Suchergebnisse

A lo largo de la historia las sociedades han tratado de alcanzar la paz mediante una de las dos formas siguientes, a través de la fuerza militar y la represión, o mediante procesos de mediación y negociación. De forma creciente, el foco se ha centrado en la mediación y la negociación, y como resultado también, en el proceso de transición más allá del conflicto. Hasta hace poco, la atención estaba en los aspectos públicos de la violencia sistemática y el sufrimiento, pero este enfoque carecía de una perspectiva de género. Este artículo evalúa el desarrollo histórico de los roles desempeñados por las mujeres en al marco de las misiones de mantenimiento de paz de las Naciones Unidas para alcanzar la justicia transicional, desde el Año Internacional de las Mujeres en 1975 hasta la introducción del gender mainstreaming como un objetivo de política pública en el año 2000. Esto demuestra que, a pesar de los mejores esfuerzos, la fijación en alcanzar la justicia de género concentrándose en los perpetradores masculinos y las víctimas femeninas, no toma en cuenta el impacto de género de los procesos y mecanismos que propone y las condiciones limitantes que esta visión impone para la participación de las mujeres. Finalmente, este artículo es un recordatorio de que al aproximarse el cuarenta aniversario del año clave de 1975, reflexionamos sobre lo que se ha alcanzado, pero también sobre las formas en que la búsqueda de justicia y empoderamiento de las mujeres aún puede ser mejorado ; Throughout history societies have attempted to achieve peace in one of two ways, through militaristic strength and repression, or through the process of mediation and negotiation. Increasingly, the focus has been on mediation and negotiation, and as a result also the transition process away from conflict. Until recently, the focus was on the public aspects of systematic violence and suffering, but what this approach was lacking was a gendered perspective. This article evaluates the historic development of women's roles within the UN peacekeeping framework to achieve transitional justice, from the International Women's Year in 1975 to the introduction of gender mainstreaming as a policy objective in 2000. It demonstrates that despite best efforts, the fixation of achieving gender justice by concentrating on male perpetrators and female victims fails to take into account the gendered impact of their proposed processes and mechanisms and the limiting conditions it itself imposes for women's participation. Ultimately this paper is a reminder that upon the approach of the 40-year anniversary since 1975, we reflect upon that which has been achieved but also the ways in which women's quest for justice and empowerment can still be improved

Throughout history societies have attempted to achieve peace in one of two ways, through militaristic strength and repression, or through the process of mediation and negotiation. Increasingly, the focus has been on mediation and negotiation, and as a result also the transition process away from conflict. Until recently, the focus was on the public aspects of systematic violence and suffering, but what this approach was lacking was a gendered perspective. This article evaluates the historic development of women's roles within the UN peacekeeping framework to achieve transitional justice, from the International Women's Year in 1975 to the introduction of gender mainstreaming as a policy objective in 2000. It demonstrates that despite best efforts, the fixation of achieving gender justice by concentrating on male perpetrators and female victims fails to take into account the gendered impact of their proposed processes and mechanisms and the limiting conditions it itself imposes for women's participation. Ultimately this paper is a reminder that upon the approach of the 40-year anniversary since 1975, we reflect upon that which has been achieved but also the ways in which women's quest for justice and empowerment can still be improved.

Throughout history societies have attempted to achieve peace in one of two ways, through militaristic strength and repression, or through the process of mediation and negotiation. Increasingly, the focus has been on mediation and negotiation, and as a result also the transition process away from conflict. Until recently, the focus was on the public aspects of systematic violence and suffering, but what this approach was lacking was a gendered perspective. This article evaluates the historic development of women's roles within the UN peacekeeping framework to achieve transitional justice, from the International Women's Year in 1975 to the introduction of gender mainstreaming as a policy objective in 2000. It demonstrates that despite best efforts, the fixation of achieving gender justice by concentrating on male perpetrators and female victims fails to take into account the gendered impact of their proposed processes and mechanisms and the limiting conditions it itself imposes for women's participation. Ultimately this paper is a reminder that upon the approach of the 40-year anniversary since 1975, we reflect upon that which has been achieved but also the ways in which women's quest for justice and empowerment can still be improved. ; A lo largo de la historia las sociedades han tratado de alcanzar la paz mediante una de las dos formas siguientes, a través de la fuerza militar y la represión, o mediante procesos de mediación y negociación. De forma creciente, el foco se ha centrado en la mediación y la negociación, y como resultado también, en el proceso de transición más allá del conflicto. Hasta hace poco, la atención estaba en los aspectos públicos de la violencia sistemática y el sufrimiento, pero este enfoque carecía de una perspectiva de género. Este artículo evalúa el desarrollo histórico de los roles desempeñados por las mujeres en al marco de las misiones de mantenimiento de paz de las Naciones Unidas para alcanzar la justicia transicional, desde el Año Internacional de las Mujeres en 1975 hasta la introducción del gender mainstreaming como un objetivo de política pública en el año 2000. Esto demuestra que, a pesar de los mejores esfuerzos, la fijación en alcanzar la justicia de género concentrándose en los perpetradores masculinos y las víctimas femeninas, no toma en cuenta el impacto de género de los procesos y mecanismos que propone y las condiciones limitantes que esta visión impone para la participación de las mujeres. Finalmente, este artículo es un recordatorio de que al aproximarse el cuarenta aniversario del año clave de 1975, reflexionamos sobre lo que se ha alcanzado, pero también sobre las formas en que la búsqueda de justicia y empoderamiento de las mujeres aún puede ser mejorado.

The discipline of International Relations (IR) in Australia, as elsewhere, is steeped in historical and ongoing violence, including violences of colonisation. The way that IR is taught and practised in Australia reproduces the discipline's erasures and ignorance of the effects of colonisation and ongoing forms of marginalisation, knowledge extraction, and harm that normalise existing structures of power. In this article, we ask how mainstream theories, pedagogies, and practices of IR scholarship in Australia contribute to the ongoing coloniality of the discipline and reproduce these geospatial hierarchies and structures of marginalisation and exclusion. We argue that, as teachers, we have to consistently engage in un‐doing the violence of disciplinary history. We theorise that this is so because the artefacts we teach are the product of a knowledge life cycle immersed in, and structured by, coloniality and hierarchy. Drawing on a survey of Australian universities' IR curricula and interviews with their instructors, in addition to our own research training and practice as Australian IR academics, we examine how, if, and when it is possible to connect decolonial theory with practice and to thus generate decolonial praxis in the production of IR knowledge.

International studies scholarship has benefitted from insights from anthropology, peace and conflict studies, geography, and other disciplines to craft a thoughtful set of reflections and considerations for researchers to take with them "into the field" when they embark on "fieldwork." In this essay, we map out a history of critical approaches to fieldwork, starting with the encounters that initially encouraged reflection on the positionality of the researcher and the power dynamics of research. Building on decolonial feminist scholarship, we show how a commitment to reflexive practice "in the field" has developed further, through a reflection on the self as a researcher and on "the field" as a construct. This ethical and political commitment prompts a rethinking of key concepts in fieldwork (and research more generally), including those of "the researcher," "the research participant" (or "population"), "expertise," and what constitutes "data" and "knowledge." We argue that a preferable approach to critical fieldwork is grounded in feminist and decolonial, anti-racist, anti-capitalist politics. This approach is committed not just to reflecting critically on "the field" and the interactions of the researcher within it but also to challenging the divisions, exclusions, and structures of oppression that sustain the separations between "here" and "there," "researcher" and "researched," and "knower" and "known."

Abstract
International studies scholarship has benefitted from insights from anthropology, peace and conflict studies, geography, and other disciplines to craft a thoughtful set of reflections and considerations for researchers to take with them "into the field" when they embark on "fieldwork." In this essay, we map out a history of critical approaches to fieldwork, starting with the encounters that initially encouraged reflection on the positionality of the researcher and the power dynamics of research. Building on decolonial feminist scholarship, we show how a commitment to reflexive practice "in the field" has developed further, through a reflection on the self as a researcher and on "the field" as a construct. This ethical and political commitment prompts a rethinking of key concepts in fieldwork (and research more generally), including those of "the researcher," "the research participant" (or "population"), "expertise," and what constitutes "data" and "knowledge." We argue that a preferable approach to critical fieldwork is grounded in feminist and decolonial, anti-racist, anti-capitalist politics. This approach is committed not just to reflecting critically on "the field" and the interactions of the researcher within it but also to challenging the divisions, exclusions, and structures of oppression that sustain the separations between "here" and "there," "researcher" and "researched," and "knower" and "known."