The review includes a research proposal for the International Society of Panetics.

At the 1999 Annual Meeting of ISP, Professor John N. Warfield, Director of the Institute for Advanced Study in the Integrative Sciences at George Mason University and a member of ISP's Board of Governors, summarized this report from his colleague, Carol Jeffrey, on the use of the process and methods of Interactive Management to get warring parties in Liberia to agree on ways to achieve disarmament and demobilization in Liberia’s Civil War. A continuing process and method issue in Panetics is how to bring groups with different values and conflicting aims together in ways that will reduce the human suffering that their conflicts engender. This paper summarizes the application of techniques developed by Warfield.

The only justification for military force is to protect human life and value and to minimize human suffering. The actual use of military force typically causes immense and unjustifiable suffering. But the failure to use military force at critical moments has also caused immense and unjustifiable suffering. The responsibility to constrain the military's infliction of suffering is shared by all of society's basic institutions–political, economic, educational, and religious.

A number of channels exist to control the use of military force:

• Civilian control

• The fabric of international law

• Codes of ethics and field manuals

• Religious and philosophical ethics

• Media exposure or "transparency".

We should not demonize the military. It can be a highly useful instrument to achieve humanitarian ends. Its use sometimes can be more "just" than the imposition of embargoes. Unfortunately, technological wizadry has led to a chauvinistic tendency in some quarters that can contravene these constructive uses.

A scientist who took part in the Manhattan Project during World War II describes how he evolved into a "realistic pacifist" and came to direct the Pugwash Conference. He asserts the necessity to prevent any nation from starting a war, a necessity that will require new global arrangements.

Striner takes issue with Johan Galtung for his arguments praising some of the precepts formulated by Ralph G.H. Siu at the inception of the International Society for Panetics. Ironically, as an economist, Striner argues that panetic analyses should be value-based rather than attempt to be quantitative. He goes on to outline a suggested research program for panetics.

In an address to ISP honoring Ralph Siu, the author praises Siu's formulations that led to the formation of the International Society for Panetics: (1) that humankind is the measure of all things; (2) that Siu's measure of human suffering is subjective; (3) that these same measures are egalitarian; (4) that it attempts to measure suffering, rather than happiness; and (5) that it is non-theoretical.

He then goes on to argue that current notions to correct suffering in one part of the population by imposing suffering on another part does not add up. One plus one can not equal zero, he asserts. It totals two.

Galtung's arguments sparked a rigorous debate, e.g. see Striner.

Describes the world refugee and displaced persons problem and suggests that if panetics can develop appropriate quantitative measure for human suffering they could be applied practically to these problems in a number of ways.

A review and commentary by ISP President Ralph Widner on articles in the June 2000 SCEINTIFIC AMERICAN on The Face of War.

A summary of a conference at Duke University in April 2001 on the future of humanitarian interventions.

Takes a gimlet eyed view of a summary by Ralph Widner of a conference on international humanitarian intervention at Duke University in 2001.

One of the 2001 Siu lectures, the paper argues that we are living through a clash between the ideology of the Enlightenment and totalitarianism, not a clash of cultures. How can we organize to deal with such a conflict in a globalizing world?