Today, several interreligious organisations are publishing joint statements of obvious moral character. These may regard such things as environmental issues, peacebuilding, or freedom of thought. This raises the question of how such statements are to be justified and what role different theological and religious traditions play in justifying joint values. This study seeks to understand and critically examine these questions.  The theoretical foundation is derived from Marianne Moyaert's development of Paul Ricœur's critique of joint interreligious ethics. From this, three main areas are analysed in four interreligious documents. First, what space is given to individual traditions as a source of moral knowledge? Second, to what degree is an ethic of consensus or compromise expressed? Third, how are pluralism, particularism, and radical pluralism expressed?  The study suggests three conclusions for justifying interreligious statements. First, joint published documents should include both theological resources from different traditions and an explicit invitation to dialogue. Second, a dialogue that seeks common values but accepts tension, seen as a critical instance, should be appreciated. Third, interreligious dialogue and its statements could be understood as a way of, with the help of different faith traditions, examining their own and other instances' values.

A handful of studies have shown that National Inter-religious Councils (NIRCs) contribute to electoral violence prevention. However, no quantitative study has evaluated the impact of their interventions and the conditions under which they lower electoral violence. Using data on African national elections from 1992-2019, I examine whether NIRCs' electoral-related peacebuilding interventions lower the severity of electoral violence and if their ability to do so depends on NIRCs' social power. The results in this thesis indicate that the presence of NIRCs' interventions during electoral rounds lowers the likelihood of severe electoral violence. The findings also reveal a significant disordinal interaction between NIRCs' interventions and their power, where the predicted probability of severe electoral violence reduces by 42% when powerful NIRCs implement peacebuilding interventions and, on the other hand, increases by 20% when less powerful NIRCs intervene. While this thesis fails to explain the disordinal interaction effect, it details this study's methodological tools and limitations and contributes an original dataset of NIRCs' interventions and power for future research.