Suchergebnisse

"Die Analysen zum bürgerschaftlichen Engagement sind langfristig durch drei widersprüchlichen Befunden charakterisiert: Das Krisenszenario postuliert einen Rückgang, das Strukturwandelszenario geht von bereichsbezogenen Verlagerungen und Wachstum, das Zyklenszenario von phasenbedingten Schwankungen aus. Die empirische Überprüfung dieser Annahmen zeigt, dass das pessimistische Krisenszenario in Deutschland nur in einigen Bereichen eingetreten ist. Im Langzeittrend ist bislang nicht nur ein Wandel vom traditionellen zu einem zeitgemäßen Engagement, sondern zugleich eine Zunahme des Engagements zu verzeichnen. Gleichwohl bleibt anhand der Daten noch unklar, inwieweit sich das Engagement gerade gegenwärtig gegenüber bestimmten Einflussfaktoren als robust erweist. Bestimmte, auch künftig nicht auszuschließende Schwankungen und gleichzeitig vorhandene Rückgängehängen sowohl von exogenen als auch von endogenen Faktoren ab. Bislang folgten die Beteiligungsraten in unterschiedlichen sozialen Gruppen dem auf Zuwachs orientierten generellen Verlaufsmuster. Die Engagementquoten gehen bei keiner der betrachteten Gruppen zurück, sondern steigen tendenziell jeweils an. Gleichzeitig bleiben bestimmte Unterscheide erhalten und vertiefen sich teilweise sogar. Für das Engagement besitzt die Erwerbstätigkeit weiterhin hohen und der Umfang der Freizeit nur einen geringeren Einfluss." (Autorenreferat)

"The question at hand seems relatively simple and straightforward: whether and to what extent the protection and promotion of human rights is necessary for efforts to address conflict and build peace. The issue has been much debated over time. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights forcefully associated the protection of human rights with the prevention of violent conflict, stating that 'it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law' (UN 1948, preamble). Yet in 1996, an anonymous author in Human Rights Quarterly accused the international human rights movement of prolonging the war in Bosnia Herzegovina. There, human rights activists had rejected pragmatic deals that could have ended the violence and, from hindsight, were no worse than the eventual agreement in rewarding ethnic cleansing and aggression. In that author's view, it made 'today's living the dead of tomorrow' by pursuing a perfectly just and moral peace that would bring 'justice for yesterday's victims of atrocities' (Anonymous 1996, 259). Since then, the idea that the normative nature of human rights standards may complicate the practical demands of peacemaking has been a recurrent theme in discussions on the relationship between human rights and efforts to address violent conflict. This is especially the case when the latter is conceived of in terms of conflict settlement or resolution. Questions of definitions and objectives are thus key. Also relevant are the time frame, context and level of intervention one focuses on, though few authors on the subject make this explicit. In addition, narrow perceptions and generalizations abound in this debate as people working on human rights, peace and conflict have been grouped into categories of 'human rights activists' and 'conflict resolvers' as if these were homogenous and coherent clusters of actors. In this chapter, the authoress argues that considering human rights and conflict transformation in conjunction deepens one's analysis of what is involved in moving from violence to sustainable peace. It is informed by the idea that the two fill 'gaps' in one another, in that each contributes to a better understanding of the other by highlighting elements that are relatively under-explored in the theory and practice of each separate field. For conflict transformation, which will be the main focus here, the perspective of human rights forces a greater emphasis on structural conditions, especially the role of the state, systems of governance and issues of power in generating, escalating and transforming violent conflict. Considering human rights in relation to conflict transformation, moreover, highlights the need to employ a holistic, multidimensional understanding of human rights that does not reduce them to their legal foundations. This chapter suggests that conflict transformation, because of its explicit grounding in social justice, and hence inherently normative foundation, may provide a more nuanced and fruitful conceptual space for thinking about human rights, conflict and peace than conflict resolution and conflict management. Placing constructive social change at its core, conflict transformation acknowledges the need for addressing power imbalances and recognizes a role for advocacy and the importance of voices that challenge the status quo. Its concern with direct, structural and cultural violence is thus also highly relevant from a rights perspective. In order to place these ideas in context, the chapter will briefly comment on literature that has been published on human rights and approaches for addressing conflict and building peace (section 2). Section 3 proposes a framework for understanding the relationship between human rights and conflict transformation, using the metaphor of an iceberg, with its graphic image of things visible connected to matters unseen. It also introduces four dimensions of human rights that need to be taken into account in processes to build a just and sustainable peace. Section 4 discusses some of the practical implications of adopting a human rights perspective on conflict transformation. Nepal, South Africa, and other countries where the authoress has worked over the past 15 years, are used as illustrative examples throughout sections 3 and 4. Finally, section 5 concludes and points to some areas for further research." (excerpt)