|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
185570
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
How do disasters influence conflict and diplomacy in conflict areas? The scholarship shows that while they can provide opportunities for cooperation and ‘disaster diplomacy’ between parties to a conflict, they can also intensify tension and hostility. This article uses the Israeli–Palestinian conflict during the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, exploring the impact of the crisis on relations between the rival parties and examining the conditions under which an ongoing pandemic might lead to either conflict or cooperation in a conflict area. The research is based on within-case analysis, comparing three conflict arenas: Israel–Palestinian Authority relations in the West Bank; relations between Israel and the Palestinian community in East Jerusalem; and Israel–Hamas government relations in the Gaza strip. The article outlines the possibilities and limitations of ‘disaster diplomacy’ in intractable conflicts and contributes to the literature by identifying how different contexts, relations and actors in each conflict arena affect the development of patterns of conflict and cooperation with regard to the pandemic. The study analyses the factors that shape how the pandemic affects the conflict, and the COVID-19-related diplomacy, in each sub-case, with attention to three main variables: the structure of the conflict arena, domestic politics and the developments in the pandemic. The analysis addresses the unique conditions of an ongoing global pandemic, as opposed to an isolated disaster event, and traces the changing impact of the pandemic on the conflict and on disaster-related cooperation at various stages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
193231
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What is the dialectical influence between interlocking peace processes? The scholarship in the field of conflict analysis has identified the occurrence of “interlocking conflicts”—namely, linked conflicts that affect each other—but less attention has been drawn to the linkages between efforts to resolve them. The article focuses on the phenomenon of “interlocking peace processes,” in which parallel peacemaking efforts take place among interlinked conflicts. This article examines how progress in one peace process can influence an interlocking process, and the conditions under which a breakthrough in one process can trigger progress in a parallel process or undermine its advancement. It offers a theoretical framework for the analysis of interlocking peace processes, outlining three main arguments, which rest on three influence patterns: complementing peace processes, competing peace processes, and a paving-the-way peace process. The discussion considers how the mechanisms of diffusion, identity formation, and legitimization serve as dominant tools in these processes. The article uses the interlocking peace processes in the Arab-Israeli conflict as a case study, examining the relationship between four processes in the Middle East: the Israeli- Egyptian, Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Jordanian, and Israeli-Syrian peace processes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
170755
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In conflicts between a state and a non-state actor, such as a paramilitary or terrorist organization, when no official diplomatic relations and recognition exists, there is a need for actors who can serve as a “diplomatic avant-garde.” This article identifies a diplomatic pattern in which breakthroughs occur through cooperative work between two types of actors: unofficial citizen diplomats and key figures in intelligence bodies. Each actor brings specific resources: unofficial actors have contacts with the non-state actor, while intelligence officers can offer backing from within the official system of the state. The article analyzes the topic using three case studies: Brendan Duddy and the MI6 officer Michael Oatley (UK and the Provisional IRA, 1975–1993); Willie Esterhuyse and the head of the South African National Intelligence Service, Neil Barnard (South African government and the ANC, 1987– 1990); and Gershon Baskin and the Mossad official David Meidan (Israel and Hamas, 2011). This study examines the unique relations between these two types of actors and how their collaboration promoted negotiations with non-state armed actors. It analyzes three stages: establishment of contact between these actors, persuasion of the relevant parties, and the breakthrough moment when talks shifted to an official back channel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
189237
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
With the rise of populist leaders around the world, populism's impact on foreign policy and international affairs has come into focus. Adding to this literature, we propose the concept of ‘populist peacemaking’, in which key tenets of populism, in style and substance, are projected onto the sphere of international mediation. We offer an analytical framework for understanding populist peacemaking consisting of three features. Firstly, populist peacemaking is characterized by a rejection of the ‘peacemaking elites’ and their established rules and practices, including international norms, a refutation of context-specific knowledge, and a clean-slate approach that disregards past peacemaking attempts and alienates other international mediators. Secondly, populist peacemaking employs aggrandized rhetoric and symbolism that puts the mediator—rather than the conflict parties—in the spotlight, thus integrating domestic politics into peacemaking. Finally, populist peacemaking frames the process as representing the volonté générale, i.e. serving the interests of the ‘pure people’ in the conflict-affected context. We illustrate this phenomenon empirically with a case-study of United States' peacemaking efforts during the Trump era, tracing initiatives pursued by US envoys in the Israeli–Palestinian and Kosovo–Serbia conflicts. From this analysis, populist peacemaking emerges as a distinct phenomenon, not to be subsumed under the heading of ‘illiberal peacemaking’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
148542
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Private peace entrepreneurs (PPEs) are private citizens with no official authority who initiate diplomatic correspondence with official representatives from the opposing side during a conflict in order to promote conflict resolution. This article outlines a theoretical framework for analyzing this phenomenon, drawing on a wide range of case studies. It defines the phenomenon and analyzes the power resources and factors that help the PPE influence official processes. The article shows that although PPEs lack official authority and legal status, they have alternative, unofficial resources that help them influence the diplomatic sphere, and some have even played critical roles in conflict resolution efforts. The analysis distinguishes among different means of influence – through official decision makers, public opinion, the rival side, or a third side. The article offers insights about the individual private citizen as an actor in peace diplomacy and describes important historical figures who were excluded from history textbooks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
172929
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the summer of 1987, Israeli citizens Moshe Amirav and David Ish Shalom initiated a secret unofficial negotiation channel with Palestinian leaders Faysal al-Husayni and Sari Nusseibeh, with the approval of the Palestine Liberation Organization leadership and the acknowledgment of senior members of Israel's ruling Likud party. But the attempt to turn the Amirav-Husayni initiative into official negotiations failed. This article analyzes the negotiations, examines the actors involved and the agreement, and discusses the historical importance of the initiative and the reasons for its failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|