Abstract
The well-entrenched minimalist notion of peace has recently been augmented by a notion of positive peace, defined as the absence of structural violence. This paper opens with a critique of Johan Galtung's usage, which conflates ideas better approached separately. It then criticizes the notion of human needs used by Christian Bay as the normative foundation for his idea of positive peace, and by comparing positive peace with Berlin's notion of positive liberty highlights the danger that positive peace might be pursued with direct violence. Despite what Popper argues, the peaceful Utopias of Bay and Galtung need not be pursued with direct violence. However, as they could justify the instrumental use of direct violence, they demand stronger normative foundations than Galtung and Bay have hitherto provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.