Conflict is at the core of many political ecology studies. Yet there has been limited engagement between political ecology and the field of peace and conflict studies. This lack of connection reflects in part the broader disciplinary context of these two fields. Whereas political ecology research mostly comes from disciplines that eschewed environmental determinism, such as human geography, much of peace and conflict studies is associated with political science using positivist approaches to determine the causal effects of environmental factors on conflicts. Yet greater connections are possible, notably in light of political ecology's renewed engagement with 'materialism', and peace and conflict studies' increasingly nuanced mixed-methods research on environment-related conflicts. Furthermore, political ecology's emphasis on uneven power relations and pursuit of environmental justice resonates with the structural violence approaches and social justice agenda of peace and conflict studies. This paper provides an overview of the differing conceptualizations and analyses of environmental conflict under the labels of political ecology and peace and conflict studies, and points at opportunities for closer connections.
Includes 2 chapters from the work entitled Psychological aspects of global conflict, which was published by the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in 1955 as v. 18 of The Economics of national security. ; Bibliography: p. 125. ; Mode of access: Internet.
This paper considers the progress that has been made during the past sixty years or so in the social psychological study of conflict. It begins with a brief description of the influence of the writings of Darwin, Marx, and Freud, of game theory, and of studies of cooperation and competition as they affected the study of conflict. The main body of the paper summarizes the research bearing upon five major questions that have been the major foci of inquiry in this area during the past twenty‐five years: (1) What conditions give rise to a constructive or destructive process of conflict resolution? (2) What circumstances, strategies, and tactics lead one party to do better than another in a conflict situation? (3) What determines the nature of the agreement between conflicting parties, if they are able to reach agreement? (4) How can third parties be used to prevent conflicts from becoming destructive? (5) How can people be educated to manage their conflicts more constructively?
1. Historical background -- 2. The international law of armed conflict -- 3. Common Article 3, customary international humanitarian law, and human rights law applicable to the conflict in southeast Turkey -- 4. Belligerents -- 5. The international law of armed conflict-- jus ad bellum -- 6. Terrorism, the law of armed conflict and the PKK -- 7. Terrorism : historical engagement and the global war on terror -- 8. Self-determination : models for a political solution -- 9. International humanitarian law : recognition of the conflict as a basis for constructive political dialogue and peace-building.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Im Gegensatz zu Südosteuropa vermeidet die EU umfassendes Engagement in den eingefrorenen Konflikten der östlichen Nachbarschaft und beschränkt sich weitgehend auf eine unterstützende Rolle. Allerdings ist die EU, nicht zuletzt durch den Abschluss des Assoziierungsabkommens mit drei Staaten, zu einem führenden governance-Anbieter in der östlichen Nachbarschaft avanciert. Die vorliegende Arbeit diskutiert die Frage, wie sich EU governance in bestimmten Politikfeldern der Republik Moldau auf die Konfliktlösungskapazitäten der EU auswirkt. Dazu werden vier Dimensionen erarbeitet (Verhandlungsposition, politisches Management, innenpolitische Strukturen und geopolitischer Kontext), von denen die Konfliktlösungskapazität abhängig ist. Die Arbeit argumentiert, dass der ENP Aktionsplan und die Assoziierungsagenda die Verhandlungsposition gegenüber Kischinau, wichtiger noch, der Transnistrischen Führung, schrittweise verbessert haben. Folgerichtig bildet die Anwendung des Freihandelsabkommens (DCFTA) auf dem gesamten Territorium der Republik Moldau (Transnistrien miteinbezogen) seit Januar 2016 ein Beispiel dafür, wie EU governance durch Externalisierung die innenpolitischen Strukturen in Transnistrien beeinflusst. Allerdings bleibt die positive Auswirkung auf die Konfliktlösung weitgehend unklar. Während EU governance zur Erweiterung von Konfliktlösungskapazitäten beigetragen hat, bleiben substantielle Fragen in Bezug auf den rechtlichen Status der abtrünnigen Region unbeeinflusst. Anstatt als sein legitimer und unbeeinflusster Konfliktmanager zu gelten, unterstützt diese Arbeit die Auffassung, dass das EU-Engagement eher zu einer Verfestigung anstatt einer Aufweichung der Konfliktlinien führt. ; In contrast to Southeast Europe, the EU avoids comprehensive engagement in the protracted conflicts of the Eastern neighbourhood and largely limits its role to facilitation. However, at the latest since the conclusion of the Association Agreement with three countries of the Eastern neighbourhood in 2014, the EU has advanced to a leading governance provider. The paper, at hand, addresses the question of how EU governance, in certain policy areas of Moldovan politics, affects the EUs conflict management capabilities. To do so, it elaborates four dimensions (bargaining power, political management, domestic structures and geopolitical context) on which conflict management capabilities are dependent. The paper argues that the ENP Action Plan and the association agenda have gradually increased bargaining power vis-à-vis Chisinau and, more important, the Transnistrian authorities. Consequently, the implementation of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) on the territory of Moldova (including Transnistria) starting from January 2016 exemplifies how governance by externalization impacts domestic structures in Transnistria. However, whether this translates into conflict settlement remains ambiguous. While EU governance contributed to the enhancement of conflict management capabilities, substantial issues related to the legal status of the breakaway region remained untouched. Instead of being seen as a legitimate and unbiased conflict manager, the findings of the paper support the notion that the EUs engagement contributes to enforcement rather than mitigation of conflict cleavages. ; Arbeit an der Bibliothek noch nicht eingelangt - Daten nicht geprüft ; Abweichender Titel laut Übersetzung des Verfassers/der Verfasserin ; Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Masterarbeit, 2016 ; (VLID)1255844
Decision makers must balance between two classes of economic activities: production and conflict. Analogous to the familiar technology of production and exchange is the technology of conflict and struggle, applicable not only to military combat but also in domains such as redistributive politics, strikes and lockouts, litigation, and crime. The conflict success function (CSF) takes as inputs the fighting efforts on the two sides and generates as outputs the respective degrees of success achieved. A crucial determinant of the outcome is the decisiveness parameter, which scales the degree to which force preponderance translates into differential success. Because success feeds on success, in the long run a hegemonic outcome is likely unless the decisiveness parameter is relatively low. The CSF can be adjusted to distinguish between offense and defense, allow for geography and organization, or even display how intangible considerations such as truth or morality can promote success.
Abstract Using the example of the controversial Site C dam in British Columbia, Canada, this article describes how ethnographic research that incorporated a conflict transformation perspective and included individuals from both sides of the issue highlighted both contrasting views on human-environment relations and the inequitable conditions under which they met through the Environmental Assessment process. The article argues that an anthropological approach that incorporates a conflict transformation perspective is particularly well-suited to identify, and potentially to address, the "discourses, narratives, and worldviews" (Rodriguez and Inturias 2018: 96) that operate as "cultural violence" (Galtung, 1990) in state-Indigenous environmental conflicts, legitimating structural and environmental violence.
Conflict is at the core of many political ecology studies. Yet there has been limited engagement between political ecology and the field of peace and conflict studies. This lack of connection reflects in part the broader disciplinary context of these two fields. Whereas political ecology research mostly comes from disciplines that eschewed environmental determinism, such as human geography, much of peace and conflict studies is associated with political science using positivist approaches to determine the causal effects of environmental factors on conflicts. Yet greater connections are possible, notably in light of political ecology's renewed engagement with 'materialism', and peace and conflict studies' increasingly nuanced mixed-methods research on environment-related conflicts. Furthermore, political ecology's emphasis on uneven power relations and pursuit of environmental justice resonates with the structural violence approaches and social justice agenda of peace and conflict studies. This paper provides an overview of the differing conceptualizations and analyses of environmental conflict under the labels of political ecology and peace and conflict studies, and points at opportunities for closer connections.
