Is Peace Education out of Style? The (Im)Possibilities of a Transformative Education

Abstract

This article investigates the (im)possibilities of Peace Education as a critical pedagogical practice in contexts marked by liberal ideologies. The question that guides the text is: has Peace Education ‘gone out of style’ in times marked by wars, democratic crises, deepening social inequalities, and the rise of authoritarian discourses? Based on a literature review, the study points out chronological advances and setbacks, highlighting the role of international organizations, such as the UN and UNESCO, in the affirmation, boom, and subsequent decline of the theme. The study also examines educational scenarios in Brazil and Portugal, highlighting their convergences and specificities. It emphasizes, however, that despite liberal pressures, Peace Education, even if not properly named, remains essential for the formation of autonomous and critical individuals, committed to questioning and confronting structural and cultural inequalities, and defending social justice, human rights, and historical memory.

1. Introduction

During an informal conversation, a Brazilian university teacher from the state of Pernambuco said with a look of frustration: “It seems that Peace Education has gone out of style.” The comment came in the context of the exploratory phase of the doctoral thesis developed by the author of this article, under the supervision of the co-author, in a comparative study between Brazil and Portugal on Education for Peace and Non-Violence, with a gender and sexuality perspective, one of the aims of which is to systematize good practices for teacher training.

When asked about the actions carried out in this field at her university, the professor not only pointed out the scarcity of initiatives but also emphasized the weakening of public funding and institutional interest in the subject after 2013.

This article questions whether Peace Education has been forgotten in times marked by wars1, democratic crises, deepening social inequalities, and the rise of authoritarian discourses.

According to (Garcia et al., 2024), there has been a significant rise in movements in contemporary global political context, led by figures such as Viktor Orban in Hungary, Donald Trump in the United States, Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Santiago Abascal in Spain. In this context, we also include André Ventura in Portugal. In relation to inequalities, western societies, driven by the quest for economic growth and capital accumulation, operate under the belief that infinite growth is possible. However, this premise is unsustainable, as the planet has finite resources. This economic logic contributes to the concentration of wealth and social inequality, a contradiction analyzed by authors such as (Bookchin, 1991), (Löwy, 2023) and (Richardson et al., 2023).

Peace Education is a field that has been consolidated by different authors, whose contributions offer a solid ethical and epistemological basis. (Galtung, 2003) introduces the distinction between negative and positive peace, arguing that positive peace requires overcoming direct, cultural, and structural violence.

By placing gender at the center of the discussion, (Reardon, 2001) proposes a feminist peace, committed to an ethic of justice and non-violence. Her approach broadens the concept of peace by linking it to the critical formation of subjects and the denaturalization of inequalities sustained by patriarchy. From this perspective, it is understood that there is no possibility of authentic peace without gender equity.

(Lederach, 2008) broadens the debate by considering peace as a relational and contextual process, molded by the cultural specificities of each community. (Freire, 2021) sees education as a practice of freedom and the construction of critical autonomy. Finally, Muñoz (2001) points to peace as an imperfect concept: unfinished, plural, and deeply linked to non-violent social transformation.

In this sense, the text proposes a qualitative approach, based on a bibliographical review, articulating classic and contemporary references. The central aim of this article is to investigate the (im)possibilities of Peace Education as a counter-hegemonic pedagogical practice in the face of liberal peace, re-signifying it as an instrument of resistance and transformation.

This article explores the (im)possibilities of Peace Education today, asking how it can be re-signified as a counter-hegemonic practice that resists the culture of violence and confronts enduring barriers to justice, democracy, and peace.

2. Methodology

This study adopted a qualitative approach of a theoretical and reflective nature, based on a bibliographical review. According to Minayo (2009), qualitative research is suitable for investigating the meanings, values, beliefs, and attitudes present in people’s experiences. Similarly, Creswell (2010, 2012) states that this type of research aims to understand social phenomena in a broad and contextualized way. Furthermore, it is built on a continuous dialog between researcher, object, and context, which is why, as Freire (1987, 2021) argues when referring to education, qualitative research can also be understood as an inspiring and liberating practice.

The literature review, widely recognized in various areas of knowledge (Ferreira, 2002; Trancoso & Oliveira, 2014) is characterized by the use of secondary sources, i.e., the analyses and contributions of authors who have already looked at the subject.

The study aims not only to map the state of the art, but also to problematize the conditions that limit or enhance Peace Education in the current context, especially in the face of the challenges posed by the liberal advance in educational practices. To this end, data was collected by searching for scientific articles, books, and theses in 3 databases—SciELO, Scopus and Scispace—using the categories ‘Peace Education’, ‘teacher training’, ‘critical pedagogy’, ‘values education’, ‘human rights education’, ‘liberalism’ and ‘education’, prioritizing publications from the last 15 years. Articles whose theoretical and conceptual approach suited the objectives of the article were considered.

3. Peace Education as Transformative Education

3.1. Peace Education: Concept and Transformative Practice

“We’re not afraid of the word peace” (Galtung, 1964). It was with this forceful statement that the Norwegian Johan Galtung inaugurated the Journal of Peace Research, arguing that peace should be understood not only as an object of scientific study but also as an ethical-normative principle that guides the production of knowledge and the formulation of policies aimed at building a more just and peaceful society.

This innovative vision has helped to redefine the contours of the concept of peace, which has evolved significantly over the last few decades. It is no longer understood simply as the absence of war but is now recognized as an active process aimed at building social justice. In this sense, the author made a distinction between negative peace (absence of war) and positive peace, which is that which seeks to defend equality, human dignity and eliminate the structural and cultural causes of violence.

As Pureza (2018) points out, this conception of peace as an active commitment faced criticism that pointed to the supposed neutrality of scholars in the field. In this context, Galtung’s notion of structural violence became a milestone in Peace Studies, distinguishing direct forms of violence from cultural and structural forms and linking the latter to social injustice and inequality.

According to Palma Valenzuela (2009), the new use of the term strongly emerged at the end of the 20th century, particularly in Western educational contexts such as Peace Education. It is an approach that sees education as a means of human and social transformation, combining disciplinary content and ways of living together.

In this sense, Peace Education, to achieve the objectives that underpin the Culture of Peace, is understood as “a global process through which people and groups learn to consciously develop their capacities, attitudes, skills and knowledge from the social structures in which they exist” (Palma Valenzuela, 2009, p. 142).

More than a theoretical proposal, it presents itself as a transformative education, capable of generating profound changes in ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. Far from being passive, it consists of an active movement that requires intentionality, reflection, and daily practice. Working with values such as empathy, justice and respect for diversity trains critical individuals who can prevent violence and transform reality.

In this way, Peace Education is configured as an offshoot of Education in Values, distancing itself from a neutral or decontextualized vision (Jares, 2002). It is also closely linked to Human Rights Education, ensuring that actions in favor of peace are based on respect for human dignity and fundamental rights, with conflict resolution as a central element of this educational practice. The tables below illustrate in practice how the procedural objectives of Peace Education (Jares, 2002) can be mobilized in school contexts, connecting pedagogical provocations to the development of socio-emotional and ethical-citizen skills, always anchored in universal values and specific articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Table 1. Democratic coexistence, critical thinking, and transformative action.

Procedural Objective	Central Provocation	Skills Developed	Associated Value	Correspondence to UDHR
Developing practical and social skills, such as communication, creativity, group work, and self-knowledge	How can we get along better with others and develop our personal skills in groups?	Communication, collaboration, self-knowledge, creativity	Empathy, cooperation, autonomy, mutual respect	Article 1—All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Connecting theory and practice, allowing students to experience real and symbolic situations related to peace and social transformation	How can knowledge be transformed into action that promotes the common good?	Citizen responsibility, practical application of knowledge, ethical thinking	Peace, social transformation, solidarity	Article 29, §1—The individual has duties towards the community, where the free and full development of their personality is possible.
Stimulating critical thinking by analyzing information, making decisions and building alternatives to social problems	How can we analyze reality and propose fairer and more ethical solutions?	Critical thinking, decision-making, and ethical argumentation	Critical reflection, social responsibility, justice	Article 26, §2—Education shall aim at the full development of the human personality and the strengthening of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Source: Adapted from (Jares, 2002, p. 161) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

shows how pedagogical practice can contribute to problematizing, with the goal of developing important skills for ethical and democratic coexistence. For example, by creating situations that encourage communication, empathy, the practical application of knowledge and solidarity as formative values, helping to strengthen the spirit of fraternity set out in Articles 1 and 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Encouraging critical reflection and the formulation of ethical solutions to collective problems dialogs directly with Article 26, §2, by reaffirming the social function of education as a promoter of human freedoms and rights.

Table 2. Conflict resolution, non-violent attitudes and building futures.

Procedural Objective	Central Provocation	Skills Developed	Associated Value	Correspondence to UDHR
Proving the various methods of non-violent conflict resolution	What peaceful ways can we use to deal with everyday conflicts?	Conflict resolution, mediation, active listening	Non-violence, dialog, tolerance	Article 3—Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
Intending peaceful attitudes in everyday life, such as co-operation, empathy, and non- violent conflict resolution	How can we cultivate attitudes of peace in our daily actions?	Empathy, ethical attitudes, peaceful coexistence	Active peace, respect, understanding, solidarity	Article 28, §1-Everyone has the right to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Representing alternative worlds to the ones we know today	How can we imagine and build more just and humane realities?	Critical vision, complex problem-solving, creativity	Critical awareness, hope, freedom, social responsibility	Article 27, §1—Everyone has the right to take part freely in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific progress and its benefits.

Source: Adapted from (Jares, 2002, p. 161) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

below expands on this perspective, addressing other procedural objectives that strengthen the experience of peace as a daily practice, anchored in universal values and a commitment to human rights.

Along this conceptual and pedagogical path, Reardon (2001) deepens the discussion by articulating the foundations of Peace Education and feminist peace. She denounces the structural relationship between patriarchy and the war system, advocating a paradigm shift anchored in the ethics of human rights and gender justice. For her, the culture of war, fueled by patriarchal, hierarchical, and competitive values, is naturalized in institutions, including education.

In this sense, it calls for the deconstruction of the symbolic and institutional structures that sustain violence, especially those that make invisible and punish the autonomy of girls and women. Peace Education therefore becomes a central tool for social, political, and pedagogical transformation. In short, there can be no peace without gender justice.

3.2. Teacher Training for Peace Building

One of the central premises of Peace Education is the development of critical thinking in the face of violence and inequality. As Velez De Castro and De Figueiroa-Rego (2024) point out, what “is referred to as ‘critical thinking’ is often just a designation, in other words, there is a risk of it becoming a banal expression, devoid of its true meaning, if there is no systematic and scientifically well-formulated work” (Velez De Castro & De Figueiroa-Rego, 2024, p. 2).

As it is a transformative and critical form of education, it cannot be satisfied with a superficial peace that ignores the deep roots of conflict and social injustice. As Paulo Freire pointed out in 1986, when receiving an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as described by Freire Nita (2006): “Peace is created and built on and through the overcoming of perverse social realities. Peace is created and built through the relentless pursuit of social justice”. He warned that any educational approach that hides injustices or simplifies social problems fails to produce critical and conscious citizens “… I don’t believe in any effort called Peace Education that, instead of unveiling the world of injustice, makes it opaque and tries to myopise its victims” (Freire Nita, 2006, p. 388).

Freire’s reflection reinforces that building peace through education is a process that requires confronting inequalities and an ethical-political commitment. In the same vein, Muñoz (2001) understands peace as imperfect: a constant and inconclusive journey, always related to conflict and violence. He defends the need to establish premises about peace, detached from the logic of violence, considering peaceful power at the individual, social and public levels, with the aim of fostering a just social transformation.

Education for peace thus goes beyond theoretical knowledge, requiring the development of skills that enable reality to be transformed, encouraging conscious and active attitudes towards building non-violent coexistence.

Lederach (2012) proposes a fundamental distinction between conflict resolution and conflict transformation approaches. While resolution seeks immediate solutions to specific problems, focusing on containing the crisis and eliminating suffering, transformation invites a deeper understanding of the causes, dynamics, and impacts of conflict, especially regarding relationships and social structures.

This perspective broadens the debate in the educational field, where according to Torrego (2013) conflict mediation is often one of the first steps towards peacebuilding, as it seeks to restore dialog and strengthen bonds in different contexts. In this sense, conflict is understood as “inherent to human interaction, since differences of opinion, desires and interests are inevitable between people” (Torrego, 2013, p. 11).

However, Lederach (2012) proposes a broader view, advocating a long-term approach that goes beyond immediate responses and transforms relational patterns. For him, conflicts reveal legitimate tensions, requiring attention to human needs and integrating into the process of social transformation. Another of the author’s contributions was to conceive peace as a process that incorporates previously neglected factors, such as local specificities. He highlights the importance of listening in order to understand conflicts, contextualized that many are rooted in identity issues, which are often intensified in educational contexts (Lederach, 2003).

Macedo et al. (2023) highlights the urgency of revisiting the epistemological bases that support teacher training, defending the need to ethically reflect on educational practices that distance themselves from the culture of peace.

Although the responsibility for building a better present or training citizens prepared for peace does not fall exclusively on teachers, as this task involves structural changes and government policies, it is undeniable that they play a central role in this process. Macedo et al. (2023) systematizes eight points to strengthen teacher training in Figure 1.

In this context, it is important to understand the history of peace studies, which reached its apogee in the last decades of the 20th century, when building a culture of peace became a global priority for international organizations, governments, educational institutions, and social movements.

4. Historical Journey: Boom and Decline of Peace Studies

In the last three decades of the 20th century, building a culture of peace became a global priority, recognized and promoted by international organizations, governments, educational institutions, and social movements2.

In this context, Peace Studies gained momentum above all with the 1992 UN Peace Agenda, which, as Oliveira (2017) describes, covers a wide variety of topics, such as disarmament and arms control, conflict resolution, the causes of war, peace operations, post-war processes (demobilization, reconciliation and reconstruction), migration, non-violent resistance, forms of structural and cultural violence, Peace Education and the conditions for building positive peace, including social justice and reducing inequalities.

The Agenda for Peace proposed a multidimensional approach based on the humanitarianism–peace–development nexus, which sought to tackle the structural causes of conflicts and guide post-war prevention and reconstruction policies. To operationalize this approach, as Oliveira (2017) points out, former UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali proposed, inspired by (Galtung, 1976) four types of operations: preventing conflicts (preventive diplomacy), containing ongoing conflicts (peacemaking), maintaining peace after agreements (peacekeeping), and consolidating post-conflict peace through well-being and reducing social inequalities (peacebuilding). This is reinforced by (Pureza, 2024) when he points out that the proposal aimed not only to end armed conflicts, but also to transform unjust structures, reduce inequalities and strengthen inclusive institutions, consolidating peacebuilding as an international practice of prevention, reconstruction, and the development of positive peace.

This commitment gained significant strength in 1999, when the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) adopted Resolution A/53/243, entitled Declaration and Program of Action for a Culture of Peace, which defines essential values such as respect for life, the eradication of violence and the promotion of non-violence through education.

That same year, the UN also proclaimed the period from 2001 to 2010 as the “International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World”, reaffirming the urgency of educating for peace and transforming social values in favor of a fairer and more supportive future.

Complementing these advances, another outstanding document launched by UNESCO was the “Manifesto 2000”, which proposed transforming the culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and non-violence, involving every person in building a just, supportive, free, and sustainable world.

In 2008, UNESCO’s Opening Spaces: Education and Culture for Peace program promoted the social inclusion of young people through educational and cultural activities in public schools, especially at weekends, with the aim of reducing violence (through art, sport, music, and other cultural expressions).

Despite the height of the approach to the subject, Almeida Cravo (2017) points out that the consolidation of peace after the end of the Cold War was captured by the logic of liberal peace, which transplanted Western models of liberal democracy and market economy to post-conflict contexts, imposing political and economic conditionalities in the name of stability. She states that the concept of peacebuilding, which could have taken on multiple forms and approaches in post-conflict contexts, ended up reduced to the Western matrix and the liberal worldview.

In the field of Peace Education, there is also controversy and a liberal advance. Magalhães (2014) highlights the contradictions inherent in UNESCO’s work, considering it a space of conflict, although she recognizes its central and strategic position in the contemporary scenario of educational planning and development. For her, on the one hand, there is the alignment of the institution with a rationality oriented by market principles, maintaining complex links with the interests of capital and with the guidelines of multilateral organizations such as the World Bank.

On the other hand, she highlights UNESCO’s role as a “supranational body that promotes cultural and political integration, while at the same time opening up spaces for debate on the universalization of education” (Magalhães, 2014, p. 121). In this sense, Sabán Vera (2003) highlights UNESCO’s role in Peace Education, emphasizing that, for the first time, humanity has been given an international instrument in which education takes center stage.

The advances made in Education for Peace, expressed in documents and initiatives by the UN and UNESCO, have shown a historic effort to transform peace into political, social, and educational practice. However, it is worth remembering that these achievements also reveal contradictions: while the aim was to promote a positive peace based on social justice and solidarity, the consolidation of peace was gradually subordinated to the liberal paradigm (Almeida Cravo, 2017).

As (Jares, 2021) analyses, schools and their professionals live daily with the demands imposed by the education system, which pressures them to adopt technicist models aimed at developing competences linked to efficiency and productivity, but which, in essence, respond primarily to economic objectives. This logic reinforces neoliberal policies that naturalize individualism and competitiveness, reducing education to an instrument for adapting to the market.

By understanding conflicts not just as obstacles, but as possibilities for transformation, Peace Education presents itself as a path towards the formation of critical, conscious individuals committed to fair and non-violent coexistence. However, the practical application of these principles has encountered significant limitations with the advance of the liberal paradigm, which has ended up restricting the field of Peace Studies, according (Pureza, 2024):

But more than that, recent years have added to this loss of conceptual and discursive vigor in Peace Studies a progressive recovery of the dominant position of traditional discourses: the realist discourse, for which peace is always and only the peace of the victors (military, ultimately), and the liberal discourse, for which peace is the result of the standardization of forms of political and economic governance according to the (liberal) model of the dominant countries in the world system.

(Pureza, 2024, p. 11)

Faced with the challenges posed by a culture marked by inequalities, exclusions and normalized violence, Peace Education is a transformative foundation. Foucault (1986) states that where there is power, there is also resistance, which is not an independent substance, but coexists with power. In this sense, to resist implies inventing and mobilizing practices capable of transforming power relations.

Jares (2021) reinforces this perspective by pointing out that schools must position themselves critically in the face of neoliberal policies based on individualism and competitiveness; however, it warns that when pedagogical discourse allows itself to be captured by technicist rationality, legitimizing practices that demand high performance and competitive standards, it moves away from its integral social and formative function.

In contrast, recent studies emphasize that although neoliberalism, globalization and changes in formal education have impacted peace education, it remains deeply rooted in the structures of culture, politics, society, and language. Peace education is embedded in oral traditions and community practices (Kastein, 2025). Building on this, Adan (2025) addresses the role of peace education in promoting social justice and sustainable peace in post-conflict societies. Similarly, Saleh et al. (2025) investigate the implementation of peace education as a strategy for dealing with conflicts in a non-violent manner in secondary schools, focusing on the experiences and perspectives of educators and students in creating inclusive learning environments. Expanding this perspective further and utilizing philosophy, Bacher et al. (2024) explore peace education through the Kant and Humboldt, highlighting the role of education in promoting rationality, autonomy, and holistic development. The authors argue that these values can help Ukraine build a lasting culture of peace and serve as a model for global peacebuilding. In other geographies, Floro (2025) highlighted the importance of cultural relevance, teachers as key agents of contextualization, and the role of indigenous knowledge in peacebuilding. The study identified gaps between practice and policy, particularly in the Philippines, and recommended adaptable frameworks, teacher empowerment, integration of local practices, participatory research, and enhanced stakeholder collaboration.

Peace education thus emerges as a potentially transformative response, integrating critical perspectives on power, resistance, and the risks of neoliberal rationality. Supported by contemporary studies that investigate and address current challenges, its crucial role as a pedagogical practice in building a sustainable culture of peace is firmly reaffirmed.

5. The New Global Agenda: The Centrality of Citizenship Education

In 2015, the UN Summit held in New York defined the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)3 which guide a global agenda to eradicate poverty and promote social, economic, and environmental development by 2030. Among them, SDG 4 stands out by guaranteeing inclusive, equitable and quality education, which is fundamental for preparing children and young people to exercise critical and peace-promoting citizenship.

In addition, Peace Education is directly related to SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice and the construction of effective and accountable institutions. In addition, SDGs 1 (eradicating poverty), 2 (zero hunger), 5 (gender equality) and 10 (reducing inequalities) work to tackle the causes of structural violence, which is one of the main obstacles to consolidating a lasting culture of peace.

Peace Education is currently a cross-curricular component in several countries. However, Cabezudo (2020) points out that despite the various initiatives proposed to stimulate responsible and autonomous attitudes, they have not yet managed to fully take root in educational practice, since the pedagogy for the Culture of Peace, Citizenship and Human Rights “develops as a curricular discourse that ennobles without modifying or conceiving new alternatives in the ethical and citizen training of teachers and students” (Cabezudo, 2020, p. 544).

For example, if students are taught to respect and tolerate each other at school, but realize that their own teachers do not practice these values daily, perpetuating inequalities and tensions, what happens? Peace Education becomes superficial. Furthermore, without debates that question inequalities or effective conflict mediation practices, passivity is reinforced, preventing students from developing a critical conscience capable of transforming the reality around them.

According to Cabezudo (2020), the path of questioning and reflecting on social problems is vital to contributing to critical and conscious education, which is essential to building active and committed citizenship. When this critical perspective is not explicitly recognized as Peace Education, there is a risk that peace itself will be silenced and made invisible.

In this sense, pedagogical practices that investigate and deepen content related to human rights violations and attacks on people’s dignity currently find a legitimate space in the field of Peace Education, Citizenship Education, and Human Rights Education4.

For Pureza (2014), citizenship education is not about obedience, but about transformative instability. It means enabling people to question the established order, rather than simply accepting it. This manifests itself in two pillars: educating for peace and educating for rights. Educating for rights involves cultivating the restlessness needed to fight for new dignities, recognizing that rights are the fruit of disobedience and transgression. In essence, education for citizenship is “educating for that way of being of those who are completely restless and dissatisfied and, consequently, available to conquer more peace against violence and more rights against indignity” (Pureza, 2014, p. 43).

Since 2012, UNESCO has prioritized Global Citizenship Education (GCE), launching a guide to support member states in training critical, ethical, and engaged citizens. Global citizenship involves a sense of belonging to a common humanity and an understanding of local, national, and global interconnections. Based on literature, conceptual frameworks, and technical consultations, the GCE is structured around three interconnected dimensions: cognitive (knowledge and understanding), socio-emotional (values, attitudes, and empathy) and behavioral (responsible action and participation). UNESCO’s global agenda, aligned with the UN’s 2030 Agenda, places GCE as a central axis on the road to sustainable development.

According to Pais and Costa (2020), GCE has gained prominence as a response to the inequalities of globalization, but it articulates contradictory discourses: one focused on ethics and active citizenship, and the other aligned with neoliberalism and self-investment. Even critical democratic discourses, while advocating the reduction in global inequalities, remain anchored in humanistic approaches that prioritize individual changes, without questioning the social structures that sustain such inequalities.

Therefore, GCE has been criticized for adopting uncritical and Eurocentric perspectives in its pedagogical models and approaches (Andreotti, 2006). In her article Global Citizenship Education—Soft versus Critical, the author argues that global citizenship education needs to go beyond well-meaning but superficial moral activism and move towards a critical and in-depth analysis of the structural causes of global inequalities. For her, the “soft” approach, although centered on values such as empathy and solidarity, often avoids questioning privileges and power relations. The “critical” perspective, on the other hand, challenges learners to recognize their own implication in injustices, encouraging genuine political responsibility.

In

Table 3. Global Citizenship Education—Soft versus Critical.

Aspect	Global Citizenship Education Soft	Global Citizenship Education Critical
Problem	Poverty, helplessness.	Inequality, injustice.
Nature of the problem	Lack of ‘development’, education, resources, skills, culture, technology, etc.	Complex structures, systems, assumptions, and power relations that create and maintain exploitation and forced weakening tend to eliminate difference.
Justification for the existence of privileged positions (in the North and South)	‘Development’, ‘history’, education, harder work, better organization, better use of resources, technology.	Benefit from and control of unjust and violent systems and structures.
Basis for concern Common humanity/being good/sharing and caring.	Responsibility for the other (or for teaching the other). Justice/complicity in problems.	Responsibility towards others (or learning from others)—accountability.
Motives for action	Humanitarian/moral (based on normative principles for thought and action).	Political/ethical (based on normative principles for relationships).
How change happens	From the outside in (imposed change).	From the inside out.
Objective of global citizenship education	To enable individuals to act (or become active citizens) in accordance with what has been defined for them as a good life or an ideal world.	To enable individuals to critically reflect on the legacies and processes of their cultures, to imagine different futures and to take responsibility for decisions and actions.

Source: Adapted from Andreotti (2006).

, Andreotti (2006) points out that the difference between the “soft” and “critical” approaches in GCE lies in the way problems are understood and tackled. While the “soft” approach tends to interpret issues from a perspective of lack of resources or development, the “critical” approach recognizes inequality and injustice as the result of complex structures and power relations.

It is the responsibility of schools and teachers to sustain this critical approach. The incorporation of Peace Education, based on values and human rights, can strengthen educational practices that not only problematize, but also transform the structural bases of inequalities. If education is to be the key to building a critical, inclusive citizenship committed to justice and peace, it is vital that education goes beyond superficial approaches, promoting critical reflection on structural inequalities. Peace education is a vital part of citizenship. Ignoring it or not using it weakens citizen education, jeopardizing the development of critical thinking, conflict mediation and transformation, historical memory, reconciliation, and commitment to democracy and social justice (Pureza, 2014; Lederach, 2012; Cabezudo, 2020).

Teachers are responsible for articulating content and practices that educate students who are critical of social injustices. Those who educate are responsible for the (im)possibilities of a transformative education, seeking to favor not only knowledge, but also values and attitudes aimed at building a culture of peace and active citizenship.

6. Global Policies and National Contexts: Portugal and Brazil

According to Cabezudo (2020), the demands for Peace Education vary according to the geopolitical context. In Europe, they are centered on concerns about nuclear risks, militarization, environmental impacts, fundamentalism, and crises associated with human rights, such as migration, unemployment, and xenophobia. In Latin America, Peace Education, Citizenship and Human Rights takes on a more plural and contextualized character, integrating everything from experiences in armed conflict zones to proposals that articulate historical memory and social justice, as a response to violations during authoritarian regimes and periods of institutionalized violence.

6.1. Context in Portugal

In the case of Portugal, part of the European continent, since the establishment of democracy in Portugal in 19745, the implementation of citizenship education has been marked by controversy, as Machado (2024) points out. Despite legislative advances, there is still discussion about its compulsory nature and the content to be covered, which shows that this right is still not fully guaranteed.

To better understand this trajectory, below is a summary of the main legislative measures that have shaped citizenship education in Portugal over the last few years (2001–2018):

In addition to national measures, international agreements have also had a significant influence on the definition of Portuguese education policies. For example, the European Union’s Paris Declaration of 17 March 2015 stands out as an important milestone, as Neves et al. (2019) point out, and this document can be seen as a turning point in the political approach to citizenship education, as shown in

Table 4. The path of Citizenship Education in Portugal.

Year	Measure/Decree-Law	Description	Dimension
2001	Decree-Law no. 6/2001	Introduction of Citizenship Education (EpC) was established as a curricular area to be addressed transversally throughout the curriculum.	Initial phase (2001)
2011	Decree-Law no. 50/2011	Creation of the subject Civic Training in the 10th grade, criticized for its normative and transmissive approach to citizenship.	Institutional retreat (2011–2012)
2012	Decree-Law no. 139/2012	Civic Education is abolished as a formal subject. CVE becomes transversal, with decentralized implementation by schools.	Institutional retreat (2011–2012)
2015	Paris Declaration and international guidelines	Reinforcement of the role of democratic and global citizenship in education as a response to social and political challenges.	Supranational
2016–2018	Curriculum guidelines and reforms	Creation of the Citizenship and Development subject, mobilizing schools to revitalize EpC with a focus on participatory practices.	Resumption (2016–2018)

Source: Adapted from (Portugal, 2001, 2011, 2012), (Neves et al., 2019) and Machado (2024).

.

The National Strategy for Citizenship Education (ENEC), from the (Ministério da Educação Portugal, 2016) is a concrete example of this alignment, integrating themes such as human rights, gender equality, interculturality and peace into schools’ educational projects.

Since 2018, Citizenship Education in schools has been guided by ENEC, through the subject “Citizenship and Development” (CeD), divided into three thematic groups. Regarding peace education, there is the “Security, Defense and Peace” guideline, which is part of the optional group.

According to C. P. Souza (2023), although there are support materials such as “Security, Defense and Peace”, terms such as “peace” and “non-violence” are rarely addressed, indicating a transversal approach focused on security, with a predominantly “negative peace” conception.

In Portugal, as in other European countries, schools and teachers integrate Citizenship Education, but according to Damião (2016), “peace education” is one of the areas with the least presence. Considering that peace materializes citizenship itself, understood as education for and in accordance with human rights, its sidelining requires reflection. She emphasizes that, based on the “autonomy of the school” and the “flexible management of the curriculum”, each school or non-grouped school must select, according to its educational project, the citizenship topics it considers most pertinent, which can lead to certain content, such as peace education, not being worked on. For this reason, Damião (2016) argues that “education for citizenship”, “peace education”, and “education for human rights” form a cohesive core, based on ethical values, which is sufficient to guide citizenship education at school.

In practice, the Citizenship Education curriculum component corresponds to 32 h per year in the Portuguese school curriculum. These hours are distributed throughout the school year and can vary depending on the teaching cycle, corresponding to a weekly lesson of 45 or 50 min, and can be quarterly, half-yearly or annually, at the discretion of each school.

In this scenario, the reflective and transformative role of teachers becomes essential to ensure that, even in the face of limited workloads, content is worked on in a critical, continuous, and integrated way into school life, effectively contributing to citizen education.

6.2. Context in Brazil

According to (Silva & Tavares, 2013), the 1988 Constitution (Brasil, 1988), known as the Citizen Constitution, represents a fundamental milestone for human rights in Brazil. Since then, various legislative initiatives, public policies, and programs have been created6, strengthening the link between education, the defense of human rights, and later the culture of peace.

In addition, important documents such as the National Human Rights Programs Brasil (1996, 2002, 2009) and the National Human Rights Education Plan Brasil (2006) stand out.

To make it easier to understand this historical and thematic journey, the following

Table 5. History of Human Rights and Peace Education in Brazil.

Year	Measure/Decree-Law	Description	Dimension
1988	Citizen Constitution	Constitution of the Republic of Brazil of 1988, art. 227, which determines that the family, society, and the State have the duty to guarantee the rights of children and adolescents, such as life, health, education, leisure, dignity, and family life, and to protect them from all forms of neglect, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty, and oppression.	Legal/Human Rights
1990	Legislation— Child Protection	Statute of the Child and Adolescent (ECA), Law No. 8.069 of 1990, linked to the principles and guidelines of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the dictates of the 1988 Federal Constitution.	Legal/Child Protection
1999	Culture of Peace— UN	Resolution 53/243 on the Declaration on a Culture of Peace, approved by the UN	Supranational
2000	Culture of Peace— UNESCO	Manifesto 2000 for a culture of peace and non-violence	Supranational
2003	Human Rights and Education	National Plan for Human Rights Education (PNEDH)	Educational/ Human Rights
2008	Peace Education— UNESCO	UNESCO Programme: Opening spaces	Educational/ Cultural
2014	Legislation— Child Protection	Law No. 13.010, of 26 June 2014, the “Spanking Law” or “Menino Bernardo Law”, amending the ECA (article 18, definition of physical punishment and cruel or degrading treatment).	Legal/Child Protection
2016	Combating School Violence	Bill 5.826/2016: combating violence, with an emphasis on bullying.	Legal/School Protection
2017	Specialized Protection and Listening	Law No. 13.431/2017, aimed at guaranteeing rights in the context of violence against children and adolescents.	Legal/Child Protection
2017	Education and Health	Health at School Programme (PSE)—a strategy to integrate health and education for the development of citizenship and the qualification of Brazilian public policies.	Health/ Educational
2018	Education and School Coexistence	Amendment to art. 12 of the LDB by Law no. 13.663 of 14 May 2018.	Educational/ Coexistence
2019	School Support Services	Law No. 13.935, of 11 December 2019, provides for psychology and social work services in public basic education networks.	Mental health/Social Support

Source: Adapted from (Brasil, 1988, 1990, 2016, 2014a, 2014b, 2017, 2018, 2019; Oliveira Malta et al., 2025, p. 8).

shows some of the main national milestones since 1988, grouped by thematic:

It should be noted that the culture of peace was strengthened in the country by Law No. 13.663/2018, which amended the LDB (National Education Guidelines and Bases Law) to include measures against violence and in defense of peace in schools. The issue was already included in the National Education Plan (PNE) 2014–2024, with a focus on training educators to prevent violence. However, progress is still limited.

Salles Filho and Salles (2018) reinforce this idea by arguing that peace education is an ongoing social process that goes beyond an idealized vision of harmony and requires the active involvement of all educational agents. As in Portugal, Brazilian teachers are also expected to act critically, going beyond the simple transmission of content and promoting pedagogical practices that are sensitive to social realities.

In this sense, Costa Santos et al. (2023) analyzed the trends and challenges of Peace Education studies in Brazil and identified that, between 2008 and 2018, theoretical work predominated (70.7%) compared to empirical research (29.2%). The disciplines of Physical Education and International Relations stand out as the main academic producers in this field. In the area of Physical Education, studies cover topics such as the study of bullying, prejudice, gender, spirituality, and eco-training.

However, according to E. B. Souza (2025), who analyzed 220 Pedagogical Course Plans (PPCs) for Pedagogy courses listed by the Ministry of Education (MEC), topics such as ethnic-racial relations, gender, peace, and sustainability are fragmented, unsystematized and generally elective. The author concludes that the approach to these themes is incipient, a factor that jeopardizes the critical training of future educators. This gap is reaffirmed when Costa Santos et al. (2023) state that “teacher training is systematized as one of the main pedagogical areas researched and highlighted for the promotion of Peace Education” (Costa Santos et al., 2023, p. 11).

As a complement to understanding the Brazilian scenario, the 1st Technical Bulletin School that Protects: Violence Data, a study commissioned by the (Ministério da Educação Brasil, 2024), revealed that the main causes of extreme violence attacks in the country include:

The rise of extremism and its dissemination through digital media that promote various forms of discrimination; the lack of control and criminalization of hate speech and practices; the promotion of a gun culture and the glorification of violence; the prevalence of bullying, prejudice and discrimination in the school environment and insufficient professional training to deal with issues such as conflict mediation.

(Ministério da Educação Brasil, 2024, p. 16)

Despite legislative advances in Brazil, such as the inclusion of the theme of peace in the LDB and the PNE, and academic recognition of its importance, the effectiveness of Peace Education faces a major challenge: the persistent gap between theory and practice, which can only be overcome through solid, critical teacher training committed to social transformation, combined with consistent public policies that guarantee and strengthen the role of schools in this process.

7. Conclusions

Although Peace Education has been subjected to liberal approaches that fragment it and reduce it to an idealized discourse, its importance remains central. In this sense, far from having “gone out of style”, Peace Education remains urgent, both for transforming conflicts and for confronting direct, structural, and cultural violence.

Despite the challenges presented in the text, there are possibilities for reviving and strengthening this pedagogical practice when peace is re-signified as a dynamic process of social transformation that prioritizes the defense of human rights, historical memory, and the transformation of conflicts towards true reconciliation.

More than 60 years later, it is still necessary to reaffirm Galtung’s phrase “we are not afraid of the word peace”. Naming it explicitly keeps it alive in pedagogical practices that defend critical thinking and the construction of values such as solidarity, democratic sense, tolerance, and empathy, without forgetting to denounce social inequalities critically. Teacher training is a key component of this process.

Despite the relevance of the reflections presented, it is recognized that the article has its limitations, as it does not cover the whole subject. Future articles that address teacher training and connect “education for citizenship”, “peace education”, and “education for human rights” are therefore welcome, contributing to advancing the debate and building educational practices that contribute to transformative education.