Search results

This edited volume studies the after-effects of genocide, exploring the ways in which societies are shaped by a history of such extreme violence. Contributions from a variety of perspectives, including law, political science, sociology, and ethnography, explore previously overlooked themes and cases to reassess existing assumptions in the field.

Introduction -- Mass expulsions in twentieth-century Balkans -- Ethnic cleansing and nation-state building in the 1990s Former Yugoslavia -- Provision of in/security -- Alternative explanations revisited -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- Index -- About the author

Responding to a set of wicked problems pertaining to weak or failed states, state-building remains circumscribed by many of the problems it strives to address. Despite the expansion of literature, the challenging task of (re)building states in a postconflict setting is characterized by inadequate intellectual and policy coherence. Engaging with the existing literature, this article seeks to add clarity in ways that relate directly to the agendas of academic research and policy making. Casting into sharper relief what is distinctive and/or familiar in state formation processes in the West and the rest of the world, the analysis highlights the differing impact of nationalism. In considering the critique that contemporary international-led state-building neglects nation-building, the article suggests that the stateness of polities undergoing state-building is intrinsically linked with nationhood. State-building resides in both international and national locations of politics which condition the constitution of national identity via multiple (unequal) exchanges between external and local actors that can be depicted in terms of mimicry. Multiple political locations of state-building notwithstanding, the task of bringing the imagined community into being is more suited to national actors. Ongoing challenges of nation- and state-building require more acknowledgement that the realization of the nation cannot be a primary domain of international actors.

AbstractThis article considers a neglected question in International Relations, namely how violence of war contributes to the constitution of the political community at the intersection between war and peace. It exposes limitations of means-ends, instrumental understanding of war violence due to the overlooking of violence's performative attributes stemming from the centrality of bodily injuries in war. The instrumental violence on which the constitution of the political community is grounded finds expression in an order of representation that can be termed ontopology, and a pervasive – circular – relationship between ontopology and violence insofar as ontopology has inspired extreme forms of human behaviour and also been used to justify violence as a means to enact an ontopological goal. Yet, recognising the role of bodily injuries in the course of fighting allows for a more complete understanding of war. Crucially it enables an interpretation of the structure of war as a relation between war's interior content – casualties in war – and the exterior, verbal issues standing outside it (pertaining to security, identity, sovereignty, authority, ideology), that lead to a surrogate contest of reimagining political community in the process of which performative power of violence contributes directly to the emerging post-war peace and laws that justify it.

While the connection between war and state making in the ascendancy of the western state system has been well explored, the war‐state linkages in the peripheries of the Great Powers, especially in times of imperial decline and collapse, have attracted insufficient attention among peace and conflict studies analysts. This contribution helps to fill this gap by revisiting the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913 to underpin correlations between state making and political violence in this case which scholars are only now starting to research in more detail. The article contributes above and beyond the existing state of scholarship by grounding the analysis in a focused and explicit comparison between state formation processes in the Balkans and those in western Europe, which have provided the template for modern state making in the rest of the world. The focus is primarily on the initial stages of state formation in the context of the growing influence of the Great Powers in the region and the emergence of nationalism as a rationale for the nation‐state notwithstanding the multiethnic setting.