How we work

The Institute for Global Peacecraft studies how the concept of peace is defined and used in research, law, policy and practice. Its aim is to identify the common ground these understandings share and to articulate it as a comprehensive theory of change for global peace. It uses documented methods, publishes its articles through peer-reviewed journals and explains its findings in plain language. It offers its findings for examination and adoption.

Independence

The Institute is a non-profit association registered under Swedish law in Stockholm since 14 December 2017. Until October 2025 it was called the Peace and Conflict Science (PACS) Institute. It is governed by its Members' Assembly and its Board. Currently, its Director chairs the Board. It is a non-governmental organization in special consultative status with the United Nations. Its research is not commissioned or directed by any Government or international organization. Its articles name their author, and the views expressed in them are the author's.

Our starting point

People define and practise peace in a great many ways across the world: in religious and philosophical traditions, in law and diplomacy, in communities and families, and in research. The Institute takes this diversity as its starting point. It sees two possibilities.

  • These understandings share certain elements. If so, they all refer to the same thing: a social and relational phenomenon that happens to be called peace. The Institute’s research aims to state those shared elements clearly.
  • They share no such elements. If so, the single word peace may hide very different discussions taking place side by side, each about a different phenomenon. Giving each phenomenon its own name would tell them apart and sharpen the debate. The Institute would then contribute to that critical discussion.

Either result would help those who work for peace to understand one another.

An interdisciplinary approach

Peace touches every part of human life, so no single discipline can define it on its own. The Institute’s two peer-reviewed articles draw on research from many fields:

  • Peace and conflict research. Peace studies and irenology; peacebuilding and conflict transformation; research on negative, positive, liberal, hybrid, everyday, relational, just, sustainable, feminist and agonistic peace; structural violence; mediation and inclusive peace negotiations; peace and conflict measurement; conflict data; pacifism; genocide studies and prevention; peace psychology; and peace education.
  • Philosophy. Phenomenology; philosophy of mind; philosophy of pain; epistemology and social epistemology; moral philosophy and applied ethics; metaethics; political philosophy and social contract theory; theories of autonomy; the philosophy of coercion; the capability approach; cosmopolitanism; the philosophy of human rights; feminist philosophy; the ethics of war; metaphysics; the philosophy of science and research methodology; decision theory; and the history of philosophy.
  • Law. Public international law; the law on the use of force; humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect; international humanitarian law; international human rights law; international criminal law and the law of genocide; the law of the United Nations; the peaceful settlement of disputes; State responsibility; peremptory norms; self-determination and decolonization; criminal law and evidence; the use of force in law enforcement; the precautionary principle; legal theories of sovereignty; and restorative and transitional justice.
  • Social sciences. International relations; political science; sociology; criminology; game theory and negotiation research; economics; human security and sustainable development; public health; and history.
  • Psychology and the brain sciences. Humanistic psychology and psychotherapy; cognitive neuroscience; neuropsychology; and the cognitive science of perception.
  • Other fields. Evolutionary biology and linguistics.

Methods

The Institute seeks common ground for understanding peace that people and institutions with different beliefs and interests can each accept. Four guiding methods follow from that aim. Each is set out below with the published work in which the Institute applies it.

Four guiding methods for our work

Build on what existing definitions already share

A framework meant to align existing efforts cannot begin by imposing a new definition, which would only add to the disagreement. It must instead make explicit what the existing definitions of peace already have in common. The 2023 article "Reframing the Ontology of Peace Studies" does this across inner peace, peace between people and peace between groups. The 2026 article extends it to twelve concepts of peace and to human rights.

Rely only on premises that anyone can independently verify

A framework that rests on a faith, an authority or a tradition gives those who do not share it reason to reject it. Its premises must therefore be ones that every person can verify from their own experience. The 2026 article "The Sovereignty of Sentience" admits no other kind of premise.

Reason from first principles

A framework that borrows its conclusions from existing doctrine also inherits its disputes. It must instead build its account step by step from its premises, and show every step, so that anyone can see exactly where they disagree. The 2026 article publishes each step of its argument, including the points at which it could be challenged.

Identify foundations that are independent of any distinguishing characteristic

Peace and violence are meant to apply to everyone. A framework built on what only some people share, such as a culture, a religion or a nationality, cannot serve all of them. Its foundations must hold for every person equally, whatever their power, class, nationality, sex or any other characteristic. The 2026 article grounds its account in what every person has: an experience of their own, which no one else can see and which they cannot prove to anyone.

How the research programmes build on one another

The Institute’s five research programmes form one sequence. Each takes up the results of the ones before it.

  1. Concepts and Definitions of PeaceGathers how peace is defined and used in research, law, policy and practice. Its intended output is a systematic record of these definitions, the evidence base for the programmes that follow.
  2. Common Ground for PeaceCompares those definitions to find what they have in common, including assumptions they make without stating them. Its intended output is a statement of that common ground, precise enough to be tested and critiqued.
  3. Peace Measurement and IndicatorsWorks out how peace can be observed and measured in practice: within a person, between people and between groups. Its intended output is a set of indicators of peace that can be tested against data.
  4. Theory of Change for Global PeaceBrings together the definitions, their common ground and its indicators. Its intended output is a comprehensive theory of change for global peace, offered as a starting point for discussion.
  5. Peace in Law, Policy and InstitutionsApplies the theory of change to law, policy and institutions. Its intended output is an assessment of how far they are aligned with it, and how far they produce peace or violence.

Because the theory of change rests on what the many definitions of peace already share, it is meant to be comprehensive and to bring existing views together. It is offered as a starting point for discussion, to be examined, tested and corrected by others.

Applications

The Institute’s research is meant to be used by others. It can be used in the following ways.

For States and intergovernmental bodies

  • Normative evaluation of law. The research can be used to assess legal provisions and doctrines against an explicitly stated definition of peace. The 2026 article applies this evaluation to selected provisions and doctrines of international law, including those governing the use of force. It identifies where conduct that the law permits is nonetheless classified as violence.
  • Drafting and reviewing instruments. Treaties, peace agreements, constitutions and resolutions can be drafted and reviewed against a stated definition of peace. The 2026 article suggests that the account could give international law “a standard for designing and evaluating peace-aligned instruments, including constitutions and treaties”.
  • Assessing policy and institutions. The research can show how far a policy or an institution produces peace, and how far it produces violence.
  • Testing claims of peace. A claim that an action serves peace can be checked against its effects on the people concerned: does it leave them more able, or less able, to determine their own lives?
  • Measuring peace, not only violence. Indicators drawn from the research can sit alongside the measures used for Sustainable Development Goal 16, which mainly count the reduction of violence.

For civil society and funders

  • A shared language and evaluative framework. Organizations with different missions can describe their goal in the same terms and judge their work by the same standard.
  • Aligning theories of change. Organizations working for peace can see where their efforts add up, where they overlap and where gaps remain.
  • Designing and evaluating programmes. A clearly stated goal makes impact easier to judge. A 2023–2024 review for the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund found that impact was hard to assess without a portfolio-level theory of change.
  • Building coalitions across beliefs. Because the research relies only on premises that anyone can independently verify, it is intended to be open to examination by groups with different faiths, cultures or political views.

For mediation and dialogue

  • A common starting point. Parties with different beliefs can each examine a definition of peace that does not depend on the beliefs of any one of them.

For research and education

  • A common vocabulary for peace research. Studies built on different concepts of peace become easier to compare once those concepts are mapped onto one account. The 2026 article does this for 12 of the 61 concepts.
  • Peace education. Peace and violence can be taught in terms that hold for every person equally.
  • Linking human rights and peace. The research shows how existing human rights fit within one account of peace, as the 2026 article begins to do.

How the Institute applies its methods

The Institute applies these methods to particular bodies of evidence and to its work with the United Nations.

  • Written statements to United Nations bodies. The Institute submits its findings to intergovernmental bodies under its consultative status with the United Nations. In 2025, three written statements were published by the United Nations: two for the Human Rights Council and one for the Economic and Social Council.
  • Elicitation of local definitions. The Institute has asked participants to define peace in their own terms. At a 2020 workshop for the OMNI Center for Peace, Justice and Ecology, participants recorded their definitions of peace anonymously on written worksheets.
  • Systematic review with independent triple coding. The 61 Peace Definitions Review compiles the sources in which each of the 61 peace concepts catalogued by Martel et al. (2024) is defined: 149 records from 117 sources. Every record, including the page reference of each quotation, has been verified against the source text. Three coders independently assess whether each definition contains the elements that the Institute's account proposes. A calibration round on practice papers preceded full coding. Coders do not compare judgments until all three have finished, and each judgment must cite the passage on which it rests. Disagreements are reconciled against the source text and the written coding rules, not by majority vote alone. The paper is in preparation, and no results are available.
  • Operationalization. The Institute specifies observable indicators for each element of its account, so that peace can be measured. Three papers do this at the intrapersonal, interpersonal and intergroup levels. They test the account's coherence and usefulness by whether it yields such indicators. The work is reported under the Peace Measurement and Indicators programme.

Review before publication

The Institute's two research articles were peer reviewed by the journals that published them: Peace and Conflict Studies in 2023 and the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law in 2026. The Institute's commentary summarizes research that has already been published and names its sources.

Research ethics

Research Trainees work under written traineeship agreements. Participants in the 2020 workshop answered anonymously, and their worksheets are not published. The Institute publishes no images of the children who took part in the 2018 workshop series in Mexico.

Personal data are handled as described in the Privacy notice.

Citation and reuse

We ask users to cite the Institute in the form given on the How to cite and reuse page and to respect the Copyright terms.