| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
119719
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Power-sharing and inclusion continue to inform contemporary approaches to conflict resolution and post-conflict governance in Africa. But aside from power-sharing efforts in relatively well-institutionalized countries such as South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, most efforts at formal inclusion have been short-lived. Indeed, many high-profile experiences in power-sharing governments have been failures. African governments and opposition groups do engage in inclusion, but, owing to the non-institutionalized nature of African politics, it is almost always directed toward more limited short-term objectives such as regime survival or material reward that comes with participation in peace processes. Surveying Africa's experience with power-sharing, this article argues that inclusion continues to be a fragile basis on which to build peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
131347
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
At a time when Israelis and Palestinians are gathering in Washington to consider peace in the Middle East, most attention is focused on the idea of a one-state or, more likely, two-state solution. A number of scholars, however, have recently developed a third approach which has been appropriately referred to as a 'two-state condominialism'. This approach seeks to overcome the liabilities of the two existing approaches to solving the Middle East conflict while offering a number of its own advantages. Surprisingly, in spite of the similarities among their proposals, none of the authors make reference to, or even acknowledge each other. This article reviews these papers as a collective and considers whether they offer a realistic opportunity for peace in the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
078436
|
|
|