Conclusion

The fact that orthodox IR, and the liberal peace and neoliberal or authoritarian versions of peace that it supports, ¹ is in crisis is illustrated by its underlying struggle over a concept of peace. But the failure of one universal notion or ontology of peace to triumph over others, whether it is a victor’s, idealist, or liberal peace, an everyday, hybrid, emancipatory peace, or plural ontologies of peace, is indicative of the growing vibrancy of theorising in this context, as Carr himself thought. ² Indeed, the many dimensions of contemporary IR theorising, drawing on many disciplines and sites of knowledge, the broad range of approaches and issues, the increasing level of reflection and self-awareness, are necessary for a consideration of peace. IR is perhaps no longer the ‘backwards discipline’ – in some quarters at least. In policy terms, though still mainly of discursive rather than practical value, the UN’s recent Sustainable Development Goals and its Sustaining Peace Agenda, ³ which also relates to the work of donor states and NGOs all around the world (though perhaps less so to the key International Financial Institutions), indicates some related progress. Debates on peace, whether bringing forward debates on local agency, hybridity, post-colonialism, expanded rights, decolonialism, and intersectionality, are more vibrant than ever before.