|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
152739
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Attempts to build a liberal peace and a concurrent neoliberal state in Kosovo have not managed to produce a sustainable and emancipatory peace. Instead, they have produced a local and negative hybrid peace that has been co-opted by the dynamics of local state formation and state contestation. These dynamics have overshadowed a meaningful transition from ethnic hostility to sustainable peace that should encompass pluralism, security, law, rights, and liberal institutions. This article examines this emergence of a negative hybrid peace and explores the prospects for a more emancipatory peace based on a local pro-peace infrastructure that avoids the pitfalls of liberal peace in practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
145594
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article provides the first comprehensive account of Albania’s contribution to international peacekeeping and explores its inward-looking rationales for providing peacekeepers. Specifically, we examine why Albania has energetically supported NATO- and EU-led military and crisis management operations and less so UN peacekeeping missions. We find that Albania’s contribution to peacekeeping operations has been primarily shaped by its inward-looking interests for accelerating membership in NATO, fostering integration in the EU, as well as reducing domestic and regional insecurities. Pinpointing accurately the motivations among troop-contributing states helps recover the true hierarchical order of rationales and explain why, in some cases, the performance and impact of peacekeeping operations for some contributing states is secondary. Overall, disentangling the inward-looking utility of peacekeeping by a small state such as Albania provides useful insights for understanding how regional integration dynamics affect peacekeeping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
192318
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the face of the current decline or spectacular collapse of peace processes, this article investigates whether peace has become systematically blocked. It investigates whether the ineffectiveness of an ‘international peace architecture’ (IPA) can be explained by a more potent counterpeace system, which is growing in its shadow. It identifies counterpeace as proto-systemic processes that connect spoilers across all scales (local, regional, national, transnational), while exploiting structural blockages to peace and unintended consequences of peace interventions. It elaborates three distinct patterns of blockages to peace in contemporary conflicts across the globe: the stalemate, limited counterpeace, and unmitigated counterpeace. Drawing on the counterrevolution literature, this research asks: Have peace interventions become the source of their own undoing? Which factors consolidate or aggravate emerging conflict patterns? Are blockages to peace systemic enough to construct a sedimentary and layered counterpeace edifice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
170369
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article critically interrogates the episteme of alternativity in international relations (IR) to rethink the purpose of critical knowledge in global politics. It questions what critical knowledge is for and whose purpose it serves. While alternativity is the very condition that has given rise to critical approaches, there is a deep-rooted division among critical scholars regarding the relationship between criticality and alternativity. This article argues that alternativity provides an opportunity for critical scholars to remain relevant without being affiliated with positivist logics of inquiry. In examining the potential of alternativity, the article explores three modes of alternativity in peace and conflict studies: critique-without-alternative, critique-as-alternative, and critique-with-alternative. It probes the merits and limits of the episteme of alternativity in generating new possibilities for advancing emancipatory interests and saving critical theory from losing its original transformative impetus. In the final part, the article explores future directions for rejuvenating the purpose of critique by exploring the nexus between criticality and alternativity on postparadigmatic and practical grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
160771
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores the policies and activities undertaken by Kosovo as it seeks diplomatic recognition under conditions of contested statehood and transitional international order. Existing debates about diplomatic recognition—in particular, how independent sovereign statehood is achieved—generally rest upon systemic factors, normative institutions, and the preferences of great powers. In contrast, we argue that the experience of Kosovo presents a more complex and less predetermined process of international recognition, in which the agency of fledgling states, diplomatic skill, timing, and even chance may play a far more important role in mobilizing international support for recognition than is generally acknowledged. In building this argument, we explore Kosovo’s path to contested independence and examine the complex process of diplomatic recognition, as well as highlight the hybrid justifications for recognizing Kosovo’s statehood and independence. Without downplaying the importance of systemic factors, this article contributes to a critical rethinking of norms and processes related to state recognition in international affairs, which has implications for a broad range of cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
189375
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores how the geopolitical rivalries and tensions associated with multipolarity in a transitional international order, driven by shifts in great power influence, are shaping the international politics of state recognition. It considers the diplomatic discourse and practices of traditional great powers and resurgent states in relation to a number of controversial cases of territories seeking independent statehood and recognition. Although contested claims for sovereign statehood and recognition predate the current great power constellation, we find that contemporary state recognition practices offer dominant powers grounds for normative and geopolitical contestation with their rivals. Whilst this is a reflection of the historical continuities of great power politics, the article shows that the transitional international order, and the friction this generates, has further fragmented the norms and practices of state recognition. At the same time, there has not been a broad upheaval in the politics of state recognition because most states maintain a conservative attitude to state creation. The article contributes to contemporary debates on statehood and recognition by revealing how the political and normative friction associated with the changing international order make the possibility of a rigorous, rules-based regime for regulating international recognition more remote than ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
166889
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
How do emerging states obtain international recognition and secure membership of international organizations in contemporary world politics? Using the concept of ‘metis’, this article explores the role of everyday prudent and situated discourses, diplomatic performances and entanglements in the enactment of sovereign statehood and the overcoming of external contestation. To this end, it describes Kosovo’s diplomatic approach to becoming a sovereign state by obtaining international recognition and securing membership of international organizations. Drawing on institutional ethnographic research and first-hand observations, the article argues that Kosovo’s success in consolidating its sovereign statehood has been the situational assemblage of multiple discourses, practiced through a broad variety of performative actions and shaped by a complex entanglement with global assemblages of norms, actors, relations and events. Accordingly, this study contributes to the conceptualization of the everyday in diplomatic practice by offering an account of how micro-practices feed into macro-practices in world politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
135767
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article expands the conceptual and empirical understanding of relational responsibility in peacebuilding, by unpicking the often ill-defined notion of responsibility into three discrete and hierarchical categories – attributability, answerability and accountability. Present practices of international responsibility for their executive powers in peacebuilding missions are more affiliated with attributability and answerability than accountability. In order to substantiate and elaborate empirically this differentiated account of responsibility, the article explores the UN and EU responsibility mechanisms in Kosovo, focusing on their institutional design, effectiveness and results, as well as highlighting practical limitations and problems. A more specific conceptualization of these practices, allows a clearer analysis of the aims and limitations of the mechanisms in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
185240
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article offers a critical outlook on existing debates on state recognition and proposes future research directions. It argues that existing knowledge on state recognition and the dominant discourses, norms and practices needs to be problematized and freed from power-driven, conservative, positivist and legal interpretations and reoriented in new directions in order to generate more critical, contextual and emancipatory knowledge. The article proposes two major areas for future research on state recognition, which should: (a) expose the politics of knowledge, and positionality, and seek epistemic justice and decolonization of state recognition studies; and (b) study more thoroughly recognitionality techniques encompassing diplomatic discourses, performances and entangled agencies. Accordingly, this article seeks to promote a long overdue debate on the need for re-visioning state recognition in world politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|