Search

Begin New Search Topic Political Power Sharing Political Geography Global Focus

1. A (Neo)realist Explanation of the Post- unipolar International System

Author:
Alessio Stilo
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development
Institution:
Centre for Strategic Research and Analysis (CESRAN)
Abstract:
Since the end of the Cold War, old-fashioned power plays have been back in international relations, as confirmed by recent events and trends. Despite the growth of interdependence among states, borders are not crumbled and international actors continue to pursue their interests through the use of all the necessary means. Paradoxically, the liberal order has strengthened some realist principles and confirmed realism as a practical theory that has not necessarily a state -centric vision and does not deny any progress in international cooperation and change resulting from interdependence. The ability of governments to pursue domestic policies effectively is increasingly influenced by developments in the international system. Moreover, the return of geopolitics and power politics supports the (neo)realist postulate according to which the system tends towards the balance of power between the declining hegemon (U.S.) and the rising powers (China, Russia, India, Japan, Brazil, Germany, etc), given the fact that every rising power is used to seeking to revise the status quo. This article provides an empirical explanation of the (proto)multipolar order in the light of the assumptions of political realism in its neoclassical declination.
Topic:
Globalization, International Cooperation, Political Power Sharing, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Transitional Justice, Recognition, and Authoritative Power

Author:
Anika Oettler
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Global and Area Studies
Abstract:
The legitimacy of transitional justice currently derives from the contribution it makes to the recognition of victims. Adding the aspect of authoritative power to ongoing debates on transitional justice, however, could significantly alter our views on recognition. Recognition is widely believed to be key to overcoming traumatic experiences. At the same time, however, it strengthens authoritative power. Seeking a more nuanced understanding of the recognition–power nexus, the paper provides a rough and critical account of various understandings of recognition and power on the part of authors such as Honneth, Fraser, Bertram and Celikates, Ikäheimo, Arendt, Foucault, Popitz, and Bourdieu. It then examines how these theoretical approaches intersect and speak to each other. To see recognition as a reciprocal interaction sensitive to power relations is to pave the way for a power‐sensitive turn in current debates on victim‐centred transitional justice. Multidirectional relationships of power exist, with varying forms of coercion, resistance, and struggle. This insight corresponds with the observation, seen from the other perspective, that truth and recognition are inside power. Placing theoretical approaches to power and recognition side by side has strong implications for politics. The paper therefore applies these theoretical insights to the Colombian peace process, showing the potential and pitfalls of putting recognition into practice.
Topic:
International Affairs and Political Power Sharing
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Managing Conflict after Civil War: The Power-Sharing and Power-Dividing Approaches

Author:
Matthew Hoddie
Publication Date:
08-2014
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
This paper considers two institutional alternatives for managing conflict following the negotiated settlement of civil war. The most common set of institutional structures that former civil war combatants adopt are associated with power sharing. These power-sharing institutions may be constructed across the political, military, territorial, and economic dimensions of state power. Recent research suggests that post-civil war states that specify greater numbers of power-sharing institutions within their peace agreements tend to have a lower risk of the re-initiation of conflict. At the same time, critics of power sharing emphasize that these mechanisms lack a capacity to foster common identities among rivals and have characteristics that are inconsistent with the principles of democracy. An alternative to power sharing for states that are emerging from civil war is the adoption of power-dividing institutions. The core features of the power-dividing approach are limiting the scope of government authority and establishing a wide-ranging system of checks and balances intended to manage the competing interests within a country. In many respects, these institutional structures parallel those established by the constitution of the United States. Those who are sceptical about the power-dividing approach, however, point out that these institutions have not yet been adopted in any state emerging from civil war. It thus remains unclear how effective these structures would be at managing conflict within this particularly challenging environment.
Topic:
Civil War, Political Power Sharing, Democracy, Conflict, and Crisis Management
Political Geography:
Global Focus