Arciss 2015和R-Arciss 2018和平协定建筑设计对安全部门改革的影响

Elijah Mwasi Mwanyika, Prof. Pontian Godfrey Okoth, Prof. Edmond Maloba Were
{"title":"Arciss 2015和R-Arciss 2018和平协定建筑设计对安全部门改革的影响","authors":"Elijah Mwasi Mwanyika, Prof. Pontian Godfrey Okoth, Prof. Edmond Maloba Were","doi":"10.47752/sjss.54.71.85","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The world over, Peace Agreements remain the most frequently used means of ending conflict. For more than five decades, the Southern part of Sudan (now South Sudan) has been plagued by armed conflict, despite numerous conflict resolution efforts by both regional, international state and Non-State Actors. The study evaluates the influence of architectural design of the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS 201 and the 2018 Revitalised-Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan, (R-ARCISS 2018) on Security Sector Reforms (SSRs). The study was anchored on John Paul Lederach’s peace-building theory, social constructivism, Arnstein’s ladder of Citizen participation and securitisation theory. The study primarily adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey design, with correlational and explanatory research elements. Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were used. Questionnaires, Content Analysis Guides, and focus Group discussions were also used. Target population was former and current members of armed groups in South Sudan. Snowball sampling was used to identify the respondents that were surveyed. Key informants were purposively sampled based on the individuals that could provide the most comprehensive information on the variables of interest to the study. For explanation and clarification, data from the study were presented using descriptive statistics such as tables, pie charts, bar graphs, and percentages, as well as inferential statistics. Findings indicated that the designs of both Peace Agreements are weak. As far as the process is concerned, weaknesses appear primarily where there were a limited number of mechanisms to address impediments to the agreement, little agreement on the ownership of natural resources, inadequate modalities of navigating the interests of external actors, and poor handling of differing political interests. It is recommended that a new process for a strong peace agreement be initiated, and that it should be preceded by rigorous baseline surveys so as to address some of the contentious root causes of the conflict such as negative ethnicity and militarisation along ethnic lines.","PeriodicalId":149636,"journal":{"name":"Sumerianz Journal of Social Science","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of Architectural Design of Arciss 2015 and R-Arciss 2018 Peace Agreements on Security Sector Reforms\",\"authors\":\"Elijah Mwasi Mwanyika, Prof. Pontian Godfrey Okoth, Prof. Edmond Maloba Were\",\"doi\":\"10.47752/sjss.54.71.85\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The world over, Peace Agreements remain the most frequently used means of ending conflict. For more than five decades, the Southern part of Sudan (now South Sudan) has been plagued by armed conflict, despite numerous conflict resolution efforts by both regional, international state and Non-State Actors. The study evaluates the influence of architectural design of the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS 201 and the 2018 Revitalised-Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan, (R-ARCISS 2018) on Security Sector Reforms (SSRs). The study was anchored on John Paul Lederach’s peace-building theory, social constructivism, Arnstein’s ladder of Citizen participation and securitisation theory. The study primarily adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey design, with correlational and explanatory research elements. Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were used. Questionnaires, Content Analysis Guides, and focus Group discussions were also used. Target population was former and current members of armed groups in South Sudan. Snowball sampling was used to identify the respondents that were surveyed. Key informants were purposively sampled based on the individuals that could provide the most comprehensive information on the variables of interest to the study. For explanation and clarification, data from the study were presented using descriptive statistics such as tables, pie charts, bar graphs, and percentages, as well as inferential statistics. Findings indicated that the designs of both Peace Agreements are weak. As far as the process is concerned, weaknesses appear primarily where there were a limited number of mechanisms to address impediments to the agreement, little agreement on the ownership of natural resources, inadequate modalities of navigating the interests of external actors, and poor handling of differing political interests. It is recommended that a new process for a strong peace agreement be initiated, and that it should be preceded by rigorous baseline surveys so as to address some of the contentious root causes of the conflict such as negative ethnicity and militarisation along ethnic lines.\",\"PeriodicalId\":149636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sumerianz Journal of Social Science\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sumerianz Journal of Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47752/sjss.54.71.85\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sumerianz Journal of Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47752/sjss.54.71.85","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在世界各地,和平协定仍然是最常用的结束冲突的手段。50多年来,尽管区域、国际国家和非国家行为体为解决冲突作出了许多努力,但苏丹南部(现为南苏丹)一直受到武装冲突的困扰。该研究评估了2015年《解决南苏丹冲突协议》(ARCISS 201)和2018年《解决南苏丹冲突协议》(R-ARCISS 2018)对安全部门改革(SSRs)的建筑设计影响。该研究以约翰•保罗•莱德拉赫的和平建设理论、社会建构主义、阿恩斯坦的公民参与阶梯理论和证券化理论为基础。本研究主要采用描述性横断面调查设计,并结合相关性和解释性研究元素。采用定量和定性资料收集方法。问卷调查,内容分析指南和焦点小组讨论也被使用。目标人群是南苏丹武装组织的前任和现任成员。雪球抽样被用来确定被调查的受访者。关键的线人是有目的的抽样,基于个人,可以提供最全面的信息,对研究感兴趣的变量。为了解释和澄清,研究数据采用描述性统计,如表格、饼图、条形图和百分比,以及推论统计。调查结果表明,两项《和平协定》的设计都很薄弱。就这一进程而言,弱点主要出现在解决协议障碍的机制数量有限、关于自然资源所有权的协议很少、处理外部行为者利益的方式不充分以及对不同政治利益的处理不当等方面。建议启动一个强有力的和平协议的新进程,并在此之前进行严格的基线调查,以解决冲突的一些有争议的根本原因,如消极的种族和沿着种族界线的军事化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Influence of Architectural Design of Arciss 2015 and R-Arciss 2018 Peace Agreements on Security Sector Reforms
The world over, Peace Agreements remain the most frequently used means of ending conflict. For more than five decades, the Southern part of Sudan (now South Sudan) has been plagued by armed conflict, despite numerous conflict resolution efforts by both regional, international state and Non-State Actors. The study evaluates the influence of architectural design of the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS 201 and the 2018 Revitalised-Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan, (R-ARCISS 2018) on Security Sector Reforms (SSRs). The study was anchored on John Paul Lederach’s peace-building theory, social constructivism, Arnstein’s ladder of Citizen participation and securitisation theory. The study primarily adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey design, with correlational and explanatory research elements. Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were used. Questionnaires, Content Analysis Guides, and focus Group discussions were also used. Target population was former and current members of armed groups in South Sudan. Snowball sampling was used to identify the respondents that were surveyed. Key informants were purposively sampled based on the individuals that could provide the most comprehensive information on the variables of interest to the study. For explanation and clarification, data from the study were presented using descriptive statistics such as tables, pie charts, bar graphs, and percentages, as well as inferential statistics. Findings indicated that the designs of both Peace Agreements are weak. As far as the process is concerned, weaknesses appear primarily where there were a limited number of mechanisms to address impediments to the agreement, little agreement on the ownership of natural resources, inadequate modalities of navigating the interests of external actors, and poor handling of differing political interests. It is recommended that a new process for a strong peace agreement be initiated, and that it should be preceded by rigorous baseline surveys so as to address some of the contentious root causes of the conflict such as negative ethnicity and militarisation along ethnic lines.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of Information and Communication Technology on Curriculum Delivery in Tertiary Institutions in Nigeria Hotel Preferences of Customers in the Lens of Fear of Covid-19 The Generating Principle of “Symbolic Language” in the Book of Changes The Role of Electronic Applications in Transitioning and Developing the Performance of Digital Government Services: Tawakkalna Application for Covid-19 in Saudi Arabia Binge Drinking Among College Students: Trends, Consequences and Possible Solutions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1