Blind spots, similarities and potentials: Bridging the German youth and peacebuilding sectors

To lead impactful work on Youth, Peace and Security (YPS), Germany should improve collaboration among YPS stakeholders and can better leverage existing structures. Youth organisations must integrate peace work into their mandate, peacebuilding organisations must embrace youth as partners and the government must back up rhetoric with resources and coordination. Bridging the youth work and peacebuilding sectors is not a luxury, but the foundation for urgent peace efforts at home and abroad.

Download (English version)   |   Download (German version)


The Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) agenda holds great potential to build bridges between peacebuilding and youth work in Germany. Simply put, the agenda expresses that young people are central to public life – as agents of positive change in general, and as peacebuilders in particular. YPS drives constructive narratives about young people’s peacebuilding agency while countering stereotypes that reductively frame them as victims or perpetrators of violence. Despite the calls of UN Security Council Resolutions 2250 (2015), 2419 (2018), 2535 (2020) and 2807 (2025) to engage them as partners, young people remain excluded from most peace and security debates in Germany. Rather than discussing the content, scope and relevance of the YPS agenda ten years after its adoption (see Klahre, 2022), this article explores how two sectors in Germany should partner for advancing YPS: youth work and peacebuilding practice. 

A lot of fog still surrounds the overlap of youth work and peacebuilding in Germany, blurring their interconnectedness. Civic and governmental stakeholders seem held back by imaginary walls separating youth and peace work. Lessons from the manifold youth and peacebuilding work of recent years allows us to clear the fog, expose blind spots and show how filling the empty room between both sectors can strengthen peace at home and abroad. What follows is a call for meaningful engagement, true collaboration and mutual learning.  

Two sectors, one agenda: Youth work and peacebuilding in Germany

Youth work in Germany covers a broad field of non-formal education and working with young people. Rooted in law (Book 8 of the German Social Code, Achtes Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB VIII)) and policy (Federal Child and Youth Plan, Kinder- und Jugendplan des Bundes (KJP)), it empowers young people to grow into active citizens. Through youth centres, associations and international exchanges, it creates spaces for personal development, civic engagement and democratic learning. As “workshops for democracy” resisting the rise of the far-right (DBJR 2018; IJAB 2025), youth associations nurture participation and the values of respect, critical thinking, responsibility and collaboration.

Peacebuilding encompasses practices that create conditions for societies to sustainably live together in peace. This includes dialogue across lines of division, addressing root causes of violence and fostering social cohesion. In Germany, peacebuilding is often perceived as happening abroad – through development cooperation, mediation or crisis prevention. Yet the same approach matters domestically, where polarisation, extremism and violence are challenging cohesion.

The YPS agenda links both sectors, highlighting the role of young people not only as beneficiaries but also as partners and leaders in peacebuilding. While youth work empowers young people as democratic actors, peacebuilding creates conditions for inclusive societies. They function like two languages using different words but the same grammar. Youth work and peacebuilding are not so different, after all.  

Clearing the fog: Blind spots in Germany 

Germany’s policy and civic stakeholders still treat youth work and peace work as separate spheres, creating silos of expertise that rarely exchange. Discussions about YPS in Germany often resemble foggy glasses: parts of the picture are visible, but essential elements remain blurred. Let’s sharpen this view step by step.  

  • YPS not applied domestically: German actors frame YPS as a foreign policy tool, overlooking its domestic scope. This misreads its intention: young people matter for peace everywhere, not only in zones of active violent conflict. Germany is leveraging YPS in its UN Security Council campaign for becoming a non-permanent member 2027-2028 (Federal Foreign Office, 2025) yet fails to apply it at home. Finland’s first YPS National Action Plan (NAP) 2021-2024 serves as a better blueprint for implementation that combines national and international dimensions (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, 2021). Without domestic application, Germany misses the chance to recognise and support young people’s peacebuilding contributions locally. Just as a football team competing at the World Cup cannot thrive without a functioning national league, global YPS leadership is neither possible nor credible without investment at home. Government, think tanks, foundations, associations and institutions could leverage the agenda for its contributions to problem analysis and research, policy and programme development, and collaboration and partnerships. Unfortunately, YPS is barely even referenced as a normative framework, let alone its substantial content used as guidance.
  • Peacebuilding not seen as domestic: The lack of domestic consideration for YPS correlates with the abstract idea that peacebuilding is only relevant abroad but not within Germany. Yet, the long list of surging far-right extremism, racism, polarisation, homophobia, gender-based violence, police brutality, political violence, and socio-economic inequality all pose threats to peace in Germany. We cannot afford to neglect the urgency of domestic peacebuilding. Ignorance would mean turning a blind eye to everyday violence and investing in an empty shell of security: well-protected borders and military strength, but fragile within. Domestic peacebuilding can mean promoting civic engagement, dialogue across generations and communities, countering (online) hate, investing in justice, tackling inequality, and climate action (Reize, 2026). While plenty initiatives of this kind exist, they are rarely framed as peacebuilding – the result is they remain undervalued and underfunded. Put to a simple test: how many peace-focused educational or dialogue initiatives are you aware of as you read this?
  • Youth not seen as (domestic) peace actors: If YPS is seen as foreign, and peacebuilding as external, it is not surprising that young people in Germany are not perceived as peace actors; except, maybe, when they volunteer for military service. They are often stigmatised as lazy, troublemakers or even threats, especially migrant youth (Pfaff, 2013). Yet, young people shape civic life as volunteers and make important contributions through demonstrations for climate justice and planetary well-being, anti-racism, women’s rights, LGBTQI+ and for defending our democratic foundations against fascism and the far right (McDonnell et. al, 2024). Are these not actions in service of the public interest and of peacebuilding? Still, neither the German NAP for Child and Youth Participation (2025) nor the National Security Strategy (2023) sufficiently references young people as key peace stakeholders. While the first does not even mention the word peace, the latter names “youth” only once in over 70 pages – two key policies are overlooking the obvious. Germany invests in Demokratieförderung (civic education) and extremism prevention – essentially domestic peacebuilding – but makes no explicit link to YPS. If peace, just like democracy, is acknowledged as a desired end then it becomes impossible to overlook the need for sustained investments into young people to promote peace – and yet, funding mechanisms such as Erasmus+ and the KJP are not growing sufficiently (DBJR, 2025). Furthermore, excluding young people from decisions on the reintroduction of military service in Germany reflects a broader pattern of their neglect and exclusion from decision-making, casting a dim light on Germany’s progress on the participation pillar of the YPS agenda.
  • Youth work seen only as domestic: Despite Germany’s rich international youth work tradition and experience – from Erasmus+ exchanges to the Franco-German Youth Office (DFJW/OFAJ) and transnational movements – youth work is often treated as a purely national domain. This narrowed perspective overlooks how organisations such as DFJW/OFAJ were founded to transform “inherited enmity” into lasting friendship between France and Germany (Beckmann, n.d.). It leaves calls for “more youth exchange in times of conflict and war” by DFJW/OFAJ unanswered (IJAB, 2024). Contributions by the youth work sector should be recognised so that links can be established between international youth work and peacebuilding projects with young people worldwide.
  • Peacebuilding and YPS without the Y: Peacebuilding actors are increasingly active on YPS (which is good!), but this new interest is not mirrored in systematically involving young people and youth organisations. It risks missing the core of what YPS stands for – improving conditions for young people – and may result, for example, in funding conditions poorly adapted to young people’s realities and projects designed “for” rather than “with” youth. Youth organisations bring deep expertise in youth work standards (e.g. Council of Europe, 2025), pedagogy, safeguarding and participation – all of which peacebuilding needs. Youth organisations are the ideal partners when German stakeholders engage in YPS-related projects abroad and at home. The message is simple: When working on YPS, we need to work with young people. 

Each blind spot matters, but the core problem lies in the empty room between youth work and peacebuilding. YPS invites both sectors to fill this shared space with collaboration.  

Youth work meets peacebuilding: Shared goals and methods 

The youth work and peacebuilding sectors share more than just potential for collaboration, they share objectives and methods: Both invest in individuals, communities and institutions to sustain inclusive and cohesive societies. The peacebuilding side may employ terms like “conflict transformation”, “root causes” and “dialogue”, whereas the youth work sector employs “non-formal education”, “democratic values” and “active citizenship”. But, ultimately, their similarity is undeniable. 

First, they share objectives: Peacebuilding addresses root causes of violence and works towards conditions for sustained peace; youth work fosters young people’s development in ways that strengthen social harmony. Both envision societies based on justice, dignity and mutual respect. 

Second, they share methods: Peacebuilding promotes dialogue, strengthens institutions and builds community resilience. Youth work empowers young people through non-formal education for global citizenship, human rights and sustainable development, while creating safer spaces for their development and promoting civic engagement. A rarely discussed need for collaboration lies in reintegrating former young convicts as active members into society – it is both a youth work and peacebuilding exercise: While the former focuses on the individual themself, the latter works towards creating systems for their general reintegration into society. 

The underlying hypothesis is that youth work is essentially peacebuilding when it contributes to shared values grounded in human rights and constitutional commitments. If we recognise youth work as peacebuilding, then the policy walls separating both fields collapse. Despite these similarities, both sectors still work largely apart. 

Building bridges: Recommendations for action 

More should be done to strengthen work on Youth, Peace and Security. The potentials for collaboration between youth work and peacebuilding are obvious, and the entry points are straightforward. Based on several years of personal experience both in youth and peace spaces, I recommend the following measures to the respective stakeholders in Germany:  

  • To youth organisations and the youth work sector: Make peace a more explicit theme at home and abroad. Member organisations of the National Youth Council (DBJR), reaching millions of young people, can benefit from integrating a peacebuilding lens into their existing initiatives and structures. Actively seek partnerships with peacebuilding actors to inform peace educational work and advocacy with evidence from the sector. Local initiatives like peer mediation in schools have great potential. Such practices could expand and increase their impact with training about conflict transformation and support from existing networks. Furthermore, learning from (youth-led) peacebuilding work abroad can expand creative horizons and spark proactivity for domestic youth peace work.
  • To peacebuilding stakeholders: Learn from the youth work sector about meaningful, safe, participatory and sustained engagement that caters to the needs of young people, both domestically and internationally. Embracing YPS means valuing process as much as outcome: empowering young people as partners in problem analysis, programme design and funding decisions. When youth juries of the Saxon Youth Foundation can annually award grants for development projects fundraised by young people themselves (Sächsische Jugendstiftung, n.d.), it raises the question of why such meaningful youth participation should not also be possible and relevant for large-scale peacebuilding initiatives. Other positive examples include the United Network of Young Peacebuilders joining a YPS project advisory board funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development or them delivering YPS training for the Center for International Peace Operations. Advisory groups, youth-led projects and consultative boards were successful in the past; youth-led steering committees, co-decision making and shared ownership should become the norm, not the exception.
  • To the government: Responsibility for YPS currently bounces between ministries without clear mandates and sufficient resources for the implementation of Germany’s international commitments. Three stakeholders can change this.
    • Federal Foreign Office: The adoption of the third YPS resolution during Germany’s UNSC presidency is a strong symbol of commitment to advance implementation. To live up to its self-ascribed role as a member of the “Group of Champions” on YPS, German foreign policy should prioritise the true champions of YPS – young people. It can match rhetoric with action by creating a strategic implementation plan, allocating more resources to a YPS focal point, training internal YPS capacities, providing accessible funding for youth-led peacebuilding, supporting YPS processes and protecting young peacebuilders worldwide. It should also integrate YPS into Women, Peace and Security efforts, establish a permanent youth engagement mechanism, strengthen the UN Youth Office and ensure youth leadership across peacebuilding missions and UNSC work.
    • Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development: Make youth a priority pillar with dedicated funding and programming. For example, the youth advisory council could be transformed into a co-decision body for funding allocations to youth-led organisations, drawing on models from the Council of Europe’s co-management system or citizen budgets.
    • Federal Ministry for Education, Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth: Integrate peace and human security into its programmatic agenda, ensuring references in the NAP for Child and Youth Participation and expanding the civic education initiative Demokratie Leben (living democracy) to also include Frieden Leben (living peace). Advocate for youth work’s peacebuilding role both domestically and internationally.

A call to collaboration  

Ultimately, youth work and peacebuilding are interwoven practices, not separate endeavours. Youth workers and organisations should be recognised as stakeholders for both domestic and international peacebuilding efforts – because what they do is peacebuilding or at least has peacebuilding effects. The challenge is no longer to prove a connection or uncover the blind spots, but to fill the empty room between the two sectors with shared vision, partnerships and collaborative practice.
This article concludes with a heartfelt encouragement to all those working in any capacity on matters relating to youth and peace: Open up a space for mutual learning, knowledge sharing, coordination, joint advocacy and whatever else such a space may hold – whether through an informal working group, a regular exchange platform or a multi-stakeholder coalition. No fancy terms like cross-sectoral or multidisciplinary are needed to engage in the true spirit of non-formal education: learning by doing! Engaging as allies in a first step will pave the way for doing better, together.

The author is responsible for the content of the article. The contribution does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Bundeskanzler-Helmut-Schmidt-Stiftung.

References: 

Author: Paul Klahre

Biography: Paul Klahre bridges the youth and peacebuilding sectors as capacity development coordinator at the United Network of Young Peacebuilders and as a peace educator with World Scouting.