Journal of International Political Theory, Ahead of Print.
This paper finds its point of departure in Murad Idris’s argument about peace being a fundamentally violent ideal marked by an overarching logic of constitutive aggression. It responds to this categorical statement by reconstructing four distinct variants of the peace/violence nexus, each of which involves a different type of violence, performed by a different type of agent, with a different demeanor, at different times and intervals, and in relation to a different conception of peace. There is not one peace/violence nexus but at least four. What is more, a detailed examination of these peace/violence nexuses puts into doubt their fundamental nature, if by fundamental is meant intrinsic and inescapable. It draws attention to the contingency of their becoming a social and political reality, and thereby confirms that the imbrication of peace and violence may at least theoretically—and temporarily—be avoided.