Search

Begin New Search Topic Self Determination Political Geography Global Focus

1. Peace as a Human Right: Outlook of the Relationships between Human Rights and Peace from the 21st Century | Bir İnsan Hakkı Olarak Barış: İnsan Hakları/Barış İlişkisinin 21. Yüzyıldan Görünümü

Author:
Fatma Akkan Güngör and Zehra Aksu
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics & International Relations
Institution:
Department of International Relations, Karadeniz Technical University
Abstract:
The 20th century has been regulated with a conservative principle due to the fact that states could not be able to solve their national and international problems on their own, and therefore should embrace the concept of global cooperation. That is the reason why state sovereignty has been the subject of many discussions until today. When peace emerged as a human right in the form of solidarity, it was taken into consideration in the literature together with the concept of humanitarian intervention. Furthermore, after that, its validity was discussed in the context of state sovereignty. While all these discussions are taking place, many philosophers/academics, who focus on the problematic of state right or human right and whose ideas evolve to peace studies over the inevitability of wars and reach a stalemate between the subject or state over the right of intervention, bring the old concepts back to the agenda and produce new ideas for the new order. Based on the question of whether peace should be in the system or within the nation, the main problematic in this era is whether a society that includes the entire universe or a system in which the sovereignty principles of states will continue and whether a system, in which wars are also possible, will be accepted as "right" by the subject. | 20. yüzyıl devletler için ulusal ve uluslararası sorunlarını tek başlarına çözemeyecekleri ve bu nedenle küresel işbirliğine yanaşmaları düzleminde muhafazakar ilkeyle düzenlenmiş ve günümüze kadar geçen sürede devlet egemenliği birçok tartışmaya konu olmuştur. Barış, dayanışma türünde bir insan hakkı olarak ortaya çıktığında literatürde insani müdahale kavramı ile birlikte ele alınmış ve sonrasında devlet egemenliği bağlamında geçerliliği tartışılmıştır. Tüm bu tartışmalar yaşanırken devlet hakkı mı insan hakkı mı sorunsalına odaklanan ve savaşların kaçınılmazlığı üzerinden barış çalışmalarına evrilen ve müdahale hakkı üzerine özne mi devlet mi çıkmazında kalan birçok düşünür, eski kavramları yeniden gündeme taşımakta ve yeni düzene yeni düşünceler üretmektedir. Barışın sistemde mi ulusta mı olması gerektiği sorusu üzerinden hareketle ana sorunsal, bu çağda tüm evreni içine alacak bir toplumun mu yoksa devletlerin egemenlik ilkelerinin devam edeceği ve savaşların da olası olduğu bir sistemin mi özne tarafından doğru kabul edileceğidir.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Cooperation, Sovereignty, Self Determination, Humanitarian Intervention, and Peace
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Secessionist Conflict: A Happy Marriage between Norms and Interests?

Author:
Rafael Biermann
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
This roundtable debates how norms, values, and interests are balanced and harmonized in a world of conflict. My contribution focuses on one specific policy field: secessionist conflict. Like Megan Bradley’s contribution on the international refugee regime,1 this essay takes a metaperspective and does not investigate any one specific case or actor.2 I assume a political science perspective, paying attention first to social norms (as standards of appropriate behavior), which encompass but go beyond legally codified norms of international law;3 and second to interests, whether they be national, group, personal, or other. My perspective here is a critical social constructivist one, investigating the dialectic relationship of norms, interests, and power. I introduce the concept of “norm selection” in a policy field, which offers choice within a cluster of competing norms. Finally, following Bernd Bucher’s call to bring back agency into what he terms international “norm politics,” this contribution prioritizes agency, arguing that it is actors with diverging interests who do the balancing of norms, values, and interests.4 This was one of the major insights we gained from the workshop preceding this roundtable.5 The central argument of my contribution is that the policy field of secessionist conflict is structured around a set of five rival norms, of which territorial integrity and self-determination form the core. This normative structure permits the parties involved in a secessionist conflict to select from a menu of norms those that best suit their interests. The selection displays remarkable regularities, indicating default positions for each type of actor. However, significant outlier cases signal that interests do not simply trump norms but that actors accord different values to those norms. This attribution is influenced by the dynamics of a normative environment in which norms rise and fall. In particular, since the Cold War ended, discourse as well as state practice have shifted away from the traditional taboo on secession toward more revisionist concepts, such as remedial secession or earned sovereignty, providing an opening for the secessionist wave that started with the breakup of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia. I present my argument in three steps. First, I introduce the above-mentioned cluster of norms that shape discourse and policies on secession, distinguishing the two core norms and the three circumjacent ones of noninterference, human rights, and democratic good governance. Second, I identify five major types of actors in secessionist conflicts and investigate how each balances those norms. Since this balancing is actor-specific and conforms to the interests that each pursues, I arrive at distinct default positions for each actor type. Whereas this analysis suggests that norms serve primarily as legitimation devices to advance the diverging interests of various actors, the last section discusses outlier cases where norms and interests do not match as presumed.
Topic:
International Law, Self Determination, Norms, and Secession
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. The Deterrence and Assurance Conversation

Author:
Rebecca K.C. Hersman
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
As we survey the world today, we find the nuclear landscape to be more uncertain and precarious than it has been at any time since the end of the Cold War. In recent years, Russia has taken to routinely rattling its nuclear saber—publicly embracing the value and utility of nuclear weapons while rejecting further nuclear arms control efforts—in an effort to intimidate its smaller neighbors and to test European unity along the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) periphery. North Korea’s expansion and diversification of its nuclear arsenal and associated delivery platforms, combined with Kim Jong-un’s penchant for provocation, has raised the risk of nuclear coercion and undermined confidence in current deterrence approaches. Meanwhile, nuclear competition between Pakistan and India continues to grow, spurred on by Pakistan’s now-open acknowledgment of a range of “tactical” nuclear weapons as part of their “full spectrum deterrence.” And China, unabashed in its desire to assert greater regional dominance, is modernizing, diversifying, and hardening its nuclear forces while simultaneously enhancing complementary capabilities in space, cyber, and advanced missile systems. Over a quarter century past the fall of the Berlin Wall, nuclear dangers appear to be growing rather than receding, contributing to an increasingly complex security environment
Topic:
International Security, Self Determination, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Grand Strategy and Self-Determinatio

Author:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
This report is the chair's summary from the colloquium, "Grand Strategy and Self-Determination," sponsored by the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University, November 19-20, 2014. The notions of “grand strategy” and “self-determination” are of critical significance in today’s world of multiple international crises. At once potentially highly interactive or mutually exclusive, complementary or self-reinforcing, these concepts, however, are rarely analyzed simultaneously. Grand strategy—the utilization of all available means to achieve desired ends—retains remarkable importance, as it continues to shape approaches to the complexities of contemporary policy-making. Yet present-day grand strategy is challenged by evolving notions and distributions of power in the global context. Contentious debates emerge over the state of the international system, with challenges stemming from the role of scientific and technological developments like robotics and nanotechnologies, proliferation of information accessible in real time through social media, the radicalization of religious movements, unequal distribution of income, and high rates of mobility. Today’s world offers no shortage of short- and long-term crises, including the role of power and leadership, economic, financial, energy, environmental and health challenges, a reemergence of nationalism, great-power geopolitics, terrorism, and as-yet unimagined disruptions to or within the international system, with the resulting difficulty of defining and achieving the necessary elements of a toolkit for strategy and diplomacy. Self-determination has been both a source of peace and stability and also an objective and even an instrument of actors in this global context. At the same time, the powerful and often-contested matter of self-determination interacts with and further challenges ideas and norms of strategy and governance. It is here that these two central notions meet, with the conceptual interaction between an individual striving to “determine one’s destiny” and search for greater influence in governance challenged by a status quo which still encourages control and power by national governments. A truly successful grand strategy must, in fact, harness the potentially revolutionary power of self-determination, weaving together the threads of these two paramount principles to face the emerging challenges of the 21st century.
Topic:
Power Politics, Self Determination, and Mobility
Political Geography:
Global Focus