Analysis
Espinosa’s assertion aligns with **positive peace** theory (e.g., Johan Galtung’s framework), which defines peace as structural justice and equity, not merely the absence of violence. This interpretation is endorsed by UN resolutions (e.g., **Sustainable Development Goal 16**) and academic literature. However, the statement is **normative**—it expresses an ideal rather than a measurable fact—and its operationalization varies by context. No empirical consensus exists on the *necessary* thresholds of justice or equity to achieve 'peace.'
Background
The distinction between **negative peace** (absence of war) and **positive peace** (presence of justice/equity) originates in peace studies (1960s–70s). The UN’s **2030 Agenda** explicitly links peace to sustainable development (e.g., reducing inequality, access to justice). Espinosa’s role as UNGA president positioned her to advocate for this broader definition, though it remains aspirational.
Verdict summary
The statement reflects a widely accepted *conceptual* definition of peace in international discourse, but it is not a universally binding or empirically verifiable claim.