Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 113 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 23 - Next  Jump:
2013 - ISPP 36th Annual Scientific Meeting Words: 214 words || 
Info
1. Janik, Ralph. "RtoP, Remedial Secession, and Moral Hazard - entering the age of Secession?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISPP 36th Annual Scientific Meeting, Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy, IDC–Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel, Jul 04, 2013 <Not Available>. 2019-09-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p658164_index.html>
Publication Type: Paper (prepared oral presentation)
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Secessionist struggles are here to stay; due to the combination of RtoP and the right to remedial secession, which arguably, albeit not openly, created the Kosovo precedent at least, the conditions for attempts to separate territory in order to form a new state have never been better. At the same time, at least the states affected by such claims seem to be as little willing to give up any part of “their” territory and “their” people as ever. Most importantly, they seem to fear a domino-effect that could lead to a collapse of the overall system or at least render its stability even more fragile. In the words of former Secretary General Boutros-Ghalis’ Agenda for Peace Report: “[…] if every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and economic well-being for all would become ever more difficult to achieve.’
It is thus no wonder that secessionist struggles are not only common but also particular violent. A problem that calls for as many proposals as possible and should make it possible to challenge fundamental principles at least. Maybe Boutros-Gahli’s finding needs to be reversed and fragmentation to the widest extent possible is not a problem to be avoided but a solution to be sought.

2006 - American Political Science Association Words: unavailable || 
Info
2. Chen, Shang-chih. "A Threat or Misguided Goodwill? Beijing's Enactment of the Anti-Secession Law" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, <Not Available>. 2019-09-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p153495_index.html>
Publication Type: Proceeding

2006 - American Political Science Association Pages: 50 pages || Words: 17136 words || 
Info
3. Menaldo, Victor. and Seljan, Sam. "When Does the Democratic Peace Hold within Democracies: Audience Costs at the Regional Level & the Odds of Violent Secession?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 31, 2006 <Not Available>. 2019-09-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p151723_index.html>
Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: Theoretical and empirical work has offered compelling evidence that informational problems increase the odds of international conflict. Conversely, solutions to informational problems decrease these odds. Indeed, some explanations for the Democratic Peace draw extensively from this approach. Because democratic leaders can stake their threat to use force on the fact that they may lose office if they back down after issuing a threat, they are able to send more credible signals of resolve than autocrats. Moreover, to avoid these ‘audience costs,’ democrats only select themselves into conflicts when they are convinced that their adversaries will acquiesce to their demands. Both of these phenomena reduce the informational problems that lead to conflict. Most simply, democracies are bad bluffers. And, if rational, their adversaries know better than to resist their demands.

Applying these insights to intra-state conflict presents an empirical puzzle, however. Why does the Democratic Peace sometimes fail within states? That is, if democracies do not go to war with one another, why do groups within democracies sometimes come to blows with the central government? These questions raise a related theoretical puzzle: if national democratic leaders can generate audience costs in interstate disputes, why are regional leaders in democracies sometimes unable to gain concessions from the center through coercive diplomacy – without having to escalate to violent conflict? In other words, why would there be more uncertainty about the resolve of subnational actors within a democracy than between democratic states?

In this paper we offer both empirical and theoretical responses to these questions. We identify the microfoundations of credible signaling by subnational actors within democracies. Voters must control systematic and reliable mechanisms to punish regional leaders if they back down from demands. If they do not, because their regional executives are appointed by the central government, informational problems and thus bargaining failure and violent escalation ensue.

Empirically, we focus on the form of civil conflict most analogous to interstate conflict: violent secessionism. We find that the interaction between federalism and population size -- which we argue proxies for preference heterogeneity -- explains a lower probability of secessionist war. We attribute this finding to the ability of regional leaders under electoral federalism, a democracy in which regional governors are elected, not appointed, to generate audience costs. Indeed, we offer some "stylized facts" about the politics of decentralization that adduce regional political elites’ ability to extract concessions from central governments without needing to resort to violent escalation. Even as the magnitude of preference divergence increases and thus the incentives for regional leaders to seek changes in the policy status quo. This result does not hold so "structural federations," in which regional executives are appointed by the central government and not elected, however. We also find evidence for the fact that commitment problems and indivisibilities, the other culprits of bargaining failure that have been identified in the formal literature applied to international relations, explain a higher susceptibility to secessionist war within states.

2007 - American Political Science Association Pages: 27 pages || Words: 10165 words || 
Info
4. Fabry, Mikulas. "Secession and State Recognition in International Relations and Law" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Chicago and the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers, Chicago, IL, Aug 30, 2007 <Not Available>. 2019-09-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p212013_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The paper examines the status of secession in international relations by investigating the practice of recognition of new states, the practice historically employed to regulate membership in international society. The last fifteen years have witnessed novel or reinvigorated demands for statehood in many areas of the world. The claims of some, like those of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eritrea, Montenegro, Moldova, Georgia and East Timor, have achieved recognition; those of others, like Kosovo, Krajina, Bouganville, Abkhazia, Somaliland or Chechnya, have not. However, even as most of these claims gave rise to serious conflicts, the practice has elicited little systematic scholarly reflection. The paper highlights the criteria guiding state recognition in the post-Cold War period. Its most striking feature, the paper argues, is the continuity with the previous decolonization practice. That practice endorsed, with a single exception, only the claimants deemed to have the right to self-determination in international law. However, as in the aftermath of decolonization, the boundaries of self-determination set in international law have not led to a disappearance of claims of statehood that stand outside of them. Groups that feel unhappy within the states they belong to have continued to make demands for independence irrespective of the fact that they may not have any international right to it.

2006 - American Sociological Association Pages: 19 pages || Words: 6417 words || 
Info
5. Milicevic, Aleksandra. and Bailey, Stanley. "Joining the War: Masculinity, Nationalism and War Participation in the Balkans War of Secession, 1991-1995" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Aug 11, 2006 Online <PDF>. 2019-09-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p105012_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This project attempts to deepen our understanding of some of the motivating factors that lead people to opt for armed struggle as a conflict resolution strategy. It does so through a unique case study of the attitudes of men from Serbia towards the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina (1991-1995), specifically through a comparative study of armed volunteers and draft-dodgers. I explore why certain people joined the war voluntarily while others decided to evade it. On a macro level of investigation, I make a distinction between the social groups for which the messages of radical political leaders were most plausible, and those for which these messages were insufficient motivation to join the war effort. On a micro level of investigation, I look into the ways in which masculinities and femininities intersect and overlap, influence and are influenced by war participation or non-participation.
First, I explore the traditional configuration of gender practices, the changes that occurred during socialism, and the transformations in gender identities and practices that occurred prior to and during the wars that took place after the break up of Yugoslavia. Second, I explore dominant models of masculinity and femininity and cultural values attached to them, as well as the alternative ways of imagining and enacting masculinity and femininity. Third, I look into gender related practices and discourses among volunteers and draft dodgers and explore they ways in which they positioned themselves with respect to the “others” – “others” being other men and other women.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 23 - Next  Jump:

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy