Journal Article Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times Get access Snyder Jack. Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2022. 328 pp., $32 Anthony Chase Anthony Chase Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University, United States Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 3, September 2023, viad027, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad027 Published: 06 July 2023 Article history Received: 20 March 2023 Corrected and typeset: 06 July 2023 Published: 06 July 2023
{"title":"Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times","authors":"Jack Snyder","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad027","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times Get access Snyder Jack. Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2022. 328 pp., $32 Anthony Chase Anthony Chase Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University, United States Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Review, Volume 25, Issue 3, September 2023, viad027, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad027 Published: 06 July 2023 Article history Received: 20 March 2023 Corrected and typeset: 06 July 2023 Published: 06 July 2023","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136044763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Correction to: Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad041","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136084992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The strategy of deterrence by denial is widely used by different actors. Despite its prominence, however, the scholarship on deterrence by denial stands to be developed further. It lags behind scholarship on deterrence by punishment on two points: in identifying the conditions under which the strategy works and in examining elements affecting its adoption. Deterrence by denial also carries some conceptual ambiguity since its employment takes many significantly different forms and also because it overlaps with deterrence by punishment. Despite the emphasis in current scholarship on “inflicting costs” as a defining element of deterrence by punishment, costs arguably also play a significant role in deterrence by denial. To address these challenges, I distinguish between deterrence strategies by focusing on two main elements: the means the deterrer actor threatens to use (offensive or non-offensive) and the timing of the threatened use of these means (before or after the unwanted activity). This offers a more nuanced distinction between deterrence strategies and better encompasses the role of inflicting costs in deterrence by denial. I suggest that this research offers a useful point of departure to further theorize about deterrence by denial, and it sets a promising research agenda that is pertinent given the growing interest in deterrence by denial, especially in its application to cyber deterrence.
{"title":"Deterrence through Inflicting Costs: Between Deterrence by Punishment and Deterrence by Denial","authors":"Amir Lupovici","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The strategy of deterrence by denial is widely used by different actors. Despite its prominence, however, the scholarship on deterrence by denial stands to be developed further. It lags behind scholarship on deterrence by punishment on two points: in identifying the conditions under which the strategy works and in examining elements affecting its adoption. Deterrence by denial also carries some conceptual ambiguity since its employment takes many significantly different forms and also because it overlaps with deterrence by punishment. Despite the emphasis in current scholarship on “inflicting costs” as a defining element of deterrence by punishment, costs arguably also play a significant role in deterrence by denial. To address these challenges, I distinguish between deterrence strategies by focusing on two main elements: the means the deterrer actor threatens to use (offensive or non-offensive) and the timing of the threatened use of these means (before or after the unwanted activity). This offers a more nuanced distinction between deterrence strategies and better encompasses the role of inflicting costs in deterrence by denial. I suggest that this research offers a useful point of departure to further theorize about deterrence by denial, and it sets a promising research agenda that is pertinent given the growing interest in deterrence by denial, especially in its application to cyber deterrence.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85205170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mikaela Luttrell-Rowland, Mariana Prandini Assis, Puleng Segalo, Nasser Afkar, Agnes Ikasilon, Aline Sifa Mulibinge, Alphonsine Apendeki, Ayo Ayoola-Amale, Bantar Samuela Rinyu, Beatrice Sharon Ochongo, Bridget Sharon Mukade, Christelle Bay Chongwain, Constance Mushayi, Florence Munteh Chea, Gillian Chinzete, Jennet Nfoh, Jennifer Yarima, Kabirat Abdulrazaq, Kaltume Abubakar, Leymah Gbowee, Limpho Matlakala, Lineo Matlakala, Makhotso Kalake, Mamello Makhele, Margaret Sedziafa, Martha Mutisi, Mary Juan, Mazahir Ali Hassan, Mercy Osei-Konadu, Michelle Fine, Muibat Abdulrazaq, Nuria Abdi, Omima Alfadil, Racheal Kavata, Rasha Abubaker, Riya Williams Yuyada, Rose Faida, Ruth Ochieng, Seya wa Mwilambwe, Susy Auma, Sylvia Katooko, Tatenda Madziro, Varna Joseph Abdalla Zaki
Abstract This paper features the process whereby an experimental Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) program fostered a critical learning community around peace and security across 13 countries and with 40 women. It addresses the epistemological questions of doing research in collective ways (with and among activists/scholars), the axiological challenge of recognizing and embracing counter-expertise, and the possibilities for incorporating values and practices of care as well as non-extractivism in producing and disseminating knowledge. By articulating the core ethical principles that emerged from this experience, the paper suggests a critical feminist epistemological commitment in taking seriously grassroots women's knowledge in peace and security processes, rather than what is often done in both policy and academy: prescribing their needs from above, interpreting their knowledge from the outside, and advising what problems to tackle and how to live.
{"title":"Feminist Commitments Towards a Horizontal Women, Peace, and Security Critical Learning Community","authors":"Mikaela Luttrell-Rowland, Mariana Prandini Assis, Puleng Segalo, Nasser Afkar, Agnes Ikasilon, Aline Sifa Mulibinge, Alphonsine Apendeki, Ayo Ayoola-Amale, Bantar Samuela Rinyu, Beatrice Sharon Ochongo, Bridget Sharon Mukade, Christelle Bay Chongwain, Constance Mushayi, Florence Munteh Chea, Gillian Chinzete, Jennet Nfoh, Jennifer Yarima, Kabirat Abdulrazaq, Kaltume Abubakar, Leymah Gbowee, Limpho Matlakala, Lineo Matlakala, Makhotso Kalake, Mamello Makhele, Margaret Sedziafa, Martha Mutisi, Mary Juan, Mazahir Ali Hassan, Mercy Osei-Konadu, Michelle Fine, Muibat Abdulrazaq, Nuria Abdi, Omima Alfadil, Racheal Kavata, Rasha Abubaker, Riya Williams Yuyada, Rose Faida, Ruth Ochieng, Seya wa Mwilambwe, Susy Auma, Sylvia Katooko, Tatenda Madziro, Varna Joseph Abdalla Zaki","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad032","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper features the process whereby an experimental Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) program fostered a critical learning community around peace and security across 13 countries and with 40 women. It addresses the epistemological questions of doing research in collective ways (with and among activists/scholars), the axiological challenge of recognizing and embracing counter-expertise, and the possibilities for incorporating values and practices of care as well as non-extractivism in producing and disseminating knowledge. By articulating the core ethical principles that emerged from this experience, the paper suggests a critical feminist epistemological commitment in taking seriously grassroots women's knowledge in peace and security processes, rather than what is often done in both policy and academy: prescribing their needs from above, interpreting their knowledge from the outside, and advising what problems to tackle and how to live.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136084996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In many conflicts, international ceasefire monitors are deployed to mitigate future violence. Increasingly, such monitors use satellite imagery, uncrewed aerial vehicles, and other camera-equipped assets to supplement, and sometimes substitute, human monitoring efforts to document ceasefire violations. To date, we know little about when and how such technology contributes to ceasefire compliance, with scholars offering diverging assessments of the effects. Integrating scholarship on the use of remote sensing in ceasefire monitoring with theories on the causal processes underlying ceasefire monitoring, this analytical essay offers a framework to assess the contribution of remote sensing to ceasefire compliance and illustrates the empirical application of this framework by examining the most technologically advanced ceasefire monitoring mission yet deployed, the Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. Focusing on the period prior to the Russian invasion of 2022, our research finds that while the mission’s observational power was expanded, remote sensing technologies ultimately had little effect on modifying conflict party behavior or compliance. While in this case remote sensing technology minimally increased compliance, the study contributes to debates on the use of technology as a conflict management tool, and provides an assessment framework for scholars and for policymakers considering adopting technology in other monitoring contexts.
{"title":"Do Eyes in the Sky Ensure Peace on the Ground? The Uncertain Contributions of Remote Sensing to Ceasefire Compliance","authors":"Valerie Sticher, Aly Verjee","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad039","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In many conflicts, international ceasefire monitors are deployed to mitigate future violence. Increasingly, such monitors use satellite imagery, uncrewed aerial vehicles, and other camera-equipped assets to supplement, and sometimes substitute, human monitoring efforts to document ceasefire violations. To date, we know little about when and how such technology contributes to ceasefire compliance, with scholars offering diverging assessments of the effects. Integrating scholarship on the use of remote sensing in ceasefire monitoring with theories on the causal processes underlying ceasefire monitoring, this analytical essay offers a framework to assess the contribution of remote sensing to ceasefire compliance and illustrates the empirical application of this framework by examining the most technologically advanced ceasefire monitoring mission yet deployed, the Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. Focusing on the period prior to the Russian invasion of 2022, our research finds that while the mission’s observational power was expanded, remote sensing technologies ultimately had little effect on modifying conflict party behavior or compliance. While in this case remote sensing technology minimally increased compliance, the study contributes to debates on the use of technology as a conflict management tool, and provides an assessment framework for scholars and for policymakers considering adopting technology in other monitoring contexts.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136084997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Undermining Human Rights through Foreign Aid","authors":"Jacob Fortier","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75854868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Tabaar, Reyko Huang, Kanchan Chandra, E. Finkel, Richard A. Nielsen, M. Revkin, M. Vogt, E. Wood
Despite significant advances in our understanding of the politics of religious ideology and identity across time and space, scholars disagree on how to conceptualize “religious” conflicts and “religious” actors, and how to infer religious motivations from actors’ behavior. This Forum brings together scholars with diverse research agendas to weigh in on conceptual, methodological, and ethical questions surrounding the study of contemporary religious conflicts. We ask: How do we know when individuals and groups are acting on religious, as opposed to other, motivations? To what extent can analysts rely on actors’ own claims about their motivations? How does the “secular bias” affect scholarly research on religion and conflict? Is there a bias over which conflicts and actors come to be labeled and coded as “religious” by scholars, policymakers, and the media? The Forum fosters a debate aimed at identifying gaps within and between academic research and policy as well as media analyses on religion and political violence. The contributors examine contradictory conclusions by academics and policy analysts rooted in diverging assumptions and arguments about “religious” actors, “religious” motivations, and “religious” conflicts. The Forum proposes some ways for scholars to overcome these challenges as well as offers implications for policymakers and journalists who shape the public discourse.
{"title":"How Religious Are “Religious” Conflicts?","authors":"M. Tabaar, Reyko Huang, Kanchan Chandra, E. Finkel, Richard A. Nielsen, M. Revkin, M. Vogt, E. Wood","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Despite significant advances in our understanding of the politics of religious ideology and identity across time and space, scholars disagree on how to conceptualize “religious” conflicts and “religious” actors, and how to infer religious motivations from actors’ behavior. This Forum brings together scholars with diverse research agendas to weigh in on conceptual, methodological, and ethical questions surrounding the study of contemporary religious conflicts. We ask: How do we know when individuals and groups are acting on religious, as opposed to other, motivations? To what extent can analysts rely on actors’ own claims about their motivations? How does the “secular bias” affect scholarly research on religion and conflict? Is there a bias over which conflicts and actors come to be labeled and coded as “religious” by scholars, policymakers, and the media? The Forum fosters a debate aimed at identifying gaps within and between academic research and policy as well as media analyses on religion and political violence. The contributors examine contradictory conclusions by academics and policy analysts rooted in diverging assumptions and arguments about “religious” actors, “religious” motivations, and “religious” conflicts. The Forum proposes some ways for scholars to overcome these challenges as well as offers implications for policymakers and journalists who shape the public discourse.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86386060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Why Do We—or Don’t We—Fight?","authors":"Jordan Becker, Michael S. Kofoed","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad028","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88416320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How does armed conflict affect the social fabric of societies? This question is central if we want to understand better why some countries experience repeated cycles of violence. In recent years, considerable scientific work has been put into studying the social legacies of armed conflict. This article brings these academic studies together in a novel way, taking a holistic perspective and analyzing each of the three constituent elements of social cohesion—trust, cooperation, and identity—in detail and along both a vertical (state–society relations) and a horizontal (interpersonal and intergroup relations) dimension. Bringing together insights from fifty empirical studies, I call into question the initial optimism expressed by some scholars that conflict increases social cohesion. Only political participation seems to often be positively affected by experiencing conflict. In contrast, social and political trust as well as identification and cooperation across groups declines. However, research in several of these sub-elements of social cohesion is still nascent so that the strengths and shortcomings of the different studies are discussed and future avenues for research are identified.
{"title":"What Do We Know about How Armed Conflict Affects Social Cohesion? A Review of the Empirical Literature","authors":"Charlotte Fiedler","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 How does armed conflict affect the social fabric of societies? This question is central if we want to understand better why some countries experience repeated cycles of violence. In recent years, considerable scientific work has been put into studying the social legacies of armed conflict. This article brings these academic studies together in a novel way, taking a holistic perspective and analyzing each of the three constituent elements of social cohesion—trust, cooperation, and identity—in detail and along both a vertical (state–society relations) and a horizontal (interpersonal and intergroup relations) dimension. Bringing together insights from fifty empirical studies, I call into question the initial optimism expressed by some scholars that conflict increases social cohesion. Only political participation seems to often be positively affected by experiencing conflict. In contrast, social and political trust as well as identification and cooperation across groups declines. However, research in several of these sub-elements of social cohesion is still nascent so that the strengths and shortcomings of the different studies are discussed and future avenues for research are identified.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74613184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：