• Peace research needs to provide less idiosyncratic and more structural conceptions of peace which take account of different types of domination, both as these lead to violence and as they impede action to remove domination.

• The revised framework for interpreting domination needs to be reconceptualised to take account of the heterogeneous contexts encountered, even if it means employing several slightly different frameworks in different contexts.

• The term ‘component’ used to describe the elements of the revised framework may be too holistic, and may require more precise definition.

• The distinction between fact and value remains unsatisfactorily delineated, and requires more exacting theorising.

• The research programme sketched above could be focused on some of peace research’s substantive concerns, such as nonviolence, or peace movements, the latter being construed as a manifestation of popular resistance to specific instances of domination manifesting in organised violence and war. Militarism could also serve as a research topic for which a revised framework for interpreting domination may have advantages, particularly were the neglected aspects of being a dominator and the recognised characteristics of militarism were satisfactorily connected using some form of the revised framework for interpreting domination.

• There is a need for peace research to focus on methodologies which highlight the relations between the three forms of domination heuristically delineated, and on the multiple hermeneutical schema's of different actors and responses to them in particular situations or contexts.

• More attention should be given to theorising the analyses and perceptions of strategists working against violence in ways which makes it possible to distinguish more clearly between their perceptions and those of social actors, where these are multiple and potentially in conflict.

• Disaggregating domination into at least three forms, and the exact relations between them needs further examination to more adequately explicate the details of structural, actor, and unthematised domination, and the relations between them, as well as uncover potentially other forms of domination, these forms of domination also requiring greater theoretic and analytical precision as they are uncovered.

• Peace research needs to develop new positive strategies to promote peace promising examples of such strategies which could be based on a disaggregation of domination into at least three types, on a positive social ontology in the spirit, if not the letter, of the ontology proposed in in the revised framework. The social ontology introduced needs to be characterised in less ambitious but more analytical terms which do not depend on the origin of the concept in German idealism.

• Practical progress towards promoting peace may be able to be made if the utopia of an adequate theory is replaced by a heuristic framework for analysing domination where this framework utilises such theory as exists, but in a way which recognises the limits of theory which privileges the vocative social ontological aspects of human action.

• Existential aspects of domination need to be given greater definitional and analytical precision, and the relationships between these aspects of domination and social action require greater analytical explication.