Suchergebnisse

Past and present attempts to stabilize war-torn Somalia through military, diplomatic and humanitarian interventions highlight the entanglements and interplay between local and foreign elites in policies and practices that have frequently and effectively undermined statebuilding in south-central Somalia. Existing analyses have focused predominantly on local actors and internal dynamics to account for the continuous political disorder in the former Somali Democratic Republic since 1991. In contrast, this study highlights the role of external aid in dysfunctional statebuilding efforts in Somalia. Rather than assuming that foreign actors are outside the local and national political settlements, such actors should rather be seen as an integral part of these processes. Consequently, the power and interests of both Somali and international actors must be taken into consideration in order to understand the shortcomings of stabilization policies. Persistent tactics by Somali elites—mobilizing, appropriating and redirecting foreign resources and agendas—have been at the core of failed statebuilding. Such tactics form part of what French Africanist Jean-François Bayart has described as 'extraversion'. Because Somali elites have regularly turned their participation in transitional governments into a resource appropriation tactic, statebuilding has become an end in itself rather than the outcome of a more profound process of actual state formation that would have entailed the centralization of coercion, the generation of public revenue or the building up of popular support. ; Past and present attempts to stabilize war-torn Somalia through military, diplomatic and humanitarian interventions highlight the entanglements and interplay between local and foreign elites in policies and practices that have frequently and effectively undermined statebuilding in south-central Somalia. Existing analyses have focused predominantly on local actors and internal dynamics to account for the continuous political disorder in the former Somali Democratic Republic since 1991. In contrast, this study highlights the role of external aid in dysfunctional statebuilding efforts in Somalia. Rather than assuming that foreign actors are outside the local and national political settlements, such actors should rather be seen as an integral part of these processes. Consequently, the power and interests of both Somali and international actors must be taken into consideration in order to understand the shortcomings of stabilization policies. Persistent tactics by Somali elites—mobilizing, appropriating and redirecting foreign resources and agendas—have been at the core of failed statebuilding. Such tactics form part of what French Africanist Jean-François Bayart has described as 'extraversion'. Because Somali elites have regularly turned their participation in transitional governments into a resource appropriation tactic, statebuilding has become an end in itself rather than the outcome of a more profound process of actual state formation that would have entailed the centralization of coercion, the generation of public revenue or the building up of popular support.

Statements before the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Foreign Relations Committee, US Senate, July 20, 1990.

Friedensprozesse vollziehen sich in einem komplexen sozioökonomischen und politischen Umfeld. Aktuelle Ansätze in der Konfliktforschung analysieren dieses Umfeld mit dem Konzept des "Political Settlement", verstanden als einem informellen Pakt aller relevanten Elite-Akteure, gefasst. Friedensprozesse und "Political Settlements" stehen in notwendiger Wechselwirkung zueinander, wobei die genauen Wirkungen noch unzureichend erforscht sind. Das vorliegende Papier diskutiert die sich auftuende Problematik zwischen Inklusivität und Legitimität von "Political Settlements" im Kontext von Friedensprozessen und argumentiert im Gegensatz zu normativen Zugängen, die für eine möglichst breite Beteiligung werben, für einen Ansatz, der sich an einem "Threshold" - also dem richtigen Maß - an Inklusivität orientiert.

AbstractWhereas the political settlements research framework is garnering growing policy attention in development programming, including in fragile and conflict‐affected states, there are concerns that political settlements constitute yet another global policy development with which feminist and gender analysis must 'catch up'. The article outlines four broad challenges to advancing gender analysis through the political settlements framework. The first is conceptual, that the focus on elites, and the reliance on public sphere dynamics to explain development outcomes, structurally excludes women. The second is epistemological, that the role of the scholar in designating certain groups to be 'elites' and others to be 'non‐elites' merits further interrogation. The third is methodological, that because of other exclusions, gender is infrequently identified as a pertinent variable or category of analysis in seeking to explain development outcomes through the political settlements framework. The final is political, that the avowedly non‐normative position of political settlements analysis risks overlooking norms implicit to the work, in particular implicit gender norms. Nevertheless, the article argues, in the prevailing context of technocratic approaches to global gender policy‐making, the political settlements framework may offer promise through its avowed focus on 'doing politics'. Moreover, the political settlements framework may usefully counter the tendency of global gender policy to essentialise the state as a single domain of activity, and to instead utilise more fully the different constituencies within the state, and the relationships between them, in order to effect positive change. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

"August 1990"--P. [5]. ; Shipping list no.: 90-548-P. ; Caption title. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Political Settlements are often identified with post-conflict conditions. Basically the main idea of political settlements is a shared understanding among the elites in the context of power distribution. Common understanding is interpreted as an agreement on the negotiations carried out, which is intended for the continuity of the overall system after the conflict. Thus the study of political settlements will show how the elites, both the formal elite and the informal elite, as well as other institutions in the community carry out strategies or strategies to establish legitimacy. The political agreement also negotiates the distribution of available resources. Thus the power relations that occur will restore the classic concept of power from Laswell namely Who Gets What, When and How, showing who has power in the agreement. As political agreements emerge as a strategy for cooperation rather than competition, in order to secure their interests, it takes days or even centuries, to be renewed continuously. Those who agree would continue to contest and are subject to renegotiation. The result would be new regulations or policies in the context of maintaining the status quo. Therefore, the political settlement framework did not state that the emergence of each policy reflects the balance of power in a country. Although in reality political agreement occurs in every political action, but in concept not many people use it in political analysis. This paper tried to describe the development of the concept of political agreement by examining the level of reality.

This Special Issue of Conflict, Security & Development explores the relationship between political settlements and violence. While there is an emerging body of scholarship on political settlements, its relationship to violence has been under-theorised and has not been systematically examined through comparative country case studies. This Special Issue is the result of a DFID-funded research programme on addressing and mitigating violence co- ordinated by the Institute of Development Studies. A workshop was organised in Goodenough College in London in 2015 to discuss the research findings with representatives from DFID and the FCO, regional experts as well as leading academics who have contributed to the development of the concept of political settlement.

THE CONCEPT OF POLITICAL SETTLEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CRISIS THAT BEGAN WHEN IRAQ INVADED KUWAIT ON 2 AUGUST 1990 IS EXAMINED IN THIS POLICY ESSAY. ITS PURPOSE IS TO REFLECT ON THE POLITICAL ALTERNATIVES TO WAR AND ON THE FOUNDATIONS FOR BUILDING PEACEFUL RELATIONSHIPS IN OUR CHANGING WORLD. IT SUGGESTS THAT WE NEED TO GIVE AT LEAST AS MUCH ATTENTION TO DEVELOPING AND HONING POLITICAL INSTURMENTS FOR BLOCKING OR TURNING BACK AGGRESSION AS WE DO TO MILITARY PLANNING.

The author believes that the prime obstacle to a political settlement in Indochina is a fundamental conflict of security priorities expressed with reference to the appropriate political identity and external affiliations of Kampuchea. The conflict in this country engaged above all the competing interests of Thailand and Vietnam, which ante-date colonial intervention in Indochina. An unprecedented condition of political polarization created within South East Asia by the Kampuchean conflict. A peace formula for this conflict would have to reconcile, at least, the conflicting interests of Thailand and Vietnam and those of Vietnam and China. (DÜI-Sen)