be carried out in reality" and, in any case, how they are "different to mainstream think tank proposals calling for more 'local ownership', 'local capacity-building', 'empowerment', 'sustainability' and 'resilience'" (Hynek and Chandler 2013, p. 56).
Here, again, peace studies could come to CSS's rescue. When after World War II peace moved from being a core-core to being a periphery-periphery issue, peace research turned from being a hegemonic endeavour to being a counterhegemonic force: a study of the marginalized by the marginalized. Its flagship journal, the Journal of Peace Research, publishes studies on and from various parts of the world (see Buhaug et al. 2014) and smaller ones, such as the Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, provide an explicit outlet for local discourses rooted in lived experiences, making peace research a self-emancipatory practice. Thus, to a certain extent, peace research has always practised what Booth and Vale (1995, p. 304) preached 25 years ago: To consider "ordinary people" and to act "locally" because, in order to be lasting, "security in the form of peace, order and justice must be owned by the people(s) of the region". Peace studies' recent "local turn" (Mac Ginty and Richmond 2013) only extends this long-standing practice to the Western agents of liberal peace.
Security studies, in contrast, remains a Western practice, as Barkawi and Laffey (2006) and Bilgin (2010)-a few exceptions to the rule-have forcefully argued. This is because security studies, both traditional and critical, tends to treat the non-Western world as an object rather than a subject of security, that is, something that needs to be secured rather than somebody that is capable of producing security. As the neglect of non-Western practices is not merely a "blind spot" but a "constitutive practice" of security studies, Bilgin (2010, p. 617) concludes, it cannot be remedied by "adding and stirring" local voices. The obvious remedy, it seems, is to turn to peace, which has always relied on the agency of its building blocks (Buzan 1984, p. 110).
CSS, in turn, could lend peace studies the academic credibility that it is in desperate need of. Due to its normative anchorage, starting as peace search rather than peace research, peace studies has often been dismissed as scientifically questionable, intellectually vapid, morally-driven, value-laden, idealist, naïve and utopian appeasement studies at best, and as soft, weak, feminine, bearded, sandal-wearing, left-wing and Kremlin-supporting security studies at worst. Many peace researchers have sought to escape this suspicion by embracing an unduly objectivist-scientific epistemology. However, their asserted objectivity and dedication to value-free science fit rather uneasily with their implicit normativity and devotion to the value of peace.
While CSS, too, has been criticized for its normative leanings, it has been able to counter this critique by lying bare its political aims. Recognizing that all knowledge is necessarily subjective, proponents of CSS see no contradiction in being both a social scientist and a political activist, as long as one is upfront about one's values. As Booth (2007, pp. 174-175) states: [A]gainst the charge that critical theory is political, the defence is not that it is not, but rather that traditional security scholarship is also political…. The charge … should be turned back on those that make it. There is indeed a 'political orientation' in critical theory towards emancipation, but this has been made explicit.
Rather than trying to mask their political agenda beneath a false objectivism, peace researchers, too, should unblushingly defend their normative bent. While it is true that Galtung (1996, p. 11) has started to bring politics (back) into the study of politics, calling for "critical peace studies [that] takes explicit stands", most peace researchers are still afraid of (re)turning towards a more openly normative peace studies. As Jutila et al. (2008, p. 639) point out, post-Cold War peace research is in "a state of stagnation where 'normal science' prevails without any willingness to analyse foundational categories … [and] the researcher's own position in relation to these categories". With the help of CSS, those researchers could become more conscious of the fact that all researchers are positioned and, consequently, more selfconscious about their own position.
More importantly, though, peace studies needs to make the transition from negative to positive peace if it wants to overcome the "state of stagnation" it is currently in. " [M]ired in a 'problem-solving' orientation" that "solves" conflict and, thereby, maintains "the status quo with its inherent structures of power, domination and oppression", peace researchers need to adopt a critical perspective that is prepared to "sharpen" conflict in cases in which "conflict is a necessary pre-requisite for the kind of revolutionary systemic change required to end structural and cultural violence" (Jackson 2015, pp. 21-22). 5 Again, one can hardly think of any tradition that is a better guide in this journey than critical theory, and CSS in particular. Ever since his revelation in the early 1990s, Booth has been outspoken in his critique of problem-solving theory (which, as outlined above, did not save CSS from becoming subject to the same sort of critique). It is against this background that Jutila et al. (2008, pp. 623, 625; see also Jackson 2015) have proposed to "revitalise" peace research as "critical peace research" by fusing it with "critical research agendas developed in Security Studies and IR". In fact, CSS (and Booth in particular, who happens to be the editor of International Relations, one of IR's leading journals) seems to be well positioned to move peace studies (or at least the part of it that stands in the tradition of IR emigrants), leading a neglected existence at the fringes of various disciplines, to where it originally belonged, at the centre of IR. This way, the marginalized could make their voices heard in the academy, while IR would move closer to "Global IR".
And in fact, 75 years after scholars had left IR for peace research, peace researchers are starting to make their way back into IR: As a result of peace studies' scholarly stagnation and disciplinary marginalization, "peace research conferences have increasingly failed to attract scholars" (Patomäki 2001, p. 724). This is particularly true of critically minded scholars who have been the first to leave the "sinking ship" (Patomäki 2001, p. 734; see also Jutila et al. 2008, p. 631;Gleditsch et al. 2014, p. 155). In sharp contrast, the Annual Conventions of the International Studies Association (ISA) are attracting more and more participants from all over the world. The growing number of papers and panels in ISA's Peace Studies Section shows that a considerable number of these participants are peace researchers. Their mounting influence in the IR community was evidenced by ISA's 57th Annual Convention in 2016 that centred on the theme of 'Exploring Peace'. The mutual permeability of peace research and IR-as well as peace studies' multidisciplinary nature-suggests that scholars on both sides have indeed little reservation about cross-fertilization.

Conclusion
Although the discipline of IR has substantially broadened its agenda over the last 100 years, it will always be linked to its initial purpose, the quest for peace. It was the perceived failure of conventional disciplines to offer guidelines of how to eliminate the scourge of war that made IR possible in the first place. As Rengger (2000, p. 11) notes: "The very fact that a new academic approach was felt by some to be needed indicates that, at least implicitly, existing academic subjects were not doing that job". Taking stock after a century of its foundation, we can resume that the discipline of IR has not done that job either, or better, it has done the job only partly.
While peace loomed large on its agenda during the interwar period, in the postwar period, when core-core relations were essentially 'pacified', IR scholars came to focus on security instead.
Outside the IR mainstream, the concepts of peace and security underwent a fundamental transformation from negative to positive, from reductionist to structuralist, in short: from traditional to critical. With the new traditional/critical cleavage cutting through the old peace/security cleavage, we are witnessing a conceptual realignment: On the one side stand the traditional researchers of the once two studies who define peace and security in negative and reductionist terms as the absence of a wrong (violence and the threat thereof). On the other side stand the critical researchers of the once two studies who define peace and security in positive and structuralist terms as the presence of a good (human fulfilment). Notably, traditional researchers are yet divided by the violence/threat distinction, whereas critical researchers jointly advance human fulfilment (see Table 1).
Where critical approaches to peace and security still differ, they tend to complement each other: While CPS, like peace research more generally, is often said to suffer from a "philosophical deficit" (Lawler 1995, p. 237), CSS is frequently accused of being "irrelevant to practical affairs" (Booth 2005c, p. 185). In their quest for theoretical sophistication and practical relevance, the two studies should turn to one another, as each is bringing in what the other is lacking. By meaningfully engaging with each other's theories and practices, academics and activists could forge a common research agenda-less focused on conflict management and mediation, and more concerned with conflict transformation and counter-hegemonic change-that works for the betterment of the those haunted by direct and indirect violence (which, quite often, will be the academics and activists themselves).

Towards Critical Peace Studies
When peace and security, in their traditional and, even more so, critical conceptions, are essentially the same thing, why do I call for CPS and not for CSS or, for that matter, Critical Peace and Security Studies? The latter term seems inappropriate in that it calls into question the very rapport that I have tried to establish. When Ned Lebow (1988) speaks of the field of "peace and security studies", he throws the two studies together as much as he keeps them apart. This might be legitimate as far as traditional peace and security studies are concerned. Yet Critical Peace Studies are Critical Security Studies, as a result of which I resent to speak of Critical Peace and Security Studies. But why do I make the case for CPS instead of Critical  Buzan (2007, p. 26) argues to the contrary that security is "a more versatile, penetrating and useful" concept of approaching the subject than peace. Once again, this might be a correct analysis as far as traditional peace and security studies are concerned. Indeed, traditional peace and security researchers, who started "as opposites and political enemies" (Buzan and Hansen 2011, p. 258), have been converging on security as a shared ground, as is evidenced by the work on security that came out of the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (before it was renamed, rather fittingly, Danish Institute for International Studies) and by the Peace Research Institute Oslo based journal Bulletin of Peace Proposals changing its name to Security Dialogue. In turn, critical peace and security researchers are well advised to converge on a common notion of peace that connects much better than security with the emancipatory purpose that lies at the heart of their studies.
While Booth (1991, p. 319) may be right that "[s]ecurity and emancipation are two sides of the same coin", he also claims that "security is what we make of it" (Booth 1997, p. 106) and what has been made of security is not the far-sighted, emancipatory, transformative and cosmopolitan force that Booth aspires it to be, but, on the contrary, a short-sighted, replicatory, conservative and statist concept. For realism, the pre-eminent paradigm during the Cold War, security flows from power and dominance, as a result of which a state's security always comes at the expense of the insecurity of other states. The label 'national security studies', that was popular in the USA before it became replaced by 'security studies' and, eventually, 'international security studies', and the label 'strategic studies', under which the sub-field is known in the UK to this day, both hint at the nationally-inclined and state-centric view of security. While it is true that the constructivist notion of 'securitization', which became the new buzzword after the Cold War, advances a more holistic view of security, the state remains at the centre of security-not as an object to secure, but as a 'securitizer'. As Booth (2007, p. 167) points out: "By freezing 'security' in its Cold War conceptualisation, and so reifying it as military problemsolving, the Copenhagen school connives in making security studies a static and conservative project". Even the liberal concept of human security, whose primary concern is neither with the security of the state (realism), nor with security by the state (constructivism), but with security from the state, is essentially wedded to the state. Neocleous (2008, pp. 185-186) concludes that we must "eschew the logic of security altogether" and replace it with "an alternative political language which takes us beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security and which therefore does not constantly throw us into the arms of the state". Against this backdrop, it does not surprise that Nunes (2016, p. 90) has discerned a tendency among critical thinkers to "bypass" and "sidestep" security.
Even if security can be as big as world security, what we have actually made of it is state security. Peace, in contrast, has always been conceived (and ridiculed) as world peace, even though its universal nature has been contested in this paper. But what matters, constructively speaking, is not what it is, but what we make of it and, as such, peace studies, associated with "world problems in a world perspective" (Lawler 2013, p. 85), nicely connects with the ontological and methodological holism of critical theory. Indeed, the appointment of Linklater-the figurehead of contemporary critical theory-as the tenth professor to hold the Woodrow Wilson chair of International Politics-which has been dedicated to the quest for peaceseems to attest that peace, not security, is the natural habitat of critical thinking. Studying and working towards peace should therefore not only be the task of the next holder of that chair, but of any critically inclined researcher with an emancipatory intent.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Declarations
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.