The Will for Peace

In a time of growing geopolitical tensions and protracted conflicts, the University of Zurich held a high-level panel event hosted by Dutch historian Eveline van Rijswijk. Experts from diplomacy, academia and humanitarian practice came together to discuss pressing questions: what promotes or impedes lasting peace? What knowledge is needed to promote peace? And how can scientific insight support informed and responsible decision-making?

In his opening remarks, UZH President Michael Schaepman recalled Switzerland’s long humanitarian tradition. He reminded the audience that listening, understanding and building bridges are more important than ever. UZH, he said, offers a platform for fact-based, interdisciplinary debate on the urgent issues of our time.

In the first address, Mirjana Spoljaric, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), painted a sobering picture: over 130 armed conflicts worldwide, increasing disregard for the rules of war, and shrinking humanitarian budgets – all of which pose dramatic challenges to the international community. While not a peace organization, she emphasized, the ICRC still plays a key role in three crucial areas: it helps stabilize fragile societies by offering programs that can help provide alternatives to engaging in fighting in armed conflicts; it works to mitigate the consequences of war ; and it creates a space for dialogue and calls on states to respect international humanitarian law.

The panel first turned to specific examples that illustrate how peace processes can succeed – and why they often fail. Jürg Lauber, President of the UN Human Rights Council and Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN, recalled how peaceful protests in Syria in 2011 were violently suppressed, leading to escalating conflict. oday, it’s clear that any peace process must begin by addressing such violations.

Jaak Aaviksoo, former Estonian minister and former rector of the University of Tartu and Tallinn University of Technology, provided an analysis of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as the result of decades of geopolitical failings. He noted that that the West had tolerated authoritarian tendencies for too long. Ukraine is now fighting not just for its territory but for its place in the liberal-democratic order.

Ambassador Thomas Greminger, director of the Geneva Center for Security Policy (GCSP), stressed the importance of maintaining channels of communication between parties. He said that especially in conflicts involving non-state actors, such as rebel groups, dialogue may be politically risky for governments, and discreet mediation, including through non-state intermediaries, often works best in such cases. Greminger referred to successful Swiss-led negotiations in Nepal and Uganda to support his argument.

UZH professor Helen Keller, who serves as judge at the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, then reflected on the legacy of the Dayton Agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina 30 years ago. While the agreement brought peace, she added, the country still lacks a functioning, self-sustaining state. The legal expert said that corruption, segregation and strong international interference are preventing local actors from being genuinely self-determined. She also questioned whether criminal justice alone is enough to secure lasting peace.

A political scientist offered a broader academic view. Karin Aggestam from Lund University said that the past four decades of peacebuilding had been marked by ambitious goals – ending wars, building institutions, spreading democracy and stabilizing economies, but with poor results in implementation. One of the insights from looking back is that every conflict is shaped by its unique historical, cultural and political context. “One size does not fit all,” she emphasized, calling for more context awareness and inclusive processes.

In today’s world, the focus should shift from intervention to facilitation, said Aggestam. She added that global power balances are shifting and multilateral institutions losing influence, and that unilateral ad hoc actions and minilateralism are becoming more common –  but these actions rarely lead to sustainable results and lasting peace.

Does the world need new rules for conflict? According to the panel, no – the existing framework of international humanitarian law is fundamentally sufficient. The problem is that these rules are increasingly ignored, with impunity. “When cities are leveled, hospitals destroyed, and neighborhoods riddled with landmines, the very foundations of society are undermined,” said Mirjana Spoljaric, adding that the ICRC continues to call on international humanitarian law to be upheld in conflicts, including in Gaza.

Another conclusion from the panel was that the world currently lacks political leadership. Humanitarian efforts can lay the groundwork for peace, but they can’t replace the political will to pursue it.

So, what can academia contribute to peacebuilding? Scholarly research helps illuminate conflicts, evaluate peace efforts and inform decision-makers. But this knowledge must be shared in close collaboration between researchers and practitioners – as demonstrated, for example, by the role of academic expertise in the creation of the UN Human Rights Council.

The panel, which was supported by the League of European Research Universities (LERU) and the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), exemplified the complexity of today’s peace processes  – and made clear that there are no easy solutions. Humanitarian action, international cooperation, academic reflection and political will must all come together. Above all, what’s needed is the will for peace, especially among political decision-makers.