Suchergebnisse

War is an inherently social process, from the mobilization of new, armed organizations, to the relational aftershocks of violence affecting families and local communities. This essay synthesizes existing feminist research on dynamics of conflict and peacebuilding and brings a social network approach to understanding gendered patterns of intersectional inequality. It presents a framework for understanding how civil war affects social structures vis-à-vis personal support networks, and in turn how that can constrain or enable women's and men's social and economic opportunities. Through a descriptive analysis of communities in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, I argue that war's social processes, and ongoing militarization in particular, can create structural constraints for people seeking to participate peacefully in civilian life, and incentivize maintaining armed group connections. Network research shines light on the social processes that reproduce gendered inequalities and cleavages after conflict. It also reveals opportunities for bridging divides and transforming wartime networks into peacetime support structures.

Despite that large investments have been made by the European Union in restoring and preserving heritage damaged after the Kosovo War 1998–99, there have been no previous attempts to gain more in-depth knowledge about the implementation and success of the interventions. Organisations involved in funding and facilitating architectural interventions in post-conflict zones may have differing aims and agendas that influence selection and methods, and ultimately the results. This paper aims to shed light on a pioneering project carried out on damaged kullas, massive masonry towers connected to farmsteads, in Kosovo 2001–02. Kullas were systematically attacked and burned during the conflict. The methodology is based on interviews with involved people and on documentation that is publically available, since it is crucial to uncover the aims and agendas of involved actors if one wishes to understand how and why decisions were made. In the end, what was deemed most important in the process was not the reconstruction in itself, but rather the development of craftsmen's skills and the need to create a dialogue on the values of Kosovo heritage. The paper shows how the reconstruction of built heritage can facilitate processes of dialogue in conflict areas.

In 1996 the state of Nepal was challenged by a Maoist insurgency, resulting in a decade-long civil war. During the course of the subsequent peace process the parliamentary parties found themselves agreeing to significant political changes, including a republican constitution. This study approaches the Nepal case on the assumption that the discursive aspect of social relations is one important factor in understanding how specific events unfold and why actors do one thing and not another. Two frames are investigated using frame analysis in terms of their representation of problem, cause and solution: a terrorism frame from the period of conflict and a peace frame from the period of conflict resolution. The terrorism frame is categorised as a negative frame and the peace frame as a positive frame. This overarching difference is found to have implications for the effects of the respective frames. In contrast to traditional frame analysis, which tends to focus on the success of a frame and the effects on a specific audience, this study investigates the effects of frames on the actors involved in the framing process in terms of their perceived manoeuvrability for action. This approach is formalised in a model of four types of logic of actor effects that is applied to the Nepal case. The analysis of frame effects is based on first-hand interviews with key actors, such as former prime ministers and top leaders of political parties and civil society. From this material, the study gives insight into how the two frames influenced the actors' perceived manoeuvrability. This actor-centred approach shows that the frames affected the actors in both enabling and restrictive ways and thus influenced the outcome in Nepal. For example, it is shown that frames created during the conflict were considered a prerequisite for the legitimate use of military force. The study also shows the unintended effects of framing, captured in the model as the effect of self-entrapment, and highlights the coercive character of ideas in making actors perceive themselves as forced to take a certain action or position.

This article discusses the role of conflict in society. The main purpose of the study is the confrontation of sociological and political theoretical approaches as two different viewpoints of the same issue, which brings innovation in the crosscut and changes of these relationships in conflict. Democratic rights, economic strength – and how it is distributed – social cohesion, environmental balance and well educated people cannot be separated in today's world. We need more than ever to deal with our common future in a holistic way. The only way democracy will prove itself is through a living relationship between peoples and their governments based on trust, accountability and the determination to deliver practical results. It will also challenge us to look at the evolution of democratic systems and democracy assistance, with particular attention to the impact of changes in the world economy and global communications. It argues for the overriding need to address complexity while always returning to basic principles in practice and process. Therefore, the presentation of different theoretical views through the paper will diversify it and will make the picture much more comprehensible. DOI:10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n11p30

Digitised version produced by the EUI Library and made available online in 2020.

There are two important questions in post-conflict constitution making, and at present neither of them has a definitive or uniformly accepted answer. The first relates to the best configuration of institutions to adopt in order to ameliorate the problem of the intergroup conflict. The second concerns the process most apt to produce the best configuration of institutions, whatever it might be. The first question is unanswered because there is a dispute among scholars and practitioners between two opposing views of appropriate institutions to mitigate conflict. Constitutional processes have not generally been geared to yield coherent exemplars of either configuration in a sufficient number of conflict-prone countries to provide a convincing demonstration of the superiority of one approach or the other. The second question is unanswered because in many cases constitutional processes are chosen in a haphazard fashion, without regard to the aptness of the process for the problems to be addressed. Meanwhile, advocates have been arguing for a single, highly structured, uniform process that may be apt for some classes of problems but is not necessarily appropriate for the full range of problems constitution makers confront in coping with divided societies. Hence the questions of what and how are both subject to debate. This Article takes up both questions. It surveys the main contending prescriptions for constitutional designs to cope with serious ethnic conflict, and it enumerates some of the main objections to each. It then reviews some of the available evidence on the efficacy of the contending prescriptions before turning to the question of adoptability. The Article notes that there are many obstacles to the adoption of a coherent set of political institutions to mitigate conflict, which derive mainly from processes of constitution making. For this reason, the Article evaluates some of the main suggestions in the recent literature on constitutional process and thereafter devotes considerable attention to the difficult question of designing a process for constitution making that is geared to the specific problems faced by constitution designers.

This chapter applies a developmental approach to understand how intergroup processes shape the emergence of retaliatory motives and behaviours among youth growing up in contexts of protracted intergroup conflict, drawing on research examples from Israel-Palestine, Northern Ireland and Vukovar, Croatia. Across these conflict-affected societies, reasoning around revenge may be influenced by both personal and collective victimization. As part of the cycle of violence, youth may be motivated to engage in tit-for-tat acts of retaliation through direct exposure to political violence, social identification with conflict-related groups and group norms. Family and broader societal processes may further reinforce desires for revenge by transmitting narratives of ethnic socialization and historic group suffering. Children and adolescents may display variation in intensities of retaliatory behaviours, such as aggression and discrimination, which can contribute to the maintenance of intergroup hostilities across generations. The chapter integrates learnings from the three cases and offers recommendations for peacebuilding interventions.

The Minangkabau society is due to its matrilineal social structure quite 'unique'. Many anthropologists give the impression that the so-called 'traditional' society is able to solve conflicts and disputes. In this paper a conflict will be illustrated that could not be solved by the 'traditional' levels of jurisdiction. The district court had to intervene and find a solution. This case has some impacts: it shows that parts of the 'traditional' society are in a process of disintegration. Furthermore it shows that there is a lack of the authority of the adat dignitaries and that the people even try to be an active part of that process by putting the clan system aside and referring to a system from outside. The objective of this case study is to illustrate a conflict which concerns people who are not original inhabitants of a Minangkabau village and to show the difficulty of finding a solution.

Countless millions of people in the world have little formally recognizable means for receiving any form of social justice. Laos, a small landlocked country in Southeast Asia, is a place that has seen some of the most brutal forms of poverty and violence. Over centuries, ethnic groups have been polarized and used by foreign powers to support their own agendas. In spite of this, the Lao people have consistently managed to recreate the peace and harmony that support their social relationships. Through the development and use of appropriate grassroots conflict resolution structures that do not require a formal court system, and exist outside the political arena, they have been able to resolve conflicts within and across cultural groups. Using in-depth interviews with different ethnic groups in Laos, this research examines traditional conflict resolution processes used in their communities. It identifies and discusses a Lao Conflict Resolution Spectrum, bringing particular attention to the Village Mediation Committee (Neoy Gai Geer). Laos' unique and most recognized conflict resolution ceremonies and rituals,the baci ceremony (soukhouan) and the reconciliation ceremony (soumma), are examined as tools for peacebuilding. These conflict resolution practices are significant in addressing conflict, repairing harm, rebuilding relationships, and restoring harmony to communities in conflict. The systems incorporate principles of effective conflict resolution, including transparency, accountability, inclusivity, flexibility, familiarity, accessibility, support networks, and relationship building. This research discovers how the conflict resolution systems of Laos are embedded in the fabric of grassroots life, and operate independently of the hierarchical structures that dominate governing institutions. It presents a case study of how people from a violent and impoverished past still manage to find ways to address their need for social justice and interconnectedness. The results provide greater understanding and appreciation ...

A common assertion is that refugees may cause civil war to spread from one state to another. Although often suggested, this claim has received little scrutiny. Hence, this study intends to statistically evaluate refugee flows as a cause of the contagion of conflict using a contagion process approach. This approach includes both the sending and receiving state by starting with a state with armed conflict – this conflict may generate refugee flows – and examining whether a neighboring state that receives these refugees are more prone to end up in armed conflict than a neighboring state that does not receive refugee flows. Adapting this approach enables an empirical distinction between some of the explanations proposed in previous literature. These explanations are very diverse; even so, they have not been separated systematically in previous empirical analyses. First, it is hypothesized that refugee flows from conflict areas are associated with spill-over effects that make receiving states more likely to experience conflict. Second, it is suggested that neighboring states with latent conflicts are more sensitive to the inflow of refugee flows and, consequently, more likely to escalate into militarized conflict. Third, it is argued that a significant change in the ethnic geography of the host state due to refugee flows makes ethnic conflict in the host state more likely. Such disruptions of the ethnic geography are more likely to generate conflict when the state is characterized by a precarious ethnic balance. The findings suggest that refugee flows are indeed associated with an increased risk of both internal conflict in general and ethnic conflict in particular. The conditional hypotheses, suggesting that the effect of refugees should be enhanced in the presence of latent conflict and a sensitive ethnic balance in the host state, are not supported. Indeed, evidence suggests the opposite, indicating that these factors, that normally are associated with an increased likelihood of conflict, dampen the risk of conflict in the presence of refugee flows. ; Paper prepared for presentation at the 50th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, New York, 15-18 February, 2009.

The current crisis could lead us to expect an overall increase of conflicts in the EU legislative process and eventually a shift from a consensual system to a majoritarian system. This paper aims to assess the evolution of the EU legislative process for the period 1996-2014 and shows that legislative actors still comply with the norm of consensus. We provide explanations for this resilience and analyse its effects. The paper demonstrates that in a context of greater divisions between EU actors, the systematic search for compromise and consensus contributes to modify the legislative regime in the sense of a greater Malthusianism and instability. ; En raison du contexte de crise, on pourrait s'attendre à ce que le processus législatif européen soit devenu plus conflictuel et à ce que la norme du consensus soit délaissée au profit d'un système majoritaire. Ce cahier tente d'évaluer l'évolution du processus législatif européen pour la période 1996-2014 et montre que les acteurs législatifs suivent encore la norme du consensus. Il tente d'expliquer cette résilience et d'analyser ses effets et montre qu'alors que les tensions entre les acteurs européens se sont accrues, la recherche systématique du compromis et du consensus contribue à modifier le régime législatif en le rendant plus malthusien et instable.

The current crisis could lead us to expect an overall increase of conflicts in the EU legislative process and eventually a shift from a consensual system to a majoritarian system. This paper aims to assess the evolution of the EU legislative process for the period 1996-2014 and shows that legislative actors still comply with the norm of consensus. We provide explanations for this resilience and analyse its effects. The paper demonstrates that in a context of greater divisions between EU actors, the systematic search for compromise and consensus contributes to modify the legislative regime in the sense of a greater Malthusianism and instability. ; En raison du contexte de crise, on pourrait s'attendre à ce que le processus législatif européen soit devenu plus conflictuel et à ce que la norme du consensus soit délaissée au profit d'un système majoritaire. Ce cahier tente d'évaluer l'évolution du processus législatif européen pour la période 1996-2014 et montre que les acteurs législatifs suivent encore la norme du consensus. Il tente d'expliquer cette résilience et d'analyser ses effets et montre qu'alors que les tensions entre les acteurs européens se sont accrues, la recherche systématique du compromis et du consensus contribue à modifier le régime législatif en le rendant plus malthusien et instable.

The current crisis could lead us to expect an overall increase of conflicts in the EU legislative process and eventually a shift from a consensual system to a majoritarian system. This paper aims to assess the evolution of the EU legislative process for the period 1996-2014 and shows that legislative actors still comply with the norm of consensus. We provide explanations for this resilience and analyse its effects. The paper demonstrates that in a context of greater divisions between EU actors, the systematic search for compromise and consensus contributes to modify the legislative regime in the sense of a greater Malthusianism and instability. ; En raison du contexte de crise, on pourrait s'attendre à ce que le processus législatif européen soit devenu plus conflictuel et à ce que la norme du consensus soit délaissée au profit d'un système majoritaire. Ce cahier tente d'évaluer l'évolution du processus législatif européen pour la période 1996-2014 et montre que les acteurs législatifs suivent encore la norme du consensus. Il tente d'expliquer cette résilience et d'analyser ses effets et montre qu'alors que les tensions entre les acteurs européens se sont accrues, la recherche systématique du compromis et du consensus contribue à modifier le régime législatif en le rendant plus malthusien et instable.

There are varied institutional forms (formal and informal) in which electoral (political) subjects take part in elections. Elections for assemblies show that the actions of such subjects are differently motivated, and also that their approach during conflict or cooperation in the realization of their wishes is different. Thus conflict situations, »election scandals«, occur sporadically. Such conflicts are an expression and a result of contradictory desires and actions of the participants. The significance and effect of an electoral conflict is conditioned and determined by the (political) significance of the elections themselves, not only in the sense that they are formally one of the basic constitutive elements of the political system, but first and foremost because they are the form in which citizens are active in politics. Following the procedure in election the author has tried to reveal the basic actors in electoral conflicts, the content of their conflict and the form it takes. In the author's opinion it is wrong to pass an a priori judgement of the character and value of electoral »cases« (negative judgements have usually been passed), the foundation of the conflict and the character and orientation of the persons involved, who do not seek for affirmation of their political value in the strength of arguments and objective achievement. We can understand and solve the ambivalent character of such conflicts, and the political behavior of their participants, only after studying the case. There will be a smaller number of »cases« and electoral conflicts, and they will be less complicated, the more consistently we free ourselves from varied formal-legal and political restraints, and the more society takes on the characteristics of self-managing and democratic socialism. Conflicts of this type are not the result of democracy. They are the result of its insufficient development or presence, thus making it subject to misunderstanding, searching and abuse.

In 2014, in response to the Ukrainian 'Euromaidan', Russia annexed Crimea and provoked a war in eastern Ukraine. The ensuing conflict still claims lives today. For the past five years Germany and its Western partners have been trying to resolve the conflict politically, to date without success. The Minsk ceasefire agreements of 2014 and 2015 have still not been implemented. All the directly involved actors bear responsibility. The separatist "People's Republics" in Donetsk and Luhansk have established dictatorial quasi-state structures but remain almost completely dependent on Moscow. Russia refuses to acknowledge its role as a party to the conflict. Ukraine has fulfilled some of its obligations under the Minsk Agreements, but neglected others. The situation is exacerbated by negative dynamics on all levels. Kyiv and the "People's Republics" are drifting steadily apart, while millions living along the line of contact experience terrible humanitarian suffering. This threatens to establish a state of permanent poverty and underdevelopment in the regions affected by the conflict. The European Union and its member states pursue a division of labour. Brussels maintains Union-wide sanctions against Russia and forges ahead with implementing the Association Agreement with Ukraine. Germany and France conduct peace talks in the so-called Normandy Format. All conflict parties must be reminded to avoid escalation risks. Much greater attention must be directed to the local level and especially the humanitarian crisis. Action at this level is limited in reach but imperative for progress towards peace.