| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
091970
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Peacebuilding supports the emergence of stable political community in states and regions struggling with a legacy of violent conflict. This then raises the question of what political community might mean in the state in question. International peacebuilding operations have answered that question in terms of the promotion of conventional state-building along the lines of the Western Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) model as the best path out of post-conflict state fragility and towards sustainable development and peace. This article argues for peacebuilding beyond notions of the liberal peace and constructions of the liberal state. Rather than thinking in terms of fragile states, it might be theoretically and practically more fruitful to think in terms of hybrid political orders, drawing on the resilience embedded in the communal life of societies within so-called fragile regions of the global South. This re-conceptualization opens new options for peacebuilding and for state formation as building political community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
101604
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyzes the issue of cross-border mobility of persons viewed from a social inequality perspective. After considering the significance of social closure and border control for the historical development of modern states and citizenship, it offers a critique of restrictions on mobility rights enforced by liberal states. On the basis of empirical data on visa regulations, it demonstrates that mobility rights are distributed highly unequally, favouring citizens from rich democracies. This tendency has been accelerated and driven by the processes of globalization. The final discussion argues that under conditions of increased mobility, the polarization between those who are granted mobility rights and those who are not tends to grow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
107950
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
100279
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores the possibility of resistance under conditions of extreme state power in liberal democracies. It examines the strategies of migrants without legal status who, when threatened with one of the most awesome powers of the liberal state-expulsion-shed their legal identity in order to escape the state's reach. Remarkably, in doing so, they often succeed in preventing the state from exercising its sovereign powers. The article argues that liberal states are uniquely constrained in their dealing with undocumented migrants. Not only are they forced to operate within the constraints of the international legal order-making repatriation contingent on the possession of identity documents-but the liberal state is also constitutionally limited in its exercise of coercion against the individual. The article concludes that it is those individuals who have the weakest claims against the liberal state that are most able to constrain its exercise of sovereignty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
071591
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
War in late modern politics is a technology of control. While its violent manifestations - for example, the invasion and occupation of Iraq - are directly felt by the population targeted, the practices associated with that war and the wider so-called war against terrorism have a far wider span of operations that encompasses spaces across the globe. This article provides an understanding of global war as a distinctly late modern form of control. It shows that the practices constitutive of global war are best understood in terms of a matrix, incorporating states and their bureaucracies, as well as non-state agents, and targeting at once states, particular communities and individuals. The matrix of war operates in the name of humanity; however, it is ultimately this humanity as a whole that comes to be the subject of its operations of global control. The implications, as the article argues, are monumental for democratic government and the spaces available for scrutiny and dissent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|