The international dimension of peace education in the perspective of knowledge diplomacy development

МІЖНАРОДНИЙ ВИМІР ОСВІТИ ДЛЯ МИРУ У ПЕРСПЕКТИВІ РОЗВИТКУ ЗНАННЄВОЇ ДИПЛОМАТІЇ

Introduction

In November 2021, during the 41st session of UNESCO's General Conference, UNESCO's 193 Member States recognized, once again, the core role of education in changing mind-sets, attitudes and behaviours as a means of achieving a culture of peace, human rights and tolerance. The 41st session of the UNESCO General Conference officially approved the Director-General's proposal to revise the 1974 Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - referred to as the 1974 Recommendation (UNESCO, 1974). The Recommendation was drafted and adopted during the Cold War as a moral aspiration for universal peace, in a context of acute geopolitical tension. Since then, this non-binding legal instrument has been providing international standards for the promotion of human rights, international cooperation, understanding, human survival and global peace through education and knowledge-based diplomacy. Nowadays the 1974 Recommendation is a key tool to monitor progress on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in particular for Targets 4.7 (education for sustainable development and global citizenship), 12.8 (promoting universal understanding of sustainable lifestyles) and 13.3 (improving education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning) (Global, 2021).

Even today its importance cannot be denied, concerning the current war that russian federation started against Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

Since 1981 UNESCO annually has been awarded Prize for Peace Education. The main goal of UNESCO education prize is to encourage excellent effort in the drive to reach a better quality education. The prize is endowed up to US $60,000 and honours extraordinary activities for peace education in the spirit of the UNESCO Constitution (Wikipedia, 2022) and knowledge-based diplomacy.

Knowledge-based diplomacy is one of the new types of diplomacy, which was first defined in 1995 in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Treaty on Intellectual Property Rights. However, the definition has very narrow approach and short lifespan. Current approaches to conceptualising the notion of knowledge diplomacy have broadened its meaning by focusing on «the role of international higher education, research and innovation in bridging/ linking relations between countries» (Knight, 2015). This confirms the growing importance of education in a mutually interdependent world, in particular its functions in enhancing international relations in solving current global problems (climate change, epidemics, migrations, combating poverty, human rights and social justice), to which peace-building belongs.

It is obviously, that the need for a thorough understanding and dissemination of the «knowledge diplomacy» phenomenon is due to a number of factors, most notably:

- the dynamic development of crises which cannot be resolved by a single nation or country;

- the evolution of the diplomatic sector itself, which is creating new actors, new strategies and new approaches;

- globalisation and regionalisation of education policy and the transformation of university networks into regional clusters / knowledge hubs;

- establishment of smart power on the basis of soft power (involvement, enlistment, and reinterpretation) and hard power (military and economic sanctions) combination (Knight, 2018).

It should be noted that the term «knowledge diplomacy» is often used interchangeably with «cultural diplomacy», leading to confusion in the interpretation and use of this new term. This state of affairs is due to the long-standing prevalence of the term «cultural diplomacy» over the past decades with regard to international exchanges, exhibitions and events in art, music, theatre, literature, film, media and architecture, as well as sports and other cultural activities. The aim of cultural diplomacy is primarily to strengthen intercul- tural awareness, trust and relations between countries (Gienow-Hecht, 2010).

In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, international events in higher education were also considered part of cultural diplomacy, including academic exchanges of students and teachers; study of foreign languages; sports and cultural events between higher education institutions in several countries. While cultural diplomacy requires a wide range of educational and cultural exchanges, it cannot take into account the key elements of current higher education, such as research and innovation. Moreover, institutional transnational mobility, which emphasises the movement across the borders of higher education programmes and providers, and offers students the opportunity to study foreign higher education courses in their home country, is not included in the concept of cultural diplomacy.

The term «education diplomacy» is usually applied to basic education and is linked closely to advocacy. The Association for Childhood Education International has adopted this term and believes that «education diplomacy» uses the skills of diplomacy grounded in human rights principles to advance education as a driver for human development' (Centre, 2022). This raises the question of whether the term «education diplomacy» or «knowledge diplomacy» is more appropriate for higher education. In contrast to education diplomacy, knowledge diplomacy includes research and the use of research and new knowledge for innovation, two areas not usually associated with basic education. Furthermore, the drivers and outcomes differ. Education diplomacy is oriented to human development, while knowledge diplomacy focuses on addressing and solving common societal issues which face countries in all regions of the world.

An important aspect of describing, defining and understanding knowledge-based diplomacy is to identify the fundamental or general characteristics of this phenomenon. Jane Knight in the process of identifying the characteristics chooses a number of structural criteria for their selection. These include: core values or principles; different ways of interaction or types of relations between the participants; specific types of activity; benefits and results (Knight, 2018).

The researcher has formulated a preliminary list of eight characteristics that define important strategic aspects of knowledge- based diplomacy and are consistent with the above structure, namely:

1. Diversity of actors and partners actively engaged in the teaching and learning process, collaborative research, knowledge production, and innovation projects. These include national, regional or international centres of excellence, research institutions, foundations, think tanks, and professional associations, nongovernmental organisations related to education, and governmental departments and agencies. In the majority of cases the higher education actors also work with other sectors and / or disciplines, depending on the nature of the initiative. Common partners include industry, civil society groups, foundations and governmental agencies.

2. Focus on higher education, research and innovation. Knowledge diplomacy builds on the fundamental functions of higher education (teaching and learning, research, knowledge production and innovation, and service to society). Individual activities of higher education institutions (e.g. student mobility, scholar exchange, joint conferences) are elements of knowledge diplomacy when they are networked to a larger series of activities involving multiple actors and strategies.

3. Recognition of different motives and needs and collective use of resource of actors. Each country and actor has different needs and brings specific resources to the partnership. These need to be respected and negotiated to ensure that the strengths and opportunities for each partner are optimised to address the global issue at hand. This is done through a horizontal collaborative relationship that acknowledges the different but collective needs and resources of the partners.

4. Reciprocity - mutualbut different, benefits. Different needs and resources of actors will result in different benefits (and potential risks) for partners. Mutuality of benefits does not mean that all actors or countries will receive the same benefits. It does mean, however, that the principle of mutuality and reciprocity of benefits will guide the process. As the collaboration unfolds, there will be both collective and context-specific benefits accrued for actors and countries

5. Based on negotiation, collaboration and co-operation. Knowledge diplomacy is based on horizontal relationships between and among major actors and countries and focuses on co-operation, collaboration, negotiation and compromise to ensure that the overall goals are met and there are benefits for all. This is founded on a win-win approach fundamental to knowledge diplomacy.

6. Different levels of collaboration. Knowledge diplomacy includes different levels of bilateral and multilateral co-operation at regional and international levels.

7. Commonality of issues - addressing global issues, which require collaboration among higher education actors and other partners in different countries, is the primary rationale or driver for a knowledge diplomacy approach. This necessitates an agenda which highlights common issues and concerns among countries who believe that a collaborative and coordinated effort will lead to results that could not be achieve by one country alone.

8. Builds and strengthens relations between and among countries. Central to the notion of knowledge diplomacy is co-operation among the different actors and partners. This depends on, and further strengthens, positive and productive relations between and among countries. It builds on but goes beyond the contribution that bilateral and multilateral agreements between higher education institutions make. Clearly, there is a sliding scale with regard to the breadth and depth of contributions knowledge diplomacy can make to relations between and among countries, but working towards addressing pressing global issues that affect each and every country is an important way forward (Knight, 2019).

The author appeal to the concept of «knowledge diplomacy»in the context of the study is motivated by several factors, in particular, the fact that international organizations such as the UN form a system of interstate relations in the field of education as an institution of world educational policy on a global scale, and therefore produce and distribute in the world educational space such titles of «good educational practices» aimed at awareness of global problems and their solution. The author turned to study its experience as a content analysis of the database showed that the organization itself has developed a lot of strategic, conceptual and, most importantly, methodological materials on peace education, and, moreover, has created special educational programmes on peace education, which are implemented in the UN corporate universities.

The aim of the study. The aim of this article is to review the concepts, principles and theories which underpin the development of peace education and conflict prevention in the context of knowledge-based diplomacy, and intellectual debate in the academic community on its promotion of social justice and peacebuilding; raising awareness of knowledge diplomacy in higher education and its role in addressing current global issues.

Theoretical basis and research methods. In this study the author refers to the definition of «peace» given in 16f Article of the Earth Charter (2000), namely: «Peace is wholeness created by a right relationship with ourselves, with other people, other cultures, other life, the Earth, and with the whole Universe of which we are all a part» (The Earth Charter, 2000). The author also notes that other definitions by respected experts and international organizations are also relevant.

In particular, there are numerous United Nations declarations and resolutions on the importance of peace. Ban Ki Moon, United Nations Secretary General, dedicated the International Day of Peace in 2013 to peace education in an effort to focus minds and financing on the pre-eminence of peace education as the means to bring about a culture of peace. Koichiro Matsuura, the past Director-General of UNESCO, has written that peace education is of «fundamental importance to the mission of UNESCO and the United Nations» (Wikipedia, 2022a).

Ian Harris and John Synott have described peace education as a series of «teaching en- counters» that draw from people: their desire for peace, nonviolent alternatives for managing conflict, and skills for critical analysis of structural arrangements that produce and legitimize injustice and inequality (Harris & Synott, 2002). James Page suggests peace education be thought of as «encouraging a commitment to peace as a settled disposition and enhancing the confidence of the individual as an individual agent of peace; as informing the student on the consequence of war and social injustice; as informing the student on the value of peaceful and just social structures and working to uphold or develop such social structures; as encouraging the student to love the world and to imagine a peaceful future; and as caring for the student and encouraging the student to care for others» (Page, 2008). According to Frank Schmidt and Alice Friedman «peace education embraces the physical, emotional, intellectual and social growth of children within framework deeply rooted in traditional human values. It is based on philosophy that teaches love, compassion, trust, fairness, co-operation and reverence for the human family and life on our beautiful planet» (Schmidt & Friedman, 1988).

It is worth noting that the internationally recognized field of Peace and Conflict Studies (PACS) is a merger of two academic fields: Peace Studies and Peace Education. Peace Studies looks at the causes of war, the phenomena of security and non-violence; teaching methods of non-violent discourse and conflict resolution; and the contribution of world- known peace leaders Nelson Mandela, Lach Walesa, Wangari Maathai and Dalai Lama. These studies are usually carried out on an interdisciplinary basis within the social and anthropological sciences, including sociology, political science, anthropology, history and so on (Alger, 2007). Peace Education is now centred on a transformation of methodology, content and pedagogical approaches to combat violence in all its forms. Peace Education requires exploration of alternative artistic and creative teaching methods; democratic partnership pedagogies; inclusive education approaches; and the world's leading educationalists: John Dewey, Maria Montessori, Paulo Freire, Betty Reardon and others (Bajaj, & Hantzopoulos, 2016).

UNESCO's “Declaration and Integrated Framework for Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy” notably states that «The ultimate aim of education for peace, human rights and democracy is for each individual to internalize universal values and adopt behaviours inspired by a culture of peace» (UNESCO, 1995). Teachers of Peace Education programmes can «reformulate» this mission in line with the objectives of the educational institutions in which they work, but a common element will always be the development of skills in non-violent conflict resolution. For example, at the UN-mandated University for Peace (UPEACE) in Costa Rica, the tag «culture of peace» is adopted as a call for an alternative worldview, since, in the opinion of educators, a «culture of war» is now dominant. They believe that although social conflicts are inevitable, peaceful, non-violent approaches to social change and the promotion of human integrity are entirely possible (Borel, Cawagas, Jimenez, Salvetti, 2011).

Results

The research presented has shown that educators working in peace education programmes (Galtung, Gerris, Morrison, Reardon, etc.) claim that the key problematic of their research is the analysis and transformation of direct, structured and cultural forms of violence (according to Johan Galtung). This includes a thorough and systematic analysis of destructive social practices - sexism, racism, nationalism, poverty, elitist education, militarism - at different social levels of society, with a particular focus on the role of the state in a context of conflict and war. These practices are often contrasted with alternative ones such as: fairness and inclusion; equality and dialogue; cooperative settlements, democratic education and non-violent conflict resolution, through the theoretical perspective of conflict, peace and social justice.

An analysis of authentic sources has shown that the most extensive theory of peace in educational literature is the conceptions of negative and positive peace by J. Galtung, as well as the concepts of direct, cultural, and structural violence. Negative peace is defined by J. Gal- tung as the absence of violence, that is, the presence of the subject in direct conflict with himself or other subjects. At the same time, positive peace is defined by the scientist as a society in which there are political, social and economic relations as well as institutional mechanisms that maintain fairness, equality, inclusiveness, dialogue, cooperation and social justice. Positive peace therefore develops through the cultivation and propagation of social values and worldview norms that contribute to the resolution of conflicts in a nonviolent way (Galtung, 1975).

Extending the concepts of negative and positive peace, J. Galtung criticises direct violence as a physical schooling of oneself, the detractors and nature. Most educators consider this type of violence to be fundamental to peace education programmes. Yet changes in international/global relations in the second half of the twentieth century have prompted most scholars to view direct violence as an important, but insufficient phenomenon for explaining contemporary forms of violent conflict Nowadays, the concept of cultural violence is essential, as it reinforces attitudes and customs that support discrimination and social nervousness (e.g. machismo, patriarchy, heteronormativity, etc.). This concept underlines the problem of prejudice and psychological pressure of some social groups over others.

The third J. Galtung concept is called «structural violence». It extends the previous two, focusing on the institutionalisation of oppression or the systematic violation of people's rights and opportunities through the imposition of political, economic and social regimes, special policies and the strengthening of bureaucracy. The concept focuses on the functioning of discriminatory laws, sexist and racist relations in the labour market, which at a deeper level contribute to increasing poverty and social marginalisation. Poverty itself, according to J. Galtung, is a form of indirect structural violence, because it is institutionally designed (through the education system, distribution of work, etc.) and inhibits the full realization of the individual in its development (Galtung, 1975).

In addition to the above-mentioned productive concepts of peace education, J. Galtung first develops the concepts of peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding on an institutional level as a response to increasing violent conflicts in the international space. In line with the concept of peacekeeping, the prevention of violence is achieved through the use of the threat of conflict management by force. A valid example of the implementation of this concept is the deployment of UN peacekeepers between the parties to the fighting. At the same time, the concept of peacekeeping is the use of mediation tools and negotiations between leaders to negotiate possible nonviolent methods for resolving the ongoing conflict. At the same time, the concept of peacebuilding envisages the use of the power of organizations and coalitions to renew the postconflict society reconstruct infrastructure and promote reconciliation between opponents (Galtung, 1976).

These concepts are widely used in the theoretical and applied aspects of peace education development at different levels. For example, in 1992 the United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in the United Nations Peace Programme presented the concept of peace in the functioning of the world organization. In the curricula and textbooks on peace education and conflict prevention the conceptual ideas of J. Galtung have been taken up. Galtung's conceptual ideas are used to outline the principles of organisation and effective pedagogical tools for peacemaking, creative problem-solving and problem-solving through the medium of mediation (Kester, 2013).

The author's study looks at the experience of the United Nations as a leading global body carrying out major diplomatic activities in the field of education, with peace education as one of its pillars. The mission of peace and conflict prevention within an international organisation is carried out, in particular, by specially established universities, which run peace and conflict prevention education programmes (PACS). These programmes were developed by experts from UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, the UN Resident Coordinator's Office in cooperation with leading experts from the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Union.

The UN's university structure includes institutions of higher education responsible for training UN staff and conducting policy- oriented research, namely: UN Staff College (UNSSC), Institute of Training and Research (UNITAR), Institute for Disarmament Studies (UNIDIR), United Nations Research Institute for Sustainable Development (UNRISD), UN University (UNU) in Tokyo, Japan, UN University (UPEACE) in San Jose, Costa Rica. peace education diplomacy

The Institute for Training and Research, the Institute for Disarmament Studies, and the United Nations Research Institute for Sustainable Development are research institutions that carry out investigations on current issues in the UN order. The aim of these institutions is to produce empirically validated knowledge to inform policy decisions. The UN Universities in Tokyo and San Jose are postgraduate institutions whose educational programmes offer a master level programme with a focus on mission, structure, philosophy and diplomatic practices of UN institutions as well as conflict transformation techniques for solving problems related to (non)security, peacebuilding, human rights protection, sustainable development, international law (Kester, 2013).

An analysis of the UN universities educational activities led to the conclusion that there are two most widespread models of peace education, namely:

1) Flower-petal model (Toh, 2004) and

2) Learning to abolish war (Reardon, Cabe- zudo, 2002).

The six-petal flower model was created in the late 1980s in the Philippines. It is based on the experimental and critical pedagogy of John Dewey and Paulo Freire; it includes a clear critique of globalisation and neoliberalism as social and political structures that contribute to poverty, conflict and war. The model also draws on four principles of emancipatory pedagogy that underpin education for peace and conflict prevention in the PACS concept, precisely: a holistic understanding of the

problem; dialogue; the value of authentic learning; critical responsibilities (Toh, 2004). Each of the six petals represents one of the areas of peace education according to the PACS concept, primarily: disarmament education; human rights; intercultural mutual understanding; social justice; environmental management; internal peacebuilding.

Fig. 1. Peace education according to the PACS concept

The main difference between this model and others lies in the presence of the «inner worldview» dimension as an element of universal peace education in the PACS concept. The concept of inner peacebuilding draws on the principles of inter-confessional understanding, ethics and morality enshrined in the works of Christian theologians such as Erasmus of Rotterdam, Thomas Burr and Matthew

Fox, the Buddhists philosophy of Joann Meis- sey and Thich Nhat Khan, among others (Toh, & Cawagas, 2010). The model has been influential to the development of PACS education at UPEACE and in various UNESCO institutes (Kester, 2013).

Another model is War Reduction Education, developed by the Global Campaign for Peace Education. This model focuses on four components of peace education: the deep/underlying causes of war and the culture of peace; international law and related institutions; conflict management; global disarmament (Reardon, & Cabezudo, 2002).

Fig. 2. War Reduction Education, developed by the Global Campaign for Peace Education

In contrast to the first model, it emphasizes the importance of international organizations and the rule of international law. The model was developed in 1999 at the Hague Peace Conference in the Netherlands and is now being disseminated worldwide. It is mainly based on the principles of international law, representative democracy and the «culture of peace» approach. The model is based on J. Gal- tung's concepts of violence and Elise Bould- ing's alternative approach of the future. We would argue that this model is more institutionalised in UN universities than the «flower- petal» model, which is focused on meeting local needs as usual.

It should be noted that the models analysed tend to be used in conjunction, as this allows creating a broad conceptual approach to interpreting the content and methodologies of peace education in UN universities. Although both models were developed in different social contexts, each focuses on providing holistic and systematic peace education and dialogue as pedagogical goals (Reardon, & Cabe- zudo, 2002). These are achieved using interdisciplinary and multicultural approaches as well as nonviolent interaction aimed at countering direct violence, a culture of war and human insecurity. K. Kester believes that the psychological aspects of conflict transformation and peacemaking, which focus on the pathologies of the individual as a locus of social change, are a threat for educators and researchers of peace education (Kester, 2017).

A study of authentic sources allows the author to identify the organizational and pedagogical foundations of peace education in UN universities. It turned that their approaches to teaching peace, security, human rights and other disciplines are very different.

For example, the United Nations University (UNU) in Tokyo takes a strong institutional approach at the international level, focusing on building negotiation and mediation skills for working in international organizations and fostering cooperation among them. Its curriculum includes disciplines devoted to the UN system, the foundations of international security and the mechanisms of state development. The university's vision of education for peacebuilding is to provide mediation services for the dissemination of UN values and the formulation of human security and sustainable development policies. It is important to note that the peace education programme is not part of the mandatory invariant part of the curriculum and is carried out at the postgraduate level for graduates of the university as an additional research work.

On the contrary, the United Nations University (UPEACE) in San Jose has only recently introduced a course on the UN system, knowledgeable and cultural diplomacy of this international organization. The core components of the curriculum focus on international law and analysis of peacebuilding and democratic development initiatives. In addition, higher education in the university is based on the principles of multicultural learning, studies of the civilizational values transformation and the culture of peace promotion. Efficient forms of peace education are seminars on constructive arguments, debates, and conflict resolution activities (Sellman, Cremin, & McCluskey, 2013).

Conclusions

Summarizing the presented study on the problem of the theory and practice of peace education development according to the PACS in the context of knowledge diplomacy, we should note several features of its implementation in UN universities.

First, in modern concepts of peace education, the concept of «state» is considered as the central unit of analysis in political and educational discourse, which is associated with universal categories: the rule of international law, liberal economy, democracy. This determines the epistemological factors of the peace education content constructing.

Second, the UN is an example of a complex state-like system in which UN universities function. Important components of their educational programmes on peacebuilding are the disciplines of ensuring interstate mediation, preparation for international negotiations, exercises in the analysis of interstate conflicts, the study of international law and political economy from the standpoint of the rational choice theory, according to which all nationstates are considered as the main homogeneous actors of the international politicians. Instead, according to experts, these institutions should improve the content of peace education by developing relevant courses on the role of non-governmental organizations and civil society in peacebuilding.

Thirdly, analysing the didactic principles of specialists' training in peace education, teachers emphasize paying special attention to the development of communicative competences, in particular, dialogic speech, argumentative debate, various forms of communication (analytical, linear, direct, as well as circular, reflective, indirect forms of communication) taking into account their cultural characteristics and social hierarchy in a multicultural educational environment.

Література

1. Alger, C. (2007). Peace studies as transdisciplinary project. In J. Galtung & C. Webel (Eds.), Handbook of peace and conflict studies (p. 299-318). New York, NY: Routledge.

2. Bajaj, M., & Hantzopoulos, M. (2016). Peace education: International perspectives. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

3. Borel, R., Cawagas, V., Jimenez, A., & Salvetti, N. (2011). Education for sustainable development at the University for Peace. Journal of Education for Sustainable Developmen, 5, 245-249.

4. Center for Education Diplomacy. (2022). School Leadership and Education Diplomacy. URL: www.educationdiplomacy.org

5. Earth Charter Initiative. (2000). The Earth Charter. URL: www.earthcharter.org

6. Galtung, J. (1975). Peace: Research, education, action. Essays in peace research. Vol. 1. Copenhagen, Denmark: Christian Ejlers.

7. Galtung, J. (1976). Three approaches to peace: Peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding. Essays in peace research. Vol. 2. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ejlers.

8. Gienow-Hecht, J. (2010). Searching for a Cultural Diplomacy. New York: Berghahn Books.

9. Global Campaign for Peace Education. (2021). A unique opportunity to revive a global consensus on education for peace and human rights (UNESCO). URL: https://www.peace-ed-campaign.org/a-unique- opportunity-to-revive-a-global-consensus-on-education-for-peace-and-human-rights-unesco/

10. Harris, I., & Synott, J. (2002). Peace Education for a New Century. Social Alternatives, 21(1), 3-6.

11. Kester, K. (2013). Peace education: An impact assessment of a case study of UNESCOAPCEIU and UPEACE. Journal of Peace Education, 10, 157-171.

12. Kester, K. (2017). The Case of Educational Peacebuilding inside the United Nations Universities: a Review and Critique. Journal of Transformative Education, 15(1), 59-78.

13. Knight, J. (2015). The Potential of Knowledge Diplomacy: Higher Education and International Relations, in Weimer, L. (Ed.) A Wealth of Nations. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education, 37-45.

14. Knight, J. (2018). Knowledge Diplomacy. The way forward? Discussion paper. London: British Council.

15. Knight, J. (2019). Knowledge Diplomacy in Action. Discussion paper. London: British Council.

16. Page, J. S. (2008). Peace Education: Exploring Ethical and Philosophical Foundations. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

17. Reardon, B., & Cabezudo, A. (2002). Learning to abolish war. New York, NY: Hague Appeal for Peace.

18. Schmidt, F., & Friedman, A. (1988). Peacemaking Skills for Little Kids. Concept Book. Peace Education Foundation.

19. Sellman, E., Cremin, H., & McCluskey, G. (2013). Restorative approaches to conflict in schools: Interdisciplinary perspectives on whole school approaches to managing relationships. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.

20. Toh, S. H. (2004). Education for international understanding toward a culture of peace: A conceptual framework. In V. F. Cawagas (Ed.) Education for international understanding toward a culture of peace: Teachers resource book (p. 7-22). Seoul, South Korea: UNESCO-APCEIU.

21. Toh, S. H., & Cawagas, V.F. (2010). Peace education, ESD and the earth charter: interconnections and synergies. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 4, 167-180.

22. UNESCO. (1974). Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Cooperation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted by the General Conference at its 18th session, Paris, 19 November 1974. URL https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000011563

23. UNESCO. (1995). Declaration and integrated framework of action on education for peace, human rights and democracy. Paris, France: UNESCO.

24. Wikipedia. (2022). UNESCO Prize for Peace Education. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO Prize for Peace Education

25. Wikipedia. (2022a). Peace education. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Peace education

Размещено на Allbest.ru