Suchergebnisse

AbstractWell organized discussion programs properly carried on will bring understanding and sound democratic action.

The UN's 'Women, Peace and Security' (WPS) agenda is founded on Security Council Resolution 1325, which was passed by the Council in 2000 after a period of sustained advocacy by women's civil society organisations. The agenda is conventionally described as being comprised of four 'pillars': prevention (of violence); participation (in peace and security governance); protection (of rights and bodies); and relief and recovery (such that women and girls are able to benefit from and engage in a meaningful way in post-conflict reconstruction). The pillars themselves are derived from the foundational resolution and are addressed in more or less detail in the seven subsequent resolutions that together form the policy architecture of the agenda; the relevant resolutions are UNSCR 1820 (2008), UNSCR 1888 (2009), UNSCR 1889 (2009), UNSCR 1960 (2010), UNSCR 2106 (2013), UNSCR 2122 (2013), and UNSCR 2242 (2015). In this chapter, I examine three dimensions of the WPS agenda at the UN. First, I explore the extent to which the WPS resolutions are integrated into the business of the Security Council, by investigating how and in what ways the WPS resolutions and WPS concerns are referenced in other resolutions. Second, I comment briefly on the development of National Action Plans (NAPs) and Regional Action Plans (RAPs) for the implementation of UNSCR 1325, and the institutional support – or lack thereof – that exists for these at the UN level. Finally, I outline what I consider to be some core obstacles that continue to inhibit the progression of the WPS agenda at the UN and how these obstacles might be overcome.

In this essay, I explore the ways in which an 'I' – as a researcher, as an academic, as a feminist – have been constituted through my research practices, and consider also the ways in which this 'I' is disciplined: what are the dimensions of silence around the constitution of my self and how do these silences reveal the significance of making such reflective accounts, within a feminist research ethic? I propose that my self-hood is woven through my research practices, as I account for the choices that I make and explain how and why I came to the decisions that I did during the conduct of research. I am implicated in, and produced through, my research practices. I think that the political purchase of elaborating on research as a gendered intervention is to show the illusion of certainty, of wholeness and stability, for the chimera that it is. This small act of resistance is in service of the transformation of the academy into a space of humility, uncertainty, and hope. There is little hope to be found when all questions have been answered and all possibilities exhausted. Identifying the performative practices through which I am constituted and exploring these practices as a narrative account of my self contributes to a vision of the social world that is not fixed and closed, but in the process of becoming, where possibility is very much alive.

This is the final version. Available on open access from Wiley via the DOI in this record ; Data availability: Data, code, and materials are available at the following link: https://osf.io/5uxc7/ ; The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understanding the extent to which people with low status are complicit in their oppression. We use novel data from 66 samples and 30 countries (N = 12,788) and find that people with higher status see the social system as more legitimate than those with lower status, but there is variation across people and countries. The association between subjective status and perceived legitimacy was never negative at any levels of eight moderator variables, although the positive association was sometimes reduced. Although not always consistent with hypotheses, group identification, self‐esteem, and beliefs in social mobility were all associated with perceived legitimacy among people who have low subjective status. These findings enrich our understanding of the relationship between social status and legitimacy. ; Center for Intercultural and Indigenous Research ; European Union Horizon 2020 ; Center for Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies ; Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico ; Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness ; Czech Science Foundation ; Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences