Situations Of Political Conflict Research Articles

The Role of the Security Forces in Times of political Turbulence

The power structures are an indispensable tool, the state power system’s resource and a significant factor determining the relationship and outcome of the conflict between the government and society in a period of internal political turbulence. Periods of instability and uncertainty are traditionally accompanied by security officials’ presence in the bowels of power and participation in the struggle for it. At present, the world is faced with choosing one of several possible trajectories for further development. World globalisation and the network revolution increase an individual’s capabilities and importance, and a “man with a gun” a priori, in the historical process. Modern realities of international relations stimulate the existence and strengthening of power structures as state power instruments. Domestic challenges and events in several countries of the world, which actively declared themselves in 2020–2021, force them to rethink the possibility of using law enforcement agencies in resolving internal political conflict situations, as well as the need to conduct an analytical assessment of possible options for the actions of personnel associated with the use of armed violence during periods of intense political turbulence within states. The article substantiates the need for a prompt response of state authorities to changes in the country’s political situation. The author believes that the tendency to an increase in the importance of power structures, as a force exerting a decisive influence at the point of bifurcation on the choice of the direction of further development, requires not only awareness but adjustment of communication processes in the connection “state — power structures — civil society”.

: <br>(A Critical Analysis of the Social Psychological Approach to Resolving International Conflict)

תקצר בעברית: השימוש במודלים פסיכולוגיים חברתיים של סכסוכים ומשא ומתן רווח בקרב אנשי אקדמיה ובקרב אלו העוסקים בפרקטיקה של יישוב סכסוכים בזירה הבינלאומית במיוחד במצבי עימותים אתנו-לאומיים. מודלים אלה הלקוחים מהמציאות של קונפליקט בינאישי, בתוך משפחה ובין שכנים ומדגישים הבנה הדדית באמצעות תיאורית המגע, דיאלוג, תקשורת בין תרבותית, מחילה והתפייסות כאמצעים להגיע לשלום.למרות השימוש הרווח בתחום במודלים פסיכולוגיים חברתיים, ניתוח שיטתי של הניסיונות ליישמם במישור של סכסוכים בינלאומיים הינו דבר נדיר. רוב הספרות נוטה להתעלם מהכישלון להתייחס לסביבה הפוליטית בהם מתרחשים סכסוכים בינלאומיים. הסביבה והתנאים בהם אלו מתרחשים שונים באופן מהותי מאלו של סכסוכים בינאישיים. יתרה מכך, ניסיונות ליישם כלים פסיכולוגיים חברתיים בצורת פעילות מאזנת עוצמה, הדגשת נרטיבים, וזהויות וכיוב', לעיתים קרובות מביאה לתוצאה של החמרה בסכסוך ולא להתמתנותו. המאמר מציג ביקורת סיסטמתית לנוכח מגבלותיהם של המודלים הללו ואף מתייחס להערכת המתודולוגיות הקיימות ביישומם. המחבר קורא לביסוס סדר יום צנוע יותר ביישומה של הגישה הפסיכולוגית חברתית במישור של הסכסוכים הבינלאומיים. על סדר יום צנוע זה להיות מלווה במתודולוגיות של הערכה קפדנית מבלי להתעלם ממקומם המרכזי של מרכיבים כגון ביטחון, הרתעה וממדים מרכזיים אחרים של ניהול סכסוך ברמה הפוליטית.English Abstract: In the extensive growth of academic publications and related activity in the realm of peace studies and efforts to resolve international and inter-group conflicts, social psychological approaches, in general, and models derived from contact theory, in particular, have occupied a central place. Assuming a common foundation based on shared human values and needs, adherents to these models emphasize mutual understanding through contact theory, dialogue, cross-cultural communications and interaction, as well as forgiveness and reconciliation, as the paths to peace.However, as will be shown in this article, theoreticians and practitioners from this school often disregard core political dimensions that differentiate such situations from interpersonal and other conflict and negotiation frameworks. Social psychological models and theories tend to reject or ignore competing meta-explanations of inter-group conflict based on the Hobbesian state of nature and “war of all against all”, while the evidence demonstrates the central relevance of such frameworks for many political conflict situations. As indicated by the ongoing clashes around the world, the sources of violent identity conflict – including inter-ethnic and inter-religious disputes – remain very potent. Harold Saunders, a former senior diplomat in the US State Department and a strong advocate and practitioner of the social-psychological approach to peace, observed that until relationships are changed, deep-rooted human conflicts are not likely to be resolved. (Saunders, 1999, p.31) However, numerous efforts to devise and implement the means to change highly conflictual political relationships have not succeeded. And in some cases, these efforts have resulted in counterproductive outcomes by adding to the intensity of the conflict, reifying negative stereotypes and distorted narratives that contribute to violent behavior and war. Images of implacable hostility are strengthened when participants in dialogues reject the legitimacy of the other side, or repeat stereotypes and conflict-promoting narratives. (Hamburger, 1994; Hanssen, 2001).Given the emphasis on social-psychological models in efforts to resolve political conflict, in general, and international conflict, in particular, the absence of systematic critiques of this approach is noteworthy. While some scholars and researchers emphasize different fundamental assumptions and models, such as game theorists (Schelling 1960, Axelrod 1984) and adherents to the liberal democratic school of peacebuilding (Mac Ginty, 2010), the peace literature has largely avoided critical analysis of social-psychological models and applications. This article is designed as a preliminary attempt towards a systematic critique.The following analysis focuses on the evolution of these models and theories, examining the theoretical assumptions, as well as the efforts to apply them in specific conflict situations and environments. Evaluation methodologies, to the limited extent that these are found, will also be considered.

Translation and Political Discourse

Abstract The paper describes the text linguistic research of political texts in the field of Translation Studies and presents an overview of critical discourse analysis-based studies. First, the relationship between text, power and ideology and its implications on the role of translation are explored. This is followed by a review of a number of studies on the translation of political texts and on the power relations involved. The paper classifies such studies into the following six categories representing distinct research fields: translators' professional roles and politics; translators acting as mediators in situations of political conflict; translators' professional responsibilities and the strategies they apply; the inference of translators' own historical, social and cultural backgrounds; manipulation in the translation of literary texts and other text types; and critical discourse awareness in Translation Studies. The most recent studies in the above research fields and their results are also presented. It is concluded that these approaches exhibit quite varied research methods and their results are almost impossible to compare. With a view to the future development of this research field, it seems expedient to introduce a unified research theory, method and tool.

News blogs: strengthening democracy through conflict prevention

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to offer greater insight in the role of blogs in the creation of a more transparent news media system and a more democratic political reality.Design/methodology/approachFraming theory is employed as a conceptual tool to re‐interpret existing evidence of the performance of news blogs during situations of political conflict and war. A theoretical analysis is developed setting out the premises of the challenge that blogs can pose to the framing of conflict by mainstream media. The analysis incorporates empirical examples of reporting conflict and war in the blogosphere. Finally, with the aid of international relations theories, the role of blogs is evaluated in terms of the political transparency and accountability they could offer during conflict and war.FindingsThe analysis demonstrated that by promoting alternative and progressive voices, blogs have the capacity to shift the power over framing away from the usual sources in the news reporting of political conflict and turn the media system into a greater constraining factor for governments than even before.Originality/valueThe paper presents a novel approach to the interaction between blogs and mainstream media by combining theories from the disciplines of communications and international relations. The analysis generated a hypothesis that can be empirically assessed with the investigation of the framing output of influential news blogs and mainstream news media during political conflict and war.

Palliative Care in Situations of Conflict: Lessons From Jerusalem

Situations of political conflict are characterized by enmity and the potential for, or actual, violence. Conflict of this ilk may be manifested as outright war, a cycle of terror and reprisals, or a grumbling enmity between religious, national, ethnic, or cultural groups. Clinicians delivering palliative care in such circumstances confront challenges, including the disruption of infrastructure, bias, distrust and enmity, clinician and patient safety, and abuse of health care resources by combatants. Providing palliative care despite these obstacles is a challenge that requires planning and careful execution. When successful, good provision of palliative care, even across lines of conflict, has the capacity to mitigate enmity and promote understanding.

Is the Truth Down There?: Cultural Heritage Conflict and the Politics of Archaeological Authority

The selective pressures and processes of cultural heritage management effectively disinherit some interest groups. Where this occurs in the context of postcolonial or nationalist conflict, the material archaeological record may be referenced to support or reject particular views. The disciplinary assumptions behind the archaeological evidence so produced are not usually contested in judicial contexts. A review of archaeology’s theoretical foundations suggests that this naivety itself may be problematic. A descriptive culture history approach dominated archaeology over the first half of the twentieth century with a strong political appeal to nationalist politics. Subsequently archaeology became concerned with processual explanation and the scientific identification of universal laws of culture, consistent with postwar technological optimism and conformity. A postprocessual archaeology movement from the 1970s has promoted relativism and challenged the singular authority of scientific explanation. Archaeologists caught within this debate disagree over the use of the archaeological record in situations of political conflict. Furthermore, the use of archaeology in the sectarian debate over the Ayodhya birthplace of Rama suggests that the material record of the past can become highly politicized and seemingly irresolvable. Archaeological research is also subject to other blatant and subtle political pressures throughout the world, affecting the nature and interpretation of the record. A system that privileges archaeological information values may be irrelevant also to communities who value and manage their ancestral heritage for customary purposes. Collectively this review of theory and applied knowledge suggests that it is unrealistic to expect that archaeology can authoritatively resolve strident claims and debates about the past. Instead, an important contemporary contribution of archaeology may be its potential to document cultural and historical contradictions and inclusions for the consideration of contemporary groups in conflict.

Waging War on Children and Youth through Schooling Disruption

Education and its subsequent schooling component are among the most formative developments experienced by children and youth. It is an extremely important instrument for developing cognitive skills, for cultivating mechanisms of acceptable societal functioning and for ideological orientations. This factor is recognized by international treaties and conventions which guarantee that children and youth are entitled to a positive and safe schooling experience. However, the twentieth century began and ended with conflict. This societal propensity creates havoc on education systems in terms of two strategies: one, the total destruction of schooling or, two, schooling where an oppressor takes over governing and attempts re‐indoctrination. The question posed in this research paper is: How does schooling become disrupted due to political conflict situations? Historical antecedents indicate that a consistent evolution of the factors leading to repetitious schooling disruption emerges due to political conflict. This pattern is characterized by basic common macro factors but with some micro variables due to geographic locations. In this paper it will be argued that political conflict causes schooling disruption. The steps that unfold toward schooling disruption will be identified as a pattern that feeds the Richardson Schooling Disruption Model (RDSm).

An Early Warning System for the United Nations: Internet or Not?

Editor's Note: An ongoing discussion within international studies concerns the design of a system to provide early warning of a variety of international crises to the United Nations. In this Forum, Gavan Duffy, organizer and chair of a roundtable on the problems and prospects for early warning at the 35th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, continues the debate on a proposal for an Internet-based early warning system. This system is designed to overcome fundamental problems arising from differing theoretical perspectives toward what constitutes crisis and disaster, especially with respect to political conflict situations. Several reactions to the proposal follow, along with a final rejoinder by Duffy himself. As Duffy notes in his rejoinder, expanding discussion on this policy issue is crucial, and the Forum itself is a means forfurthering the discussion. Anyone wishing to join in the debate over early warning or the Internet proposal itself should contact the participants: Gavan Duffy, gavan@mailbox.syredu; Ted Gurr, tgurr@umd.edu; Philip Schrodt schrodt@ukanaix. cc.ukans.edu; Gottfried Mayer-Kress, gmk@pegasos.ccsruiuc.edu; and Peter Brecke, peter brecke@inta.gatech. edu.

Determinants of Readiness for Contact with Jewish Children among Young Arab Students in Israel

Organized encounters between Arab and Jewish students as a means of education for coexistence are questioned vis-à-vis the recent politicization of Arabs who are Israeli citizens, and the subsequent shift in their self-identity from “Israeli Arabs” to Palestinians. A survey of 268 seventh grade Arab students in seven segregated and mixed Jewish-Arab communities reveals that their perceptions of Jews and of their own deprivation are determined by their political self-identity rather than by earlier contact with Jews. These perceptions further influence their readiness to associate with Jewish children. Concluding that the contact hypothesis may not enhance interethnic relations in situations of political conflict, we suggest that the school system shift its focus from students' encounters to curricular programs dealing directly with the conflict issues.