Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe conventional wisdom in the literature on EU–Israel/Palestine relations is that the EU has only displayed very limited, if any, normative power in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Previous studies have focused on the ability, or rather inability, of the EU to diffuse any of the core norms behind Ian Manners' concept of 'Normative Power Europe' (NPE) into the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, while tending to ignore the ability of the EU to shape what is considered normal in many aspects of the conflict – either by making others adopt its policies, or by contributing to creating consensus around an issue. By using Tuomas Forsberg's framework of four different mechanisms of normative power: persuasion, invoking norms, shaping the discourse and the power of example on three important case studies from the conflict (EC/EU's declaratory diplomacy on the need for a just peace in the conflict, the Palestinians' bid for statehood at the UN in 2011 and the emerging 'differentiation strategy'), this article concludes that the EU has much more normative power in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict than the literature has previously acknowledged.

The conventional wisdom in the literature on EU–Israel/Palestine relations is that the EU has only displayed very limited, if any, normative power in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Previous studies have focused on the ability, or rather inability, of the EU to diffuse any of the core norms behind Ian Manners' concept of 'Normative Power Europe' (NPE) into the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, while tending to ignore the ability of the EU to shape what is considered normal in many aspects of the conflict – either by making others adopt its policies, or by contributing to creating consensus around an issue. By using Tuomas Forsberg's framework of four different mechanisms of normative power: persuasion, invoking norms, shaping the discourse and the power of example on three important case studies from the conflict (EC/EU's declaratory diplomacy on the need for a just peace in the conflict, the Palestinians' bid for statehood at the UN in 2011 and the emerging 'differentiation strategy'), this article concludes that the EU has much more normative power in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict than the literature has previously acknowledged.

The conventional wisdom in the literature on EU–Israel/Palestine relations is that the EU has only displayed very limited, if any, normative power in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Previous studies have focused on the ability, or rather inability, of the EU to diffuse any of the core norms behind Ian Manners' concept of 'Normative Power Europe' (NPE) into the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, while tending to ignore the ability of the EU to shape what is considered normal in many aspects of the conflict – either by making others adopt its policies, or by contributing to creating consensus around an issue. By using Tuomas Forsberg's framework of four different mechanisms of normative power: persuasion, invoking norms, shaping the discourse and the power of example on three important case studies from the conflict (EC/EU's declaratory diplomacy on the need for a just peace in the conflict, the Palestinians' bid for statehood at the UN in 2011 and the emerging 'differentiation strategy'), this article concludes that the EU has much more normative power in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict than the literature has previously acknowledged.

Just peace has been much talked about in everyday life, but it is less well researched by academics. The puzzle underlying this dissertation is therefore to probe what constitutes a just peace, both conceptually within the field of peacebuilding and empirically in the context of the EU as a peacebuilder in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The EU has used the term just peace in many of its most important declarations on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict throughout the years. Defining a just peace is about these declaratory efforts by the EU to articulate a common formula of a just peace in the conflict. Securing and building a just peace are about the EU's role in implementing this formula for a just peace in the conflict through the creation of a Palestinian state. As the EU enters its fifth decade of involvement in the conflict, there can be little doubt that in common with the rest of the international community it has failed in its efforts to establish a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. While this is an inescapable overall conclusion from four decades of EC/EU peacebuilding in the conflict, it is, at the same time, possible to draw a number of other conclusions from this study. Most importantly, it will be argued that the EU is a major legitimizing power in the conflict and that it has kept the prospects of a two-state solution alive through its support for the Palestinian statebuilding process.

In the teacher education programme at Halmstad University, Sweden, the supervision and examination of the students' degree papers recently changed. Groups of students are now supervised by supervisor pairs, who in turn are part of a team that is coached by a colleague. The examination of the degree papers has also changed, in that the examination is conducted by someone outside the supervising team. Moreover, new evaluation criteria have been developed. These new criteria have sharpened the scientific requirements and clarified the requirements regarding its relevance to teaching practice. Finally, teachers, principals and other actors in preschools, primary schools and secondary schools have been engaged as co-reflectors whose role is to provide collegial comments on the education students' theses. The present text is primarily intended to describe this new approach to supervising and examining degree theses. A secondary intention is to critically reflect on supervision and examination in the light of the unusually tension-filled character of the teacher education program, and of its unique academic culture.

The terms justice and peace have long been the focus of much debate as well as numerous attempts of conceptualization. Just peace however, has been very little studied despite being widely used together in everyday language. The terms justice and peace are therefore insufficiently conceptualized together and surprisingly little interest has been given to how a just peace can be realized. This paper looks into how the European Union has conceptualized just peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict over the past 40 years and identifies five phases of different conceptualizations of just peace in the narrative of the EU: the first three phases evolved in the 1970s when the EC approved of Security Council Resolution 242 and recognized the Palestinians as a party to the conflict with "legitimate rights" including a "homeland". The last two phases evolved in the 1980s and 1990s when the EC/EU endorsed the Palestinians rights to "exercise fully its right to self-determination" and ultimately a "Palestinian state". At the same time, despite its economic power, the EU has had great difficulties to go beyond the issuing of declarations to actually implement what it conceives as a just peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict.