Suchergebnisse

This paper assesses the role that analogical reasoning played in Israel's decision making during the 2006 Second Lebanon War with Hezbollah. Two analogies seemed to dominate internal deliberations: the 'air power superiority' analogy which drew on more than a decade of developments in military theory and the air-based campaigns of the two Gulf wars and the Balkan wars of the mid-1990s and late 1990s; and the 'Lebanese quagmire' analogy which drew on Israel's own traumatic experience of Israel following the its first war in Lebanon in 1982. The misuse of these analogies by the Israeli political-military leadership during the war produced a myopic approach which advocated an almost total reliance on air power rather than ground maneuver to win the war and refrained from using ground forces for fear of entering another bloody and unpopular war in Lebanon. The constraining power of these analogies prevented the consideration of alternative courses of action or the effective calculation of cost-benefit analysis during the war. Whereas previous studies of the war provided various explanations to singular decisions or episodes, this paper shows that the air power and quagmire analogies contained the conceptual boundaries of Israeli decision making during the war and thus best explain its attraction and limitations. Adapted from the source document.

According to Evans (2007), for political actors to be 'good international citizens,' they ought to recognize and promote respect for core human rights in their foreign policy, engage in vigorous multilateral cooperation, and contribute to positive change whenever possible. This study assesses this approach in the context of EU foreign policy by asking two questions: What sort of ethically oriented action should be expected of a foreign policy actor in the current global system? What are the barriers to achieving such action that naturally arise in that system, given the way it is constructed? We argue that the answer lies in recognizing not only the practical challenges or constraints, but also the normative constraints facing such actors in a foreign policy framework. First, we apply a good international citizenship framework in the case of EU foreign policy. We then assess EU actions in the context of the Middle East peace process, focusing on the efforts the union has made, and ones it might make toward 'punching its weight,' consistent with good international citizenship. The assessment of the case, and the analysis of good international citizenship overall, highlight a gap between moral outcomes sought by many critics of EU foreign policy action and outcomes that should be routinely achievable in the present system. Securing much more robust moral outcomes, especially those advocated by cosmopolitan theorists, likely would require long-term movement toward system transformation consistent with 'institutional global citizenship.'. Adapted from the source document.

This article is concerned with a particular debate in mediation literature, revolving around the merit and necessity of power as a strategy employed by third parties in their efforts to negotiate a successful resolution to conflict. We argue that by subscribing to a one-dimensional spectrum of pure-to-power mediation, students of mediation have neglected the development of how power is conceptualised and operates within the changing dynamics of conflict and its mediation. We therefore seek to redefine the concept of power mediation to project a closer fit between conflicting parties' understanding of their situation and the methods, aims and motivations of their mediators. Breaking away from the existing pure-power spectrum, we propose a heuristic framework that includes four distinct types of power mediation, defined here as real, made, critical and structural power. The contribution of our heuristic model is threefold. First, it assists us in asking the most basic question of social science research, 'of what is this a case', which in turn ought to lead to a more sophisticated observation of mediation instances. Concurrently, through the frame of 'power', it establishes common understanding of observable phenomena that makes the study of mediation more accessible to the wider audience beyond students of our modest literature. Finally, the synthesis of epistemological and ontological inquiry of conflict and power with the established International Relations (IR) approaches of realism(s), constructivism, critical discourse and structuralism, allows respective real, made, critical and structural types of mediation power to be tested. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThis article is concerned with a particular debate in mediation literature, revolving around the merit and necessity of power as a strategy employed by third parties in their efforts to negotiate a successful resolution to conflict. We argue that by subscribing to a one-dimensional spectrum of pure-to-power mediation, students of mediation have neglected the development of how power is conceptualised and operates within the changing dynamics of conflict and its mediation.We therefore seek to redefine the concept of power mediation to project a closer fit between conflicting parties' understanding of their situation and the methods, aims and motivations of their mediators. Breaking away from the existing pure-power spectrum, we propose a heuristic framework that includes four distinct types of power mediation, defined here as real, made, critical and structural power. The contribution of our heuristic model is threefold. First, it assists us in asking the most basic question of social science research, 'of what is this a case', which in turn ought to lead to a more sophisticated observation of mediation instances. Concurrently, through the frame of 'power', it establishes common understanding of observable phenomena that makes the study of mediation more accessible to the wider audience beyond students of our modest literature. Finally, the synthesis of epistemological and ontological inquiry of conflict and power with the established International Relations (IR) approaches of realism(s), constructivism, critical discourse and structuralism, allows respective real, made, critical and structural types of mediation power to be tested.