Suchergebnisse

Traces the evolution of Palestinian thought on the question of statehood, drawing on a review of major post-WWII statements divided into three phases: (1) 1946-1968, in which Palestinians thought of the establishment of Israel as a gross miscarriage of justice; (2) 1969-1973, in which they began to come to grips with the reality that had emerged in Palestine; & (3) 1974-present in which Palestinian leaders have developed a consensus in favor of a settlement based on partition & a two-state solution. It is observed that, as Palestinians reached this consensus, Israel moved in the opposite direction toward the annexation of Palestinian territory. However, it is concluded that recent developments in Israel make it likely that the two-state solution will become the consensus for both parties, & so form the basis for an agreement that brings peace to this region. D. M. Smith

"Civilization and Statehood" published on by Oxford University Press.

As a people, the Slovenes have never had their own national state. Integrated into the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Slovenes have lived on a subnational level. Only Yugoslavia was recognized as an international subject and remains a member of the United Nations Organization to this day; thus, Slovenia—the homeland of Slovenes—did not enjoy the full status of a nation and the Slovene national identity was not internationally recognized until recently. Slovenes are now determined to achieve permanent recognition, no matter the cost.

Drawing on a qualitative analysis of primary sources and interviews with members of representative offices, this article shows how five post-Soviet de facto states—Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, the so-called Donetsk People's Republic ("DPR"), and Luhansk People's Republic ("LPR")—engage in activities of international representation by borrowing from diverse repertoires of diplomatic practices, generating hybrid practices of their own. On the one hand, they are attentive to looking like bona fide states and to displaying material and symbolic attributes of statehood through mimicking state-led diplomacy. On the other, they resort to creativity and innovation to partially compensate for the constraints intrinsic to their ambivalent status and complete their repertoire with practices similar to those of transnational advocacy networks, especially regarding information politics and public diplomacy. Overall, the article aims to contribute to the field of contested statehood, as well as to the study of the international engagement of non-state actors in situations of liminality in the international system.