This article begins by unfolding Thomas Berry’s notion of Pax Gaia, using the concept as a key to unlock cogent aspects of his geobiological thought. Then, suggesting an addition to John Howard Yoder’s typologies, the authors argue that Berry’s vision of the peace of the Earth can be categorized as a “the pacifism of religious cosmology.” Berry’s cosmology of peace is then grounded with reference to concrete issues of ecojustice, with a particular focus on the interrelated concepts of “biocide” and “geocide.” The article ends by highlighting the need for reinvention of the human, which emerges from the moral imperatives associated with the pacifism of religious cosmology.

The habits of direct violence in U.S. society continue to pose dangerous and dehumanizing trends. As scholars and activists cultivate alternatives to the use ofviolence, a key need involves providing direct experience for U.S. residents to explore and see the power of unarmed civilian peacekeeping. In this paper I ask the following questions: How can the international unarmed civilian peacekeeping models influence the U.S. in the form of domestic peace teams? What are the accomplishments and the challenges for local peace teams with an eye toward further development? First, I describe some broad trends in the international work of unarmed civilian peacekeeping. Second, I analyze the accomplishments and challenges for the Michigan Peace Team and Ceasefire in Chicago. Third, I integrate these insights to recommend key contributions from each program toward developing more domestic peace teams. I briefly provide a recent example and analysis of implementing these recommendations in the DC Peace Team.

State dignitaries and United Nations delegates draw inspiration from a diverse body of philosophical, political, and religious sources as they attempt to produce substantive change throughout the world, or, less altruistically, to further the agendas of their respective nations. The Bible is no stranger to the international body; indeed, it is frequently referenced by U.N. delegates and visiting dignitaries. Its incorporation into monumental architecture near the New York headquarters and its appearance upon artwork at the U.N. complex causes one passage, Isaiah 2:4, to be of particular importance, functioning as the unofficial standard by which the organization is judged. In the analysis that follows, both the unofficial and official roles of the Bible in U.N. discourse, as well as the corpus’ impact on individuals and organizations affiliated with the international organization, will be examined, demonstrating the pervasiveness of both testaments in United Nations affairs.

The emergence of sophisticated cyber weapons such as Stuxnet and Flame, and widespread offensive cyber-operations revealed in documents leaked byEdward Snowden, pose challenges not only to international security and civilian infrastructure, but blur the distinction between violence and nonviolence, confusing the ethical discourse of cyber war and muting public discourse and resistance. Rethinking cyber war as destabilizing nonviolence reveals the moralambiguities and contested ontology of cyber weapons, heightens awareness of their conflicted linguistic representation and challenges the vantage point of “theresponsible actor” in justifying cyber war attacks. Such heightened awareness of the ontological and ethical complexity of cyber weapons makes room forreasoned public discourse and strategies of resistance to clandestine cyber war and to justified use arguments that defend cyber weapons as nonviolent.

This paper works through issues of moral psychology and Just War Theory to provide a framework for evaluating affective responses to killing in war. In lightof the second anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death, it seems especially appropriate to examine our responses to this event. Weaving together the Just War accounts of Augustine and Walzer, and a cognitive-constructivist theory of emotions presented by thinkers such as Martha Nussbaum and Charles Taylor, I have developed an account of the moral and practical importance of cultivating proper emotional responses to killing in war, based on what I call “humanistic intuitions” that stem from an innate sense of common morality. It is my contention that recognizing and maintaining these humanistic intuitions is not only morally right, but also is necessary for facilitating healing from the psychological trauma of war.

Although the current consensus judgment on world government is highly negative, Alexander Wendt’s 2003 article in the European Journal of International Relations, entitled “Why a World State Is Inevitable,” has generated significant interest within the international relations (IR) profession. However, it may be that debating the inevitability thesis represents a misallocation of intellectual resources. The important question is not whether world government is inevitable or not, but rather whether it is desirable or not. And the question of desirability depends critically on the nature of the proposed world government. Up to this point, most discussion of world government, pro and con, proceeds from the assumption that the world government would be the “omnipotent world state” of traditional world federalist thinking: a very powerful and centralized state entity that would stand in relation to its component nations much as the federal government of the United States stands in relation to the component states. But more recent contributions focus on a limited world government, in which the component nations would retain such rights as unilateral withdrawal and independent military forces. A far more interesting case may be made for a limited—as opposed to an unlimited—federal world government.