The Myanmar military staged a coup against the elected civilian government in February 2021. Since then, the country has been in a state of emergency and ruled by a military junta. Resistance to the coup was swift and widespread, beginning with the Civil Disobedience Movement that has now morphed into the People’s Defense Forces. A state of civil war has remained for well over two years now, reversing the previous trend toward democratic transition. Nonetheless, the democratic interlude has spawned strong resistance to military rule. The armed conflict and contestation for power looks set to continue into the medium term and may eventually lead to domestic political changes toward democratization.

The purpose of this article is to study the characteristics and patterns of the field of peace and conflict studies in South Korea by tracing its history. A reflection on peace and conflict studies in Korea shows that the 1987 democratization was a critical moment, and that the subsequent end of the global Cold War initiated the full-blown development of the field. The Korean case shows that the advancement of peace and conflict studies is linked to real-world changes. The recent inclusion of human rights and transitional justice issues is meaningful since rights and justice were core but unaddressed issues in Korea. It is time for peace and conflict studies in Korea to leap forward, and this new attention to human rights and transitional justice can be a way to lead this development.

In light of recent efforts by the UN to more firmly embed SSC and TrC in all its institutions, this paper examines the challenges that lie ahead by first tracing the emergence of the terms SSC and TrC on a discursive level in the UN system. Second, it reflects theoretically on the concepts of solidarity and development to show that voices from the Global South are suggesting alternative understandings that may do more justice to the poor and disadvantaged. Third, it explores what can be learned from various interlinked health crises and the recent COVID-19 pandemic regarding the flaws of SSC and TrC. Fourth, it sketches a way forward by looking at ways in  which a more human rights based democratization of global health can be achieved.

Myanmar has undergone democratic transition since 2010 when the country introduced elections and a parliamentary form of government. The country has now had two successive governments, the first led by President Thein Sein and the second by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. Both governments have made the ethnic peace process, based on the 2015 Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, a key policy issue. Nonetheless, only limited success has been obtained thus far, and important structural and agency factors inhibit greater progress. These factors, termed “democracy deficits” in this article, suggest that the peace process has limited scope for further success in the medium term, and that the interactions between these two factors has only worsened the situation. A postscript brings the article up to date.

This research article explains why Cambodia’s dual transition of peacebuilding and democratization after the civil war led to peace but not democracy. The research finds that democratization often threatened peacebuilding in Cambodia. Particularly elections led to political instability, mass protests, and renewed violence, and thus also blocked reforms to democratize Cambodia’s government institutions. By applying the war-to-democracy transition theory and theories of political reconciliation to Cambodia’s dual transition, the following research article finds that a lack of political reconciliation between Cambodia’s former civil war parties is the main reason why the dual transition failed. This article argues that peace-building and democratization are only complementary processes in post-civil war states when preceded by political reconciliation between the former civil war parties.

The process of democratization that began in 2010 in Myanmar has benefitted the peace process with the ethnic insurgent groups. While the first Thein Sein government was only nominally civilian and the democratization process itself is a top down effort initiated by the military, democratization has structurally and institutionally strengthened the peace process. The new NLD government that took office in April 2016 has now taken control of the process and has earned goodwill for its efforts in dealing with the ethnic minorities. Nonetheless, there is still sporadic fighting between the ethnic groups themselves as well as between some groups and the military, even as the government works towards a more comprehensive settlement.

The process of democratization that began in 2010 in Myanmar has benefitted the peace process with the ethnic insurgent groups. While the first Thein Sein government was only nominally civilian and the democratization process itself is a top down effort initiated by the military, democratization has structurally and institutionally strengthened the peace process. The new NLD government that took office in April 2016 has now taken control of the process and has earned goodwill for its efforts in dealing with the ethnic minorities. Nonetheless, there is still sporadic fighting between the ethnic groups themselves as well as between some groups and the military, even as the government works towards a more comprehensive settlement.

The pursuit of retributive justice in war-torn countries with extremely weak state institutions may not necessarily advance the causes of peace, democracy, and the rule of law. Win-lose electoral competition and judicial retribution may not necessarily be a recipe for peace and security. The case of Cambodia and others show that the pursuit of retributive justice has not proved to be the immediate or direct cause of peace, democratic, and rule-of-law institution building.

Nepal is in a long political transition. This article focuses on the complex practices and concepts of political consensus in Nepal, and an effort is made to capture the political dynamics of different stakeholders of consensus politics with insights into the complex political reality. This article argues that the practice of consensus has contributed to easy resource distribution, containing overt violence, and accommodating diverse political parties, and made more progress in consolidating peace than in promoting democracy. Established democratic norms were monopolized by a few leaders in the name of consensus, sometimes even leading to political tensions. Thus, the consociation model falters in Nepal and the proper adoption of a democratic contestation model may be a solution for ongoing socio-political tensions.

Did the Arab Spring effect democratic transition in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries? What are the implications for institutional transformation? This article focuses on legislative autonomy vis-à-vis the executive branch. The authoritarian regimes have continued their strategy of resistance amidst a modicum of reform, within the twin policies of institutional restructuring and security control, which reveals four trends: institutional preservation, status quo concessions, stalled power-sharing, and repressive countermeasures. There has been a growing sectarian dimension to the opposition. Frustrated and disillusioned, the younger generation has infused energy into the protest movement both in the streets and in cyberspace. With a firm hold on the security services by rulers, incremental policy shifts in the social realm will outpace institutional transformation in the political arena.

The overall record of peacebuilding as a post-Cold War liberal project has proved to be more positive than negative, especially in conflict termination. However, the peacebuilding agenda has had its limits in terms of progress in democratization, judicial institution-building and economic development, despite potential for greater success. Peacebuilders are more likely to succeed in transforming societies torn by armed conflict if they can avoid making the process excessively competitive. democratization and capitalist development are already competitive processes, and the pursuit of retributive justice takes the form of judicial punishment. Together these strategies can form a recipe for competition and conflict, especially in institutionally weak states where the history of distrust among warring factions or former enemies is long and intractable.

Myanmar is currently undergoing widespread changes that are transforming the country’s political and socio-economic landscape. These changes include the newly promulgated Constitution that was ratified in 2008 and a national election held in November 2010. Additionally, by-elections in April 2012 saw the return to Parliament of the National League for Democracy and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi. The reforms under the new Thein Sein-led government include a congenial working relationship with the political opposition, freeing political prisoners and the granting of amnesty to political exiles to encourage their return, the negotiation of ceasefire agreements with almost all of the ethnic insurgent armies, and the inauguration of the Myanmar Peace Centre as a vehicle for the resolution of domestic conflict. These and related reforms are designed to secure the government’s internal and external political legitimacy which it has lacked since the fall of the previous socialist government in 1988.