{"title":"“合作伙伴”的代理机构","authors":"Marina Peeters Goloviznina","doi":"10.1163/15718115-bja10076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The article untangles the relationship between Indigenous Peoples organisations (ipo s) and the Russian government in domestic and international political forums over the 1990s-2020s. It links two debates on co-optation and Indigenous peoples’ rights norms contestation, offering a more nuanced view of them as complex, incremental, and dynamic processes in the Russian authoritarian regime. By proceeding from the bifurcation of the contemporary ipo sector, the analysis identifies and examines two groups of ipo s – ‘operational’ and ‘advocacy.’ The article argues that each group of ipo s still preserves some limited capacity to contest the state normative behaviour in the given political environment, yet differently. While ‘operational’ ipo s opt for discursive contestation through appropriation, the ‘advocacy’ ipo s express their dissent by acting as nomads. Both tactics enable each group to create opportunities to effect some progressive, albeit modest, policy and legislative changes.","PeriodicalId":44103,"journal":{"name":"International Journal on Minority and Group Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Agencies of the ‘Co-Opted’\",\"authors\":\"Marina Peeters Goloviznina\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718115-bja10076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The article untangles the relationship between Indigenous Peoples organisations (ipo s) and the Russian government in domestic and international political forums over the 1990s-2020s. It links two debates on co-optation and Indigenous peoples’ rights norms contestation, offering a more nuanced view of them as complex, incremental, and dynamic processes in the Russian authoritarian regime. By proceeding from the bifurcation of the contemporary ipo sector, the analysis identifies and examines two groups of ipo s – ‘operational’ and ‘advocacy.’ The article argues that each group of ipo s still preserves some limited capacity to contest the state normative behaviour in the given political environment, yet differently. While ‘operational’ ipo s opt for discursive contestation through appropriation, the ‘advocacy’ ipo s express their dissent by acting as nomads. Both tactics enable each group to create opportunities to effect some progressive, albeit modest, policy and legislative changes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44103,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal on Minority and Group Rights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal on Minority and Group Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-bja10076\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal on Minority and Group Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-bja10076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The article untangles the relationship between Indigenous Peoples organisations (ipo s) and the Russian government in domestic and international political forums over the 1990s-2020s. It links two debates on co-optation and Indigenous peoples’ rights norms contestation, offering a more nuanced view of them as complex, incremental, and dynamic processes in the Russian authoritarian regime. By proceeding from the bifurcation of the contemporary ipo sector, the analysis identifies and examines two groups of ipo s – ‘operational’ and ‘advocacy.’ The article argues that each group of ipo s still preserves some limited capacity to contest the state normative behaviour in the given political environment, yet differently. While ‘operational’ ipo s opt for discursive contestation through appropriation, the ‘advocacy’ ipo s express their dissent by acting as nomads. Both tactics enable each group to create opportunities to effect some progressive, albeit modest, policy and legislative changes.