Suchergebnisse

This paper develops two claims that follow from two general conclusions from recent re-search on peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction. The first is that international peacebuilders are fairly good at ending violence and at producing stability, but are less talented at creating liberal states. In order to understand why, Section I develops the concept of the "peacebuilders' contract", which is intended to map the kinds of strategic interactions that are likely to unfold between peacebuilders and local élites and capture why these interactions are likely to favour the status quo preferred by local forces. Following on the general recognition that international peacebuilders are limited in what they can produce, the second conclusion concerns the need for peacebuilders to be more strategic in their thinking and to be satisfied with producing small victories that can sup-port the emergence of decent governments which provide the foundations for future movements towards a positive peace. These observations and their implications are applicable not only to post-war interventions, but also to the broader international agenda of fixing states.

AbstractThis article is part of a forum on Gareth Evans' book, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008). The forum features contributions from Michael Barnett, Chris Brown and Robert Jackson, and it concludes with a response from Gareth Evans.

AbstractMany theories of international relations contain a narrative of progress and explain that progress with reference to evolutionary imagery. This article examines critically: the relevance of Darwinian and Lamarckian models of international relations to the evolution of international ethics and institutions; and the possibility that the ethics and norms are likely to be more consistent with existing world orders than challengers to it. Specifically, this article draws from evolutionary social science and organizational theory to develop a framework to explore the initial diversity of the meaning and practices of humanitarianism; how the combination of environmental mechanisms and organizational culture led many humanitarian agencies to adapt to their environment in ways that incorporated politics; and the subsequent countermovement by some agencies who wanted to purify humanitarianism. I then apply this framework to explain the recent history of four international aid agencies. I conclude with several observations regarding how the model as applied to these cases allows us to examine critically the selection mechanisms that do and do not account for ethical change and how scholars of international norms, ethics, and progress should be attentive to how principled actors are creatures of the world they want to transform.

Actualmente, las ciencias sociales y las humanidades están plagadas de diversos conceptos, locuciones, léxicos, modismos y eslóganes que pretenden reformular la manera en que los académicos reflexionan sobre lo "global" y su relación con lo "local" —ámbito que ha sido igualmente reconceptualizado—. La utilidad de estos conceptos y marcos no reside en su capacidad de representarlo todo para el conjunto de los académicos, sino en que permiten destacar las nuevas estructuras emergentes en la política global, realzar la manera en que dichas estructuras son creadas y en qué sentido son responsables de las nuevas redes de actores, así como subrayar el desarrollo de nuevos discursos y prácticas que rompen y engranan lo local y lo global. Este texto analiza la tendencia en la teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales a conjugar estado, autoridad y territorio. En la medida en que esta unión dificulta la comprensión de la complejidad de las relaciones y de los procesos globales, es necesario prestar atención a las contribuciones recientes que disocian dichos conceptos y que generan nuevas formas de comprender la organización y la práctica de la política global, y analizar especialmente el concepto de autoridad.

The social sciences and the humanities are presently littered with various concepts, phrases, vocabularies, idioms, and slogans that are intended to resituate how scholars think about the "global" and its relationship to a reconceptualized "local". The utility of these concepts and frameworks is to be found not in their ability to be all things to all scholars, but rather in their capacity to highlight newly emergent structures in global politics, how those structures are created by and are responsible for new networks of actors, and the development of new discourses and practices that collapse and telescope the local and the global. This text explores the tendency of International Relations to collapse state, authority and territory. As far as that bundling makes it more difficult to understand complex global relationships and processes, it is necessary to pay attention to the recent contributions that unbundle these concepts generating new insights into the organization and practice of global politics, and specially to analyze the authority concept. ; Actualmente, las ciencias sociales y las humanidades están plagadas de diversos conceptos, locuciones, léxicos, modismos y eslóganes que pretenden reformular la manera en que los académicos reflexionan sobre lo "global" y su relación con lo "local" —ámbito que ha sido igualmente reconceptualizado—. La utilidad de estos conceptos y marcos no reside en su capacidad de representarlo todo para el conjunto de los académicos, sino en que permiten destacar las nuevas estructuras emergentes en la política global, realzar la manera en que dichas estructuras son creadas y en qué sentido son responsables de las nuevas redes de actores, así como subrayar el desarrollo de nuevos discursos y prácticas que rompen y engranan lo local y lo global. Este texto analiza la tendencia en la teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales a conjugar estado, autoridad y territorio. En la medida en que esta unión dificulta la comprensión de la complejidad de las relaciones y de los procesos globales, es necesario prestar atención a las contribuciones recientes que disocian dichos conceptos y que generan nuevas formas de comprender la organización y la práctica de la política global, y analizar especialmente el concepto de autoridad.

The two Black social movements under consideration in this article are now well established among Black communities in America and, although widely thought to be distinct from each other, have much in common. As such, this article seeks to explore the similarities and differences between the movements. One overarching similarity is that both movements empower their largely Black adherents by providing them with a positive Black identity. This may be viewed as an outcome of both movements being inspired by Marcus Garvey. In addition, because these movements emphasize change within the individual rather than change in the surrounding social structure, they are considered to be expressive social movements. A key difference between the movements is the specific type of positive Black identity that is inculcated. For the Rastafari movement, it is an African-centered, Afrocentric identity, whereas for the Nation of Islam it is a Blackcentric identity (that is not geographically anchored).

Although peacebuilders do not operate from a common template, liberal values so define their activities that their efforts can be called "liberal peacebuilding." Many postconflict operations aspire to create a state that contains the rule of law, markets, and democracy. Growing evidence suggests, however, that liberal peacebuilding is re-creating the conditions of conflict; states emerging from war do not have the necessary institutions or civic culture to absorb the pressures associated with political and market competition. In recognition of these problems and dangers, there is an emerging call for greater attention to the state and institutionalization before liberalization. These critiques, and lessons learned from recent operations, point to an alternative—republican peacebuilding. Drawing from republican political theory, this article argues that the republican principles of deliberation, constitutionalism, and representation can help states after war address the threats to stability that derive from arbitrary power and factional conflict and, in the process, develop some legitimacy. Republican peacebuilding is not only good for postconflict states; it also is appropriate for international peacebuilders, who also can exercise arbitrary power.