Journal of Human Rights and Peace Studies

Nonviolent Action: Reconsidering Operation and Factors for Successes and Failures

Uchen Cheangsen — 2026-04-17

This research article seeks to present a foundational understanding of nonviolent action as a method of confronting conflict without the use of physical violence. The operation of nonviolent action rests upon the theoretical premise that political power ultimately derives from the consent of the governed. Consequently, this power can be diminished by strategically restricting its sources through various methods. This approach is more effective than violent methods. Moreover, nonviolent actions create more opportunities for negotiation and dialogue. The factors contributing to the success of nonviolent movements can be grouped into three main categories: (1) structural conditions or political opportunity structures, which provide either enabling or constraining contexts for mobilizing people; (2) organizational and mobilizational factors, requiring systematic preparation and collective coordination, whereby mass participation enhances both the diversity and effectiveness of tactics; and (3) external factors, particularly state responses, which are shaped by the dynamic interaction between opposition actions and state reactions. While severe repression may stifle mobilization, excessive state violence can also generate regime defections, a critical determinant of movement success. Importantly, nonviolent strategies provide greater opportunities for such defections compared to violent ones.

Examining the Challenges of South Asian NHRIs: De Facto Independence and Domestic Constraints

Farhana Syead — 2026-05-17

Against the backdrop of student-led movements across South Asia challenging systemic discrimination, corruption, and human rights abuses, this article explores the difficulties faced by National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) in the region. By reviewing annual reports, official websites, stakeholder assessments, and other relevant sources from three randomly selected NHRIs—Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka—it seeks to identify obstacles to their effectiveness and suggest practical solutions. The paper identifies concerns regarding the de facto independence of these NHRIs, noting that the three institutions studied in South Asia face notable constraints in their investigative authority, appointment and selection mechanisms, and the adequacy of financial and resource allocations. The study reveals that domestic challenges for these NHRIs include politicization, an excessive focus on individual complaints, the reluctance of authorities to implement recommendations, unrealistic public expectations, and societal divisions. The paper demonstrates that while international involvement may have contributed more to the establishment of NHRIs than domestic initiatives, human rights promotion and protection depend more on domestic action than on international efforts. It argues that institutional reforms consistent with the Paris Principles, coupled with awareness campaigns on NHRIs' roles and mandates, are essential to address these obstacles.

Mathias Risse and the Concept of Collective Ownership of the Earth for Responsible to Migration Issues in the Present Day

Phao Nawakul — 2026-03-26

In this study of Mathias Risse’s work, the researcher aims to demonstrate that political philosophy is not dead but continues to thrive as a meaningful framework for addressing global issues. It calls to interested scholars to trace the intellectual development of Mathias Risse's concept of "Collective Ownership of the Earth." Risse's theoretical framework draws on two main sources: first, the works of political philosophers in the Global Political Philosophy or Cosmopolitanism area, such as Peter Singer and Thomas Pogge; and second, the religious notions of "Gift of God" and "Freedom of the Seas." Moreover, the Gift of God notion reflects the roots of connecting with the issue of migration, as illustrated in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, in cases such as Ger, Ruth, and Jesus. Risse's connection of his ideas to the issue of migration follows a pattern similar to Testaments. Mathias Risse's development of the idea of "Collective Ownership of the Earth" in response to the issue of migration is more concrete than the proposal of most philosophers, which tend to be highly abstract. Risse advances a framework grounded in diverse philosophical ideas, including reciprocity, the overuse and underuse of resources, the measurement of value in relation to resources and culture, and the role of regulatory bodies overseeing human rights, among others. This proposal was developed into a set of suggested solutions that were linked to the social contexts of the Netherlands, Australia, Kiribati, the United States, and Canada, thereby making the idea clearer and more concrete.

Reimagining Peacebuilding: Reconceptualizing Agency and Emerging Conflicts in the Posthuman Era

sujin jeong — 2026-05-17

This article reimagines the anthropocentric peacebuilding paradigm in response to the multifaceted challenges of the posthuman era. Using conceptual and philosophical methodology, this study engages Actor-Network Theory and Simondon’s theory of individuation, expanding the concept of agency toward nonhuman actors. It identifies emerging social, ecological, and ethical conflicts, distinguishes them from traditional conflicts, and critiques current peacebuilding practices. The analysis explores ontological and epistemological shifts necessary for this transition, attending to distributed cognition and responsibility entangled between human and nonhuman actors. This article contributes to the field by providing a philosophical and conceptual framework for human-nonhuman coevolution. It also proposes a minimum operational framework for posthumanist peacebuilding and outlines how this ontological shift translates into practical peace governance through three core principles: relational impact assessment, shared vulnerability examination, and the adoption of multifaceted and distributed responsibility protocols. Ultimately, it argues that a posthumanist approach remains necessary for addressing the complexities of technological autonomy and the climate crisis while enabling human–nonhuman coevolution.