Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article questions the conventional wisdom which claims forced migration is irreversible following massive ethnic cleansing campaigns, by investigating durable returns to pre‐conflict home communities in Bosnia‐Herzegovina. We formulate a set of novel hypotheses on the demographic determinants of return as well as on the role of social capital, nationalist ideology, integration, and war victimization. We use a 2013 Bosnian representative sample with 1,007 respondents to test our hypotheses. The findings support the expectation that gender and age have a major impact on return. Net of other factors, women and those experiencing wartime victimization are less likely to return. Older Bosnians with positive memories of pre‐conflict interethnic relations are more likely to return than younger persons or those with negative memories. Finally, ethnic Bosniacs are more likely to return than ethnic Croats or Serbs. More nationalistic internally displaced persons (IDPs) are less likely to return.

Victims of ethnic cleansing have returned home in significant numbers all over Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) but no municipality has been as successful in peacefully reversing ethnic cleansing as the Drvar region in western BiH. This article combines findings of fieldwork conducted in Drvar region in 2011 with data collected in BiH in June 2013 and July 2013, including data on both currently displaced people and returnees. The Drvar experience highlights the importance of remote voting for successful returns. In Drvar many internally displaced people have continued to have a vote in their pre-conflict municipalities, even while in exile. To prevent situations arising in post-conflict societies, peace settlements should combine remote voting with power-sharing systems at the local level. If a post-conflict settlement enables forced migrants to vote in local elections in the place of displacement, forced migrants might be able to peacefully regain a stake in local political institutions and be encouraged to return. Adapted from the source document.

This article examines how the right of return is negotiated and implemented in post-conflict societies. It focuses on cases of voluntary yet difficult returns and identifies the conditions under which victims of ethnic cleansing choose to return despite opposition from new occupants and hostile local authorities. The article provides a theoretical framework for the study of return and examines the importance of security provisions, material incentives, contact, and ideology. Drawing on the experiences of Bosnian (Drvar) and Cypriot (Maronite) returnees, it emphasizes the role of social capital as manifested through refugee organizations and demonstrates how community effort resolves coordination and commitment problems, thereby facilitating a voluntary peaceful return.

Acknowledgements -- Preface -- Introduction -- I. Understanding Water Ethics -- Introduction -- Chapter 1. Valuing Water (Ingrid Leman Stefanovic and Clifford Atleo) -- Chapter 2. Water and Ecological Ethics in the Anthropocene (Bruce Jennings and Kathryn Gwiazd) -- Chapter3. Contextualizing a Human Rights Perspective for Water Ethics: From Exploitation to Empowerment and Beyond (Alex Wellington) -- Chapter 4. Uses of Feminist Eco-criticism for Water Policy – (Annette Louise Bickford) -- Chapter 5. Water, Stakeholder Values, and Decision Making (Bruce Morito) -- II. Place-based Challenges -- Introduction -- Chapter 6. The Ethics of Blue Urbanism (Timothy Beatley) -- Chapter 7. Water Security Challenges in the Canadian Arctic (Andrew Medeiros and Alannah Niemeyer) -- Chapter 8. First Nations, Traditional Knowledge, and Water Ethics (Deborah McGregor) -- Chapter 9. Water Ethics in the Middle East (Ilmas Futehally) -- Chapter 10. The Ethics of Water Securitization: Understanding the 1999 Bombing Campaign in Kosovo (James Horncastle) -- III. Contemporary Water Ethics: Policy and Decision Making.-Introduction -- Chapter 11. Water Pricing: A Strategy for Rights Fulfillment or Rights Violation (Kerry Ellen O'Neill) -- Chapter 12. Ethics of Infrastructure Reinvestment (Rebecca Dziedzic) -- Chapter 13. Philosophical Issues in Water Law (Graham Mayeda) -- Chapter 14. Ideas, Values, and Ethics: Integrating a Values-based Approach into Water Policy in Canada (Carolyn Johns) -- Chapter 15. Streams of Consciousness: New Demands on Philosophy and Water Policy in a Crowded World (Deborah Harford) -- Chapter 16. Ethical Dimensions of the Water-related International Development Agenda – Zafar Adeel -- Conclusion -- Chapter 17. Ethics of Shaping Water Futures (Ingrid Leman Stefanovic and Zafar Adeel).-.

"This chapter examines Eurobarometer surveys to determine orientations toward the European Union, whether the nation is Western European (WE) or Central East European (CEE). The World Bank's purchasing power parity (PPP) and Freedom House's political and civil rights indexes are some of the measures examined to determine differences between WE and CEE nations. The authors' main hypothesis was rejected. Western European nations were shown to be less supportive of globalization as measured by respondents' support for the European Union (EU), compared to CEE nations. CEE nations generally are eager to join the EU; however, public support levels for the EU in member nations (Western Europe) sometimes is very low. The authors estimate that CEE (especially Central Europe, including Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, and the Baltic States) nations want entrance into the EU for general economic improvement, ease of movement for students, and work visas. Western European member nations seem to be at odds with each other on issues such as the Euro, agricultural trade, the role of the EU Parliament in Brussels, questions about immigrant influences, and their own nation's tradition. Purchasing power parity (PPP) estimates also were in the opposite direction hypothesized on globalism as is the supposed relationship between democracy and globalism (indicated in the Freedom House index). Of course, this helps explain why CEE respondents are more in favor of the EU." (author's abstract)