Search

Begin New Search Topic Dialogue Publication Year within 5 Years

61. On the Value of Nuclear Dialogue with China

Author:
David Santoro and Robert Gromoll
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
This paper was written by Dr. David Santoro, Vice President and Director for Nuclear Policy at the Pacific Forum, and Dr. Robert Gromoll, former Director of the Office of Regional Affairs at the US Department of State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; Dr. Gromoll is now retired. Both Drs. Santoro and Gromoll participated in numerous dialogue rounds, and Dr. Santoro was a co-organizer. The paper is based primarily on the contents of the dialogue’s written reports, several of which were authored or co-authored by Dr. Santoro. By and large, the paper draws directly from these reports and reviews how the topics addressed in the dialogue were approached and discussed by the US and Chinese sides over time. (A list of these reports is included at the end of the paper; some have been published, others have not.) The paper is also based on the authors’ broader experience in participating in the Track-1.5 dialogue; the conversations they have had with US and Chinese participants on these issues over the years, both during the dialogue and on the margins; and their own personal research. This paper represents the views of the authors and not those of Pacific Forum or the US State Department.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
China and Asia

62. Stakeholder engagement in the Mekong River: Relevant Findings from the Blue Peace Index

Author:
Matus Samel
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Water management and transboundary water cooperation affect people’s rights, and projects must balance the needs of different sectors of society. The Blue Peace Index, developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) with support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), highlights that major tensions over water resources often arise not between states, but rather governments or commercial developers on the one hand, and affected communities on the other, or between communities themselves. Protests and tensions related to issues like pollution, inadequate resettlement logistics, and damage to livelihoods, have affected water infrastructure developments across the world. In pursuing sustainable and collaborative management of transboundary waters, inclusive participation of legitimate stakeholders is essential. In the Mekong River, top-down basin-level stakeholder engagement has been limited by the fact that the river’s upstream states, China and Myanmar, are only “dialogue partners”, not full members, of the Mekong River Commission (MRC), alongside the riparian neighbors Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. Despite some positive developments in recent years with regards to basin-level dialogue through both the MRC and the Lancang–Mekong Cooperation Framework – a development and investment initiative promoted by China since 2016 as a platform for all Mekong riparian states – the lack of a single comprehensive platform for basin-level dialogue remains a major challenge to transboundary water cooperation, including in terms of stakeholder engagement.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Borders, Management, Dialogue, and Stakeholders
Political Geography:
Mekong River

63. Kosovo-Serbia Dialogue: Examining respondents' perceptions

Author:
Plator Avdiu
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Kosovar Centre for Security Studies (KCSS)
Abstract:
This report provides a comprehensive and detailed data interpretation concerning perception of the public opinion based on a pre-defined set of questions on the issue at hand. In this regard, this report presents the 2019’ Kosovo Security Barometer respondents’ perception towards partition of Kosovo and territorial autonomy, including Association of Serb Municipalities which are perceived as national security threats to Kosovo by majority of respondents.
Topic:
Security, Public Opinion, Data, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
Eastern Europe, Kosovo, and Serbia

64. Widening the ‘Global Conversation’: Highlighting the Voices of IPE in the Global South

Author:
Melisa Deciancio and Cintia Quiliconi
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
The field of IPE has traditionally being conceptualized as an Anglo Saxon construct, in this paper we argue that it is critically important to reflect on the way IPE has developed outside the mainstream, in the periphery, focusing on the case studies of Africa – in particular South Africa; Asia – in particular China; and South America, in order to start a conversation that engages with the contributions of peripheral IPE. By bringing to light the way IPE has been approached in these regions of the world we identify problems, ideas, and concerns different from those in the North and which also call attention to the necessity of a conscious reading of these works and to opening a dialogue and comparison among them. The paper explores the contributions made by IPE in Africa, Asia and South America in order to discuss the possibility of widening IPE’s ‘global conversation’ including peripheral approaches.
Topic:
International Relations, Political Economy, Academia, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
Global South

65. The Idea of Dialogue of Civilizations and Core-Periphery Dialogue in International Relations

Author:
Homeira Moshirzadeh
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
The idea of dialogue of civilizations, as was envisaged in the late 1990s and early 2000s, includes multi-layer, multi-actor dialogues. Civilization, when defined as “correspondence between material conditions of existence and intersubjective meanings,”[1] has epistemological and ontological elements that constitute the parameters of knowledge. One may easily claim that the existing knowledge of international relations has its roots in Western civilization and, if it is to become a truly global body of knowledge, it has to be nourished by contributions from various civilizations, mostly belonging to the “periphery”. Yet, even this is not enough if we just reach an archipelago consisting of various islands of knowledge without a connection to each other. What may help bridging these islands is dialogue. Dialogues among IR scholars from different civilizational backgrounds may lead to more mutual understanding and even may lead to some common grounds found in-between. Dialogues can be conducted both at inter-civilizational and intra-civilizational levels as civilizations cannot be taken as monolithic wholes. This article seeks to clarify the meaning and implications of dialogue of civilizations in IR. Furthermore, the way in which dialogue of civilizations in the discipline can be conducted and the expectations thereof are discussed.
Topic:
International Relations, Civilization, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
Global Focus

66. Foregrounding the Complexities of a Dialogic Approach to Global International Relations

Author:
Deepshikha Shahi
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
The ever more global character of today’s International Relations (IR) is no longer satisfied with one-sided stories about how things have gone with either the West or the non-West. Rather, the ongoing discussions on Global IR persuade both the West and the non-West to squarely unfold their own narratives. As the theories and practices of contemporary international relations have remarkably acquired a ‘Global’ impetus, a lot of premium is being put on a ‘dialogic approach’ – that is, an approach to Global IR that insists upon a deeper two-way communicative-action between the West and the non-West. Although the dialogic approach to Global IR seeks to resolve a wide range of cognitive differences between the West and the non-West, it more often than not remains thwarted by a few unsettled contestations: (i) History vs. Philosophy, (ii) Chronology vs. Covariance, (iii) Language vs. Concept, (iv) Culture vs. Economy, and (v) Single vs. Plural. This paper sets out to shed light on these unsettled contestations in an endeavour to intellectually improve the prospects of a dialogic approach to Global IR.
Topic:
International Relations, Academia, Eurocentrism, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
Global Focus