Suchergebnisse

Internationale Systeme sind seit jeher charakterisiert durch konsolidierte Staaten auf der einen und stark zersplitterte Staaten auf der anderen Seite. Bis zum 19.Jahrhundert gab es in Europa vorwiegend große Kaiserreiche, weil diese Staaten die notwendigen militärischen und administrativen Voraussetzungen hatten, andere Staaten zu absorbieren.Das 20.Jahrhundert ist dagegen charakterisiert durch eine wachsende Anzahl von zersplitterten Staaten, was v.a.bedingt ist durch das Anwachsen des modernen Nnationalismus und die Selbständigkeit der einst kolonialisierten Länder. Der Artikel versucht, diesen Wandel zu erklären. (SWP-Drh)

The world today, Benjamin Barber points out, is "falling precipitantly apart and coming reluctantly together at the very same moment." While states from Canada to India are threatened with breakup due to fractious nationalist impulses of their peoples, the power of technology and markets is forcing ever-tighter economic integration worldwide. From a common-sense perspective, these two impulses are among the most important processes in contemporary world politics. Yet, there has been remarkably little attention paid to developing a theory of the international system that examines the effects of both. Hegemonic stability theory considers economic integration but not nationalism; the few studies of nationalism as a systemic force play down the effects of economic integration; and neorealism, the most widely accepted theory of the international system, has no room to address either trend. The field is, partly as a result, a cacaphony of voices largely talking past one another.

Over the years, a number of scholars have noted that ethnic groups in violent conflict act much like states in the international system; James O'Connell describes the dynamics as 'international relations without safeguards'. Brief observations aside, however, few works actually apply International Relations theory to explain large-scale ethnic violence. While the oversight ought to be surprising, it is easily explained in terms of what International Relations theory calls the 'level of analysis problem'.

Analyzes the factors leading to ethnic war; hostile masses, belligerent leaders, and inter-ethnic security dilemmas; example of Moldova, and Moscow's role as patron for the Dniester region.

Use of peacekeeping forces to forestall ethnic conflict; example of UN mission in Macedonia.