|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
157798
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Little is known about attitudes among ordinary adolescents in favour of the use of political violence and radicalization. We draw on a survey from a population sample of adolescents (n = 8627) in the Norwegian capital, Oslo. We first compared adolescents with Muslim, Christian and no religious affiliation with regard to attitudes in favour of the use of violence for political purposes and support of those who go to Syria to take part in active combat. Muslim youth reported higher levels of support for the use of violence to obtain societal change than did other adolescents. The same pattern was revealed with regard to support for the fighters in Syria. After control for other variables, Muslim affiliation had no impact on attitudes in favour of politically motivated violence, though it remained significant for support for the fighters in Syria. However, here as well we found associations with poor school grades, conduct problems and exposure to violence, possibly indicating an emerging adolescent ‘outsider’ position. Political activity on social media also played a role. Such attitudes rarely develop into politically motivated violence and jihadism. However, for a small minority, they may represent the first step in that direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
157800
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article applies Barnett and Duvall’s taxonomy of power to European Union (EU)–Russia relations aiming to understand power in its complexity and without a priori theoretical assumptions. Four different types of power – compulsory, institutional, structural and productive – feature simultaneously. It is argued that non-compulsory forms of power are key to understanding the logic of competition in EU–Russia relations in the decade preceding the 2014 Ukraine crisis, despite receiving limited scholarly attention. First, a struggle over institutional power, the capacity to control the conditions of the other actor indirectly, appeared from rivalling integration projects and competing norm diffusion. Secondly, power relations were strongly characterised by constitutive forms of power – structural and productive – in particular the capacity to produce and recognise identities, such as Europeanness. In both fields, the EU held a hegemonic position, which Russia increasingly challenged. The geopolitical reading of the change in regime in Ukraine in 2014 prompted Moscow to a radical change of strategy, by shifting the emphasis in the confrontation to compulsory power. Attempts at direct control, from annexation to sanctions, now dominate relations. Where Russia seeks to prevent the Euro-Atlantic community from gaining effective control over Ukraine through destabilisation, this can be labelled ‘negative’ compulsory power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
157801
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We investigate the effect of ethnic pluralism on mediation in interstate and internationalized civil crises from 1945 to 2010. We find that mediation succeeds when two conditions are met. First, success is more likely when there are fewer disenfranchised ethnic groups in the disputant population, because these groups are usually excluded from peace talks and often use violence to challenge peace. Second, mediators are more likely to succeed when politically included disputants, usually present at peace talks, comprise various different ethnic groups. Because such groups, numerous as they are, pull and tug for dominance at peace negotiations, they are unable to form decisive coalitions. As a result, third parties have a chance to serve in a more authoritative role and influence a settlement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
157796
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
During the 20th century, wars were fought primarily in the name of protecting the homeland. Making the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ was a national masculine duty and a key feature of military heroism. Today, human rights and international values justify war-making and legitimise military action. In one of these post-national wars, the International Security Assistance Force operation in Afghanistan, more than 700 European soldiers have lost their lives. How have these deaths been legitimised, and how has the new security discourse affected notions of masculinised heroism and sacrifice? This article investigates how the dimensions of national/international and masculinity/femininity are negotiated in media narratives of heroism and sacrifice in Denmark and Sweden. Regarding scholarly discussions on the professionalisation, individualisation and domestication of military heroism, the empirical analysis demonstrates that the Danish/Swedish nation remains posited as the core context for military heroism and sacrifice. In the media narratives, professionalism is represented as an expression of specific national qualities. The media narratives conflate nation and family and represent military heroes as distinctively masculine and national figures. It is argued that a family trope has become vital in present-day hero narratives. This trope is disposed towards collective emotions, national loyalty and conservative gender ideals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
157795
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Linked to the image of a wild and still-to-be-explored territory, as well as to images of the region as one of new economic opportunities, discourses on the Arctic also tie in with issues of climate change, cooperation and conflict, Arctic governance, international law and the situation and rights of indigenous people, as well as Great Power politics. Taken together, these aspects characterize a region whose formation is different from regionalization processes in other parts of the world. As the regional peculiarity of the Arctic is reflected by a variety and plurality of representations, discourses, perceptions and imaginaries, it can usefully be analyzed as a region of unfolding governmentality. The present article argues that the prospects for the Arctic are strongly intertwined with perceptions and depictions of it as an international region subject to emerging practices of governmentality. By drawing on both Foucault’s texts and governmentality studies in international relations (IR), we discuss how the Arctic is affected by governmental security rationalities, by specific logics of political economy and order-building, as well as becoming a subject for biopolitical rationalizations and imaginaries. The discourses and practices of governmentality that permeate the Arctic contribute to its spatial, figurative and political reframing and are aimed at making it a governable region that can be addressed by, and accessible for, ordering rationalities and measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
157797
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
It is common in international relations thought to view realism and pacifism as lying at opposite ends of a spectrum on the permissibility of war. Pacifism, from this point of view, is necessarily antithetically opposed to and incompatible with realist thinking on the use of force. This article aims to counter this view and raise some critical questions concerning the incompatibilities of realism and pacifism through an examination of some points at which they may be seen to intersect. In pursuing these intersections, the first part of the article sets out the foundations of classical realist thought, focusing on the inherently conflictual depiction of human nature as the basis for a theory that insists upon the inescapable possibility of political violence. It then departs from the conventional narrative by setting out the intersections of pacifist and realist thought concerning the illogical and dangerous attempts to moralise war-fighting through the application of just war theory. Finally, it is proposed that a synthesis of some elements of pacifist and realist thought could lead to the development of new theories and strategies attuned to the promotion of non-violence in an inherently unstable and conflict-prone world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
157799
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article theorizes the social processes through which purportedly liberal democratic states compromise fundamental rights in times of perceived security crises. It has become increasingly common to suggest that a general culture of fear serves both as the motor and the outcome of exceptional security politics. This article suggests instead that the transgression of fundamental rights in the name of security is intimately connected to collective feelings of humiliation and the reassertion of self-worth through efforts to re-establish the integrity of imagined communities. To demonstrate this, the article highlights the dual character of rights, having both a formal and a symbolic function, associated with collective emotions. By theorizing the connections between rights, emotions and belonging the article offers the building blocks for a more nuanced and possibly more accurate understanding of why exceptional security politics tend to elicit such broad public support in spite of its often-glaring contradictions to fundamental principles of liberal democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|