Nonkilling Political Science, Human Rights, and the Threat Posed by Nuclear Weapons

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 29 Jul 2024

Roland Joseph, Ph.D. – TRANSCEND Media Service

Presented at the Graduate School of Law of the University of City of Manila, Philippines

29 Jun 2024 – I want to start by thanking all the organizers of this session, especially Professor Dr. Allesandra Fay V. Albarico, for inviting me. I am glad to be part of this panel and share my critical reflection on the threat posed by the existence of nuclear weapons to international human rights from a nonkilling political science perspective. First and foremost, it is important to mention that I am not an expert in human rights and international law. However, given that my dissertation focuses on nonkilling political science and nuclear weapons, I believe that I can explore the response of the nonkilling paradigm to the threat of killing posed by those weapons to the right to life.

My intervention has two main points. First, I will briefly define the terms non-killing, nuclear weapons, and human rights. Second, I will discuss how the concept of non-killing relates to human rights and how activists and scholars from these two areas can work together to eliminate the nuclear weapons threat.

Nonkilling Global Society

As most of you may know, the term nonkilling did not exist in any English dictionary until the book Nonkilling Global Political Science (NKGPS) was published by Dr. Glenn D. Paige in 2002. Paige associates this term with many other concepts, such as nonkilling anthropology, nonkilling security, nonkilling political science, nonkilling society, etc. He began by asking a simple question: Is a nonkilling society possible? His answer to this question is that a non-killing society is possible.

In trying to define it, Paige mentioned three characteristics of a nonkilling society. First, it is a society in which there is no killing of humans or threats of killing; second, it is a society in which there are no weapons specifically designed to kill humans and no justification for using them; and third, there are no social conditions that depend on the threat or use of lethal force for maintenance or change (Paige, 2002; Paige, 1997).

This definition is not only about the absence of killing. As Dr. Anoop Swarup put it, Paige’s definition of a nonkilling society encompasses both illusive nonkilling (negative and non-structural) and affirmative nonkilling (positive and structural) (Vision of Humanity, n.d.). This does not mean that such a society is unlimited, undifferentiated, or free of conflict, only that its structure and processes do not depend on murder (Paige, 2002).

Paige presents seven grounds to justify his thesis on the possibility of achieving a nonkilling global society (Paige, 2002, p. 146):

1. Most humans do not kill.
2. Powerful nonkilling potentials reside in the spiritual heritage of humankind.
3. Science demonstrates and forecasts nonkilling human capabilities.
4. Transitional nonkilling public policies such as the abolition of the death penalty and recognition of conscientious objection to military service have been adopted by even violence-created nation-states.
5. Various social institutions based upon nonkilling principles exist that, in combination, already constitute functional equivalents of nonkilling societies.
6. Roots of nonkilling inspiration and experience can be discovered in historical traditions throughout the world.
7. Ultimately, the promise of nonkilling transition rests upon examples of nonkilling individuals, celebrated and unknown, whose courageous lives testify to its achievability.

Paige, therefore, raises the concept of causation, which is important when conducting nonkilling political analysis. Paige emphasizes that every case of killing requires a causal explanation: wherever it occurs, from homicide to genocide to atomic annihilation, we must understand the processes of cause and effect (Paige, 2002). That is, we need to know the causes of killing, the causes of non-killing, the causes of the transition from killing to nonkilling, and the characteristics of completely killing-free societies (Paige, 2002).

We need nonkilling institutions for the process of nonkilling global transformation. Some of the main institutions proposed to be established for a nonkilling global transformation could include nonkilling common security, nonkilling political parties, nonkilling universities, nonkilling training institutions, etc. (Paige, 2002).

Paige isn’t just saying we need to eliminate conventional and nuclear weapons. It does, however, propose non-lethal solutions for a non-lethal global society. His new paradigm constitutes an important intellectual work with an ethical foundation capable of tackling most of the existential issues, such as the threat associated with nukes.

Nuclear Weapons

Let me tell you a little bit about nuclear weapons. According to the website of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “A nuclear weapon is a device that rapidly releases nuclear energy, either through fission (as in the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) or a combination of fission and fusion (as in a thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb)” (DeNardi, 2012, para 1). They are weapons of mass destruction capable of destroying entire cities and causing the deaths of millions of people. Those nukes have significant long-term effects on the environment and future generations due to persistent radioactive contamination years after the explosion (Statista, n.d.).

There is a difference between a conventional weapon and a nuclear weapon. According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “Nuclear weapons use fissionable materials to fuel an explosion, whereas conventional weapons do not. Only a relatively few radioactive materials are fissionable, such as Plutonium-239 or Uranium-235” (DeNardi, 2012, para 1). A scientist in the field of nuclear weapons would tell you more about the functioning of nuclear weapons.

Also, this website presents the difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons:

Tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons are generally characterized by a lower yield and shorter range than a long-range (strategic) nuclear weapon. Strategic nuclear weapons are delivered by long-range delivery systems (ICBMs, SLBMS, long-range bombers) and targeted against strategic assets such as an adversary’s strategic nuclear weapons arsenals and storage sites, strategic military bases, strategic weapons production centers, leadership, and population centers ((DeNardi, 2012, para 2).

There are now nine states that possess together about 12,121 nuclear weapons, which include the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. According to the Federation of Atomic Scientists, “Of the world’s approximate 12,121 nuclear warheads, roughly 9,585 are in the military stockpiles for use by missiles, aircraft, ships, and submarines ” (FAS, 2024, para 5). Of course, this reduction is significant compared to that of the Cold War, which was around 70,000 nuclear warheads. However, reducing the number of nuclear warheads does not mean that the presence of these weapons does not continue to pose a threat to the right to life. Andrew Greig, a contributor to the book Nonkilling Security and the State, said, “Despite significant progress in recent years in reducing the stock of nuclear weapons in the world, we are still at very significant risk of nuclear war” (Greig, 2013, p. 231).

Research led by some scientists at Rutgers University, cited by Alex Wigglesworth in an article published in the Los Angeles Times, revealed that the use of less than 3% of the world’s stockpiles in conflict could kill a third of the world’s population within two years (Wigglesworth, 2022). The same article mentioned that “In the event of a larger war between the U.S. and Russia, an estimated 5 billion out of 6.7 billion people worldwide would die” (Wigglesworth, 2022, para 2). In other words, the risk of using those weapons, whether by accident or by the willingness of nuclear countries, is tangible.

Researchers, scholars, and activists at the Center for Global Nonkilling (CGNK) are aware of this phenomenon. The Nonkilling Security and International Relations Research Committee has published an important book entitled Nonkilling Security and the State, in which a few chapters deal with or mention the threat of nuclear weapons. Dr. Stephen M. Younger, a leading expert on nuclear weapons and the former Head of Nuclear Weapons Research and Development at Los Alamos National Laboratory, forewords this book. Edited by Dr. Joám Evans Pim, Director of the CGNK, I think it can be a great resource for those interested in exploring the non-lethal responses to some security challenges facing humanity, especially the threat of killing associated with nukes. It is available free of charge on the center’s website.

Dr. David Krieger, a leading figure in the global movement to abolish nuclear weapons and the founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), strongly supports the nonkilling paradigm and nuclear disarmament. In 2010, Dr. Glenn Durland Paige received the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award for his commitment to leadership and nonkilling global society.

David Krieger, who is also one of the contributors to the book Nonkilling Security and the State, said, “One bomb could destroy one city. By implication, a few bombs could destroy countries, and a few dozen bombs could reduce civilization to ruins” (Krieger, 2013, p. 243). Andrew Greig, Coordinator of the Non-Lethal Weapons for Peace Campaign and another contributor to the book Nonkilling Security and the State said:

In the event of even a minor nuclear conflict, these horrific devices could kill or injure hundreds of millions of people and cause generations of cultural and genetic damage. A major nuclear war could wipe the human race off the face of the earth (Greig, 2013, p. 231).

The existence of nuclear weapons threatens the right to life and complicates the work of human rights activists and even nonkilling advocates. Joshua Cooper of the Hawai’i Institute for Human Rights said, “Ending nuclear weapons is one of the most important and imminent issues in international human rights advocacy” (Cooper, 2020).

Human Rights:

The institutionalization of human rights began in the context of killing, especially in the context of World War II in 1945, involving more than 50 nations and killing about 85 million military and civilians. As you know, most of the nations involved in this war met together and decided to create a new international organization called the United Nations (UN) to prevent the escalation of another deadly global conflict.

Three years later, the UN created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on December 10, 1948, to protect the rights of every individual everywhere on the planet. The UDHR is a historical step since it was for the first time that humanity came together and signed a document considering all humans as being free and equal, regardless of sex, color, religion, language, ethnic origin, or any other characteristics.

The UDHR has two covenants: the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Those two covenants are commonly referred to as the International Bill of Human Rights (Flowers, n.d.). The ICCPR focuses on issues such as the right to life, freedom of speech, religion, and voting, while the ICESCR focuses on issues such as food, education, health, and shelter (Flowers, n.d.). I have to focus more on the ICCPR, especially Article 6, which states that “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life” (ICCPR, n.d.).

Now, let me tell you a little bit about the human rights treaty bodies. I know you are familiar with these terms, as most of you are law students. However, it is important to mention them to make my connection understandable. In fact, there are ten human rights treaty bodies composed of independent experts of recognized competence in human rights (OHCHR, n.d.). Some of them include, for example, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which monitors the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Human Rights Committee, which is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the ICCPR (OHCHR, n.d.).

All ten human rights committees publish “general comments” or “general recommendations” to better interpret the provisions of their respective human rights treaties covering different topics. General comments on human rights often seek to clarify the reporting duties of State parties with respect to certain provisions and suggest approaches to implementing treaty provisions (OHCHR, n.d.).

In 2018, the Human Rights Committee, which monitors the implementation of the ICCPR, adopted General Comment 36 of Article 6. Paragraph 66 of this comment shows that the existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to the right to life. It states that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is incompatible with the Right to Life and may amount to a crime under international law. Let me read Paragraph 66, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the ICCPR published by Alyn Ware on the website of UNfoldZERO:

The threat or use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate in effect and are of a nature to cause destruction of human life on a catastrophic scale, is incompatible with respect for the right to life and may amount to a crime under international law. States parties must take all necessary measures to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including measures to prevent their acquisition by non-state actors, to refrain from developing, producing, testing, acquiring, stockpiling, selling, transferring and using them, to destroy existing stockpiles, and to take adequate measures of protection against accidental use, all in accordance with their international obligations. They must also respect their international obligations to pursue in good faith negotiations in order to achieve the aim of nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control and to afford adequate reparation to victims whose right to life has been or is being adversely affected by the testing or use of weapons of mass destruction, in accordance with principles of international responsibility.

Even though most of the nuclear countries did not agree with the committee on how nuclear weapons constitute an existential threat to the right to life, I believe that this comment is a significant step toward a world free of killing with nukes. In other words, the legal condemnation of the risks of killing with those nukes is important to achieve a nonkilling global society and to fulfill all human rights. But citizens from local to global must recognize that the threat posed by those weapons to the right to life is real. David Kreiger said:

The starting point for ending the omnicidal threat of nuclear weapons is the recognition that the threat is real and pervasive and requires action. Each of us is threatened. All we love and hold dear is threatened. The future is threatened. We are called upon to end our complacency and respond to this threat by demanding that our leaders develop a clear pathway to the total elimination of nuclear weapons and to the elimination of war as a means of resolving conflicts. These are critical steps on the path to a nonkilling world (Krieger, 2013, p. 247).

Some officials working in different armies or for governments of nuclear countries are aware of the phenomenon of direct and indirect killing associated with nukes. Paige referenced their statements throughout his works on the nonkilling paradigm. The former commander of all United States nuclear war-fighting forces, General George Lee Butler, cited by Glenn D. Paige, said, “Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, militarily inefficient, and morally indefensible” (Paige, 2002, p. 136). In other words, those weapons constitute a threat to international human rights and international humanitarian law. As Dr Patricia Anne Murphy of the International Philosophers for Peace put it, “Nuclear weapons are illegal under International Law. This must be acknowledged and affirmed by each and every current nuclear state. Their construction, use, or possession should be considered a crime against humanity” (Murphy, 2020).

General Comment No. 36 is very important, but I want you to know that there are other international treaties dealing with the use, proliferation, testing, and the existence of nuclear weapons. I do not intend to elaborate on this point for now. But let me tell you that there are three main international treaties governing the use, proliferation, testing, and the very existence of nuclear weapons: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) (NAPF, n.d. para 1).

I am sure that you know about the TPNW, which entered into force in 2021. This treaty constitutes a very significant step toward a world free of killing with nukes and the right to life. It challenges the theory of nuclear deterrence raised by some scholars to justify the presence of nuclear weapons. Professor Heinz Gärtner of the International Institute for Peace (IIP) said, “The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) calls for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. But even more importantly, it provides an alternative norm to the deterrence norm, which prepares for the potential use of nuclear weapons” (Gärtner, 2020). This prohibits States Parties from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, or stockpiling nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (NTI, n.d.). Let me read some of the obligations of the signatories of the TPNW that I found on the website of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI):

Signatories are barred from transferring or receiving nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices, control over such weapons, or any assistance with activities prohibited under the Treaty. States are also prohibited from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices. Lastly, States Parties cannot allow the stationing, installation, or deployment of nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices in their territory. In addition to the Treaty’s prohibitions, States Parties are obligated to provide victim assistance and help with environmental remediation efforts (NTI, n.d., Para 7).

How can the nonkilling and human rights advocates come together to eliminate the threat posed by nuclear weapons?

We need both human rights and nonkilling advocates. The first plays a fundamental role in terms of law, while the second seeks to transform the behavior of human beings in that it helps them discover their capacity not to kill. They must know that “The vast majority of human beings have not killed and do not kill” (Paige, 2002, p. 71). Of course, we all have the capacity to kill. As Paige put it, “Although we are capable of killing, we are not, by nature, compelled to kill” (Paige, 2002, p. 71). Once we all realize our ability not to kill, we will take steps to get rid of these destructive weapons.

The main unambiguous alternative that could call into question the possibility of killing with nukes is the application of the non-killing model. Andrew Greig, a contributor to the book Nonkilling Security and the State, said: “There is, however, an overarching reason for the adoption of nonkilling, and that is that it could be a major agent in halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and in moving us towards their abolition” (Greig, 2013, p. 231).

Aware of the capacity of the nonkilling paradigm to tackle the risk of nuclear proliferation, I have been working on establishing a working group on nonkilling and nuclear abolition since last year to explore new ideas to address this issue. As a member of the Nonkilling Security and International Relations Research Committee, I plan to organize webinars with other scholars from different nonkilling research committees such as Nonkilling Political Science, Nonkilling Anthropology, Nonkilling Psychology, Nonkilling Science and Technology, Nonkilling Sociology, Nonkilling Philosophy, Nonkilling History, Nonkilling Health Sciences, Nonkilling Education, etc. My doctoral research teaches me that abolishing nuclear weapons requires an interdisciplinary approach, which, of course, must include the approach of human rights.

We need to teach the public how the existence of nukes threatens their right to life! We need to teach them about the nonkilling principles! We will not be able to convince them about the right to life if we do not provide scientific evidence of their capacity to overcome the power of killing directly and indirectly. That’s why nonkilling and human rights advocates, including other similar fields, must work together to get more people involved, especially young people, in the movement to eliminate all nuclear warheads. Paige said, “Nonkilling political science is challenged to engage its resources in research, training, consultation, and action to support individuals and organizations that seek the protection and advancement of human rights at every level” (Paige, 2013, p. 107).  In discussing the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), he added that “The basic text should be known to every political scientist and global citizen” (Paige, 2002, p. 106). Yes, we need to tell young people about the right to life and how the existence of nuclear weapons threatens this right.

We cannot just leave this responsibility in the hands of those who believe that the presence of these weapons can prevent nuclear war. No! We must tell children and young people, including students, the truth about nukes so that they can make their own decisions to oppose them. Dr. David Krieger said:

Like other American children, I learned in school the lesson that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were needed to end the war and save the lives of American soldiers. What I didn’t learn in an American school setting was that the use of atomic bombs violated the laws of warfare as weapons that were indiscriminate and caused unnecessary suffering. Nor did I learn that the victims of the bombs were mostly civilians (Krieger, 2013, p. 243).

Nonkilling peace education is important to transform an individual or a group of individuals from a killing thinking system to a nonkilling thinking system. The transition to a nonkilling transformation is not quite difficult since we are not, by nature, violent and killers. Paige said, “Every political scientist and each person can be a center for global nonkilling to facilitate the transition to a nonkilling world” (Paige, 2002, p. 126). This is also applicable to scientists who create nuclear weapons. An article published by USA Today mentioned that “Many scientists involved in the Manhattan Project did not want to build the bomb. They especially did not want it to be used on people” (Kiernan, 2020, para 1). About 70 of them submitted a petition to the President of the United States in 1945 not to use the atomic bomb against Japan. Even if the U.S. President did not listen to them, what they did could be considered a non-lethal capability. Albert Einstein, one of the scientists who encouraged the US President to create the bomb, later said, “Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing” (McEvoy, 2024, para 16).

This concludes my presentation. Again, thank you to all of you. Let me pass the microphone to Professor Dr. Allesandra Fay V. Albarico for questions and comments.

References:

Cooper, J. (2020). “Ending nuclear weapons is one of the most important & imminent issues in international human rights advocacy.” In Protect people and the planet: Appeal for a nuclear weapon free world. Hawai’i Institute for Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.unfoldzero.org/protect-people-and-the-planet-appeal-for-a-nuclear-weapon-free-world/quotes/#:~text=Nuclear%20weapons%20anywhere%20and%20in,for%20humanity%20as%20a%20whole

DeNardi, C. (2012). Fact sheet: The basics of nuclear weapons. Retrieved from https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-the-basics-of-nuclear-weapons/#:~:text=A%20nuclear%20weapon%20is%20a,a%20thermonuclear%20or%20hydrogen%20bomb

Federation of Atomic Scientists. (n.d.). Status of world nuclear forces. Retrieved from https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/

Flowers, N. (n.d.). A short history of human rights. Retrieved from http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-1/short-history.htm

Gärtner, H. (2020). “The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) calls for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. But even more importantly, it provides an alternative norm to the deterrence norm which prepares for the potential use of nuclear weapons.” In Protect people and the planet: Appeal for a nuclear weapon free world. International Institute for Peace (IIP). Retrieved from https://www.unfoldzero.org/protect-people-and-the-planet-appeal-for-a-nuclear-weapon-free-world/quotes/#:~text=Nuclear%20weapons%20anywhere%20and%20in,for%20humanity%20as%20a%20whole

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ccpr.pdf

Kiernan, S. P. (2020). Manhattan Project scientists used their talents to destroy, even as they fought to save. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/07/manhattan-project-scientists-atomic-bomb-hiroshima-nagasaki-column/3305404001/

Krieger, D. (2013). Nuclear weapons and a nonkilling world: The goal is zero. In J. E. Pim (Ed.), Nonkilling security & the state (pp. 241–255). Center for Global Nonkilling & Creighton University. Honolulu & Omaha.

McEvoy, C. (2024). Albert Einstein’s role in the atomic bomb was the “one great mistake in my life”. Biography. Retrieved from https://www.biography.com/scientists/a44402742/albert-einstein-role-in-the-atomic-bomb

Murphy, P. A. (2020). “Nuclear weapons are illegal under International Law. This must be acknowledged and affirmed by each and every current nuclear state. Their construction, use or possession should be considered a crime against humanity.” In Protect people and the planet: Appeal for a nuclear weapon free world. International Philosophers for Peace. Retrieved from https://www.unfoldzero.org/protect-people-and-the-planet-appeal-for-a-nuclear-weapon-free-world/quotes/#:~text=Nuclear%20weapons%20anywhere%20and%20in,for%20humanity%20as%20a%20whole

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. (n.d.). International treaties. Waging Peace. Retrieved from https://www.wagingpeace.org/international-treaties/

Nuclear Threat Initiative. (n.d.). Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Retrieved from https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclearweapons/#:~:text=The%20Treaty%20on%20the%20Prohibition%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20(TPNW)%20prohibits,or%20other%20nuclear%20explosive%20devices

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (n.d.). The human rights treaty bodies. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies

Paige, G. D. (1997). “To leap beyond yet nearer bring”: From war to peace to nonviolence to nonkilling. International Journal of Peace Studies, 2(1), 97–108.

Paige, G. D. (2002). Nonkilling global political science. Xlibris.

Statista. (n.d.). Number of nuclear warheads worldwide as of January 2024. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/

Vision of Humanity. (n.d.). Shifting the way we think about nonkilling and nonviolence. Retrieved from https://www.visionofhumanity.org/shifting-way-think-nonkilling/

Ware, A. (n.d.). UN Human Rights Committee condemns the threat or use of nuclear weapons and other WMD. Unfold Zero. Retrieved from https://www.unfoldzero.org/un-human-rights-committee-condemns-the-threat-or-use-of-nuclear-weapons-and-other-wmd/

Wigglesworth, A. (2022). Even a limited nuclear war could kill a third of world’s population, study shows. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-15/even-limited-nuclear-war-would-kill-billions-study-finds

Younger, S. M. (2013). Foreword. In J. E. Pim (Ed.), Nonkilling security & the state (pp. 13-14). Center for Global Nonkilling & Creighton University. Honolulu & Omaha.

____________________________________________

Dr. Roland Joseph is a former Haitian journalist, a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment, a researcher at the Center for Global Nonkilling (CGNK), and a translator of Glenn Durland Paige’s book, Nonkilling Global Political Science, into Haitian Creole. He is the former chair of the Latin America and Caribbean Working Group (LACWG) of the Department of Conflict Resolution Studies at Nova Southeastern University (NSU) in Florida. He introduced nuclear disarmament education in the Haitian and Caribbean communities in the US with the support from the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament, and Common Security (CPDCS); he also advocates in collaboration with the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and the Université Publique du Sud-Est à Jacmel (UPSEJ), Haiti, for integrating peace education in the curriculum of the Haitian school system. Dr. Joseph has a BA in Political Science and holds an MA degree in Peace and Conflict Studies from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and a Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis and Resolution with a concentration in Global Conflict from Nova Southeastern University (NSU). His research focuses on non-killing global political science theory and nuclear disarmament. Email: jrolandjoseph@gmail.com

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 29 Jul 2024.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Nonkilling Political Science, Human Rights, and the Threat Posed by Nuclear Weapons, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.