Justifications of violence in conflict are arguments that physical force is permissible or necessary in certain circumstances. A justification does not prove that violence is objectively right. Instead, it makes a claim whose legitimacy rests on legal rules, moral principles, cultural narratives and political perspectives.

Cultural justifications

Cultural justifications appeal to a community’s shared history, identity, customs or collective memory. Political actors might portray violence as defending a homeland, restoring honour, resisting foreign domination or protecting a threatened people.

These claims are constructed, and they’re often contested. Leaders may reinterpret selected parts of history to cast an opposing group as an existential threat. A constructivist perspective looks at how language, education, symbols and memories can make violence seem acceptable. A postcolonial perspective asks whether armed resistance stems from continuing structures of occupation or imperial domination.

Cultural explanation should not turn into cultural determinism. No culture is inherently violent. People who share an identity may still disagree sharply over whether violence represents their community or betrays it.

Legal justifications

A legal justification measures violence against the rules that govern when force may begin and how it may be used. The UN Charter generally prohibits states from using force against other states. The principal exceptions are self-defence following an armed attack and action authorized by the UN Security Council.

Even if resorting to force is lawful, international humanitarian law still regulates conduct during the conflict. Its central requirements include distinguishing civilians from combatants, avoiding attacks expected to cause disproportionate civilian harm, and taking feasible precautions. Relevant rules bind both guerrilla fighters and state forces. A just cause does not make every method legal.

Guerrilla warfare is armed struggle by relatively small, mobile forces that commonly use ambushes, sabotage and support from local populations against a stronger opponent. Supporters may describe it as national liberation or resistance. Governments may label the same actors criminals or terrorists.

Terrorism is the politically motivated use or threat of violence, especially against civilians, intended to create fear beyond the immediate victims. Although the label is politically disputed, an otherwise legitimate political objective cannot justify deliberate attacks on civilians under humanitarian law.

Genocide consists of specified acts committed with the intention of destroying, wholly or partly, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It is prohibited in all circumstances. Cultural, religious or security narratives cannot provide a valid legal defence.

Russia described its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 partly through claims of collective self-defence and protection of Russian-speaking communities. Ukraine and most UN General Assembly members rejected those claims. They treated the invasion as aggression and Ukraine’s military response as an exercise of its right to self-defence. This dispute shows that using legal language does not, by itself, make force lawful.

In Myanmar, state authorities presented the military’s 2017 operations against the Rohingya as a response to attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. The Gambia’s 2019 case before the International Court of Justice instead alleged breaches of the Genocide Convention. The case illustrates how evidence about intent, targets and patterns of civilian harm can challenge a government’s security justification.

Religious justifications

Religious justifications appeal to sacred duties, moral teachings or the protection of a faith community. Some interpretations of religious traditions support defensive force under strict conditions. The same traditions may also have strong commitments to restraint, reconciliation and non-violence, so there is no single religious position on political violence.

Extremist organizations may remove religious texts from their historical and ethical context to legitimize terrorism. Religious leaders and believers within the same tradition often reject such interpretations. An actor’s religious claim should therefore not be taken as representative of an entire religion.

Hamas framed its 7 October 2023 attack in Israel as resistance to occupation and as part of a struggle connected to Palestinian national and religious identity. Deliberate attacks on civilians and hostage-taking were widely condemned as unlawful. Israel then invoked self-defence for its military campaign in Gaza, while critics argued that self-defence did not remove Israel’s duties of distinction, proportionality and civilian protection.

Proliferation and deterrence

Arms proliferation is the spread or accumulation of weapons, including conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction, among additional actors. Governments may argue that acquiring weapons is necessary for defence. Yet proliferation can deepen security dilemmas: when one actor seeks greater security, others feel less secure and pursue further armament.

Nuclear deterrence is the attempt to prevent attack by persuading an opponent that aggression would bring an unacceptable retaliatory cost. Realists argue that credible retaliatory power can maintain security in an international system with no central authority. Critics respond that deterrence relies on rational calculation, carries risks of accident and escalation, and threatens destruction on a scale that is difficult to reconcile with humanitarian principles.

North Korea’s 2022 nuclear doctrine expanded the circumstances in which its leadership claimed nuclear weapons might be used. Its government presents the arsenal as protection against regime change and foreign attack. South Korea, Japan and the United States, however, see it as a cause of regional insecurity and further military competition.

Competing perspectives

Realists assess violence mainly through necessity, survival and the balance of power. Liberals put more faith in international law, institutions and collective security, though they may accept force authorized for self-defence or civilian protection. Constructivists examine how identities and narratives shape ideas about enemies, duty and legitimate force.

Feminist perspectives challenge accounts focused on soldiers and state leaders by emphasizing civilian insecurity, displacement and gender-based violence. Postcolonial perspectives reveal unequal power in determining whose violence is labelled defence, intervention, resistance or terrorism. They still allow scrutiny of harm to civilians by state and non-state actors alike.

Legitimacy of protest asks whether a challenge to political authority is seen as rightful, justified and worthy of acceptance. Legitimacy and legality aren’t the same. An illegal protest may have moral or popular legitimacy, while a legally authorized protest may still seem unjust to the people it targets.

Forms of protest

A demonstration is a public, collective expression of a political demand or grievance. It commonly takes the form of a march, rally, assembly or symbolic action. Demonstrations usually aim to gain visibility, build solidarity and pressure decision-makers.

Civil disobedience involves deliberately, conscientiously and normally non-violently breaking a law to oppose injustice or achieve political change. Participants often accept personal risk to reveal a conflict between existing law and a higher moral or political principle.

A violent protest occurs when protesters intentionally use physical force against people or property. This is different from an otherwise peaceful protest in which isolated violence occurs. It must also be distinguished from violence started by police, counter-protesters or provocateurs.

Grounds for legitimacy

Several connected questions usually shape judgments about protest:

• Cause: Is the protest a response to serious injustice, exclusion or abuse of power?
• Representation: Who supports the protest? Whose voices are absent or silenced?
• Methods: Are the methods proportionate, discriminating and aimed at legitimate targets?
• Alternatives: Are elections, courts, negotiation and peaceful assembly genuinely available?
• Consequences: Does the action protect vulnerable people and broaden political participation, or does it cause severe harm to others?
• Accountability: Do organizers acknowledge harm, discipline participants and accept scrutiny?

States often justify restrictions by referring to public order, national security or the rights of other citizens. Protesters may respond that such claims defend entrenched power rather than public safety. Whether either position is legitimate depends on the context, including the scale of the restrictions and the conduct of protesters and authorities.

Non-violent protest

Supporters see non-violence as legitimate because it respects human life and can involve broad sections of society. It may also expose unjust repression. Through demonstrations, strikes, boycotts and civil disobedience, people can withdraw cooperation from the authorities without trying to destroy their opponents.

Sri Lanka’s 2022 Aragalaya movement used mass demonstrations and occupations to challenge the government during a severe economic crisis. Broad participation and a focus on official responsibility gave the movement legitimacy, contributing to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s resignation. However, confrontations and attacks on political property led to disputes about whether every action remained peaceful.

Iran’s Woman, Life, Freedom protests began in 2022 following the death of Mahsa Amini in morality-police custody. Protesters used demonstrations, strikes and symbolic acts to challenge compulsory veiling and wider political repression. The state, by contrast, treated the movement as a security threat. For many domestic and international observers, the gap between the largely rights-based protests and the severe coercive response strengthened the protesters’ legitimacy. The Iranian government claimed that it was defending order and sovereignty.

Violent protest

Arguments supporting violent protest often start from the claim that peaceful channels have failed or were never genuinely available. Some activists argue that targeted damage can disrupt oppressive systems or defend protesters from state violence. It may also force ignored grievances onto the political agenda.

The objections are ethical as well as strategic. Violence may injure uninvolved people, weaken a movement’s claim to moral authority and discourage participation. It can also help governments portray the whole movement as dangerous. Violence against persons and damage to property raise different moral questions, so they shouldn’t automatically be treated as equivalent.

During protests in Kenya in 2024 against the Finance Bill, demonstrators mobilized over taxation, accountability and the cost of living. President William Ruto declined to sign the proposed bill after nationwide pressure. Yet the storming of parliament, deaths during the security response and episodes of destruction produced competing claims. Protesters accused the state of disproportionate repression, while the authorities argued that force was necessary to protect institutions and public safety.

Perspectives on legitimacy

Liberal approaches generally support peaceful assembly and civil disobedience, though they favour constitutional channels and limits that protect other people’s rights. Realists tend to focus more on threats to state authority and order. Even so, they may recognize that inflexible repression can destabilize a regime.

Constructivists study how labels such as “peaceful citizen,” “rioter” and “terrorist” influence public acceptance. Feminist analysis considers whose grievances gain attention, while highlighting how policing, harassment and care responsibilities affect participation differently. Postcolonial analysis may interpret disruptive resistance as a response to historically unequal institutions. It also considers whether protest reproduces violence against marginalized communities.

Non-violence isn’t automatically legitimate, and violent acts aren’t all automatically equivalent. Any contextual judgment must consider the cause, means, targets, available alternatives and effects on rights, equality and peace.

Peacebuilding is the long-term work of reducing the risk of conflict and creating the political, social and economic conditions for sustainable peace. Rather than simply stopping the immediate fighting, it tackles institutions, relationships and grievances that could trigger renewed violence.

What peacebuilding involves

Peacebuilding can take place at local, national and international levels. Its form depends on the conflict, but may include:

• implementing peace agreements and monitoring ceasefires
• disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former fighters
• reforming the security sector and justice system
• reconstruction and restoration of public services
• reconciliation, truth-seeking and transitional justice
• protecting displaced people and supporting their return
• inclusive government and political participation
• addressing inequality, land disputes and other structural causes of violence.

This work links peace and conflict to rights and justice. Accountability can make peace more legitimate, although its timing may complicate negotiations with armed actors. There’s also a close connection to development and sustainability: poverty, exclusion, damaged infrastructure and competition over resources can all weaken a settlement.

Judging effectiveness

A signed peace agreement isn’t enough to prove that peacebuilding has worked. A credible judgment looks at several outcomes over time:

• whether organized violence and civilian harm decline
• whether armed groups disarm or return to conflict
• whether institutions become more legitimate and inclusive
• whether rights and physical security improve for different communities
• whether displaced people can return safely
• whether underlying inequalities and grievances are reduced
• whether institutions can manage future disputes without violence.

Trade-offs often appear. A settlement might reduce deaths while entrenching powerful armed elites. Elections can increase participation yet deepen ethnic competition, while rapid prosecutions may support justice but discourage combatants from disarming. Peacebuilding may therefore work in one dimension and fail in another.

Ownership, inclusion and power

Local ownership can produce institutions that are more legitimate and better suited to the conflict. However, “local” actors don’t form a single group. National leaders, traditional authorities, women’s organizations, victims, businesses and former combatants may have conflicting interests. External donors can offer resources and guarantees, but short funding cycles or imported institutional models may create dependency and attract little public support.

Women and marginalized groups are often underrepresented in formal negotiations, despite experiencing conflict differently and contributing to peacebuilding within their communities. From a feminist perspective, an agreement made mainly among male armed leaders may stop battlefield violence without changing everyday insecurity, political exclusion or gender-based violence.

Colombia

Colombia’s 2016 peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia aimed to end a long-running guerrilla conflict through disarmament, political participation, rural reform and transitional justice. Demobilizing the main FARC organization removed a major source of national conflict and established institutions for truth and accountability.

After 2016, implementation remained uneven. Violence continued in some areas as other armed groups competed for territory, while former combatants and community leaders faced insecurity. The case demonstrates how an agreement can end one armed confrontation yet fall short of positive peace when state presence, land reform and protection remain weak.

The southern Philippines

The Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao was established in 2019 after an agreement between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Through the transition, the region gained greater self-government, while a major guerrilla organization moved towards political participation and weapons decommissioning.

Success has depended on creating credible regional institutions, delivering services and preventing violence by excluded armed factions. The process demonstrates the value of autonomy and negotiated power-sharing. It also reveals how vulnerable peacebuilding remains when implementation, development and local security progress at different speeds.

Competing perspectives

Liberals stress negotiated settlements, accountable institutions, law and international cooperation. In their view, organizations such as the United Nations can provide monitoring, expertise and legitimacy where domestic trust is weak.

Realists doubt that institutional design can overcome unresolved struggles over territory, security and power. They argue that peacebuilding will endure only if influential armed actors see compliance as serving their interests and credible guarantees prevent opponents from exploiting them.

Constructivists concentrate on identity, memory and trust. Formal institutions may not preserve peace if communities still view one another as permanent enemies. Postcolonial perspectives challenge standardized external models that treat conflict-affected societies as objects of intervention, giving donors more authority than local populations.

Peacebuilding works best when security is combined with legitimate and inclusive institutions, sustained implementation and attention to the conflict’s underlying causes. The key distinction lies between suppressing renewed violence and building relationships and structures that can manage disagreement without violence.