Search results
examination of Lederach’s interdependence, justice and process–structure gaps, alongside the core concepts of citizen empowerment, development aid and social and economic development, provided a working definition of conflict transformation along with five criteria outlining the essential requirements for successful conflict transformation. Together they provided the conceptual and
culture, along with his interdependence gap, justice gap and process–structure gap theories, support a constructive framework. For Lederach, conflict resolution does not ‘adequately describe the ongoing nature of conflict in the relational ebb and flow over time, or its usefulness in the construction of peace’. 25 Conflict transformation, however, is much
This chapter presents a case study concerning the application of regional integration as a system of conflict resolution in the example of the Franco-German relationship of the 1950s. It traces early attempts to break the cycle of punitive peace between France and Germany, and analyses the meaning of Europeanisation during the 1950s as a strategy of peace-building accomplished through joint policy-making in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the institutionalisation of a customs union through the European Economic Community (EEC). This chapter also highlights the significance of Europeanisation for domestic political pluralism and for the politicisation of economic interdependence.
responses they generate on behalf of political actors. The second argument refers to the link between European integration and issues relevant to conflict resolution in international relations theory, such as sovereignty, interdependence, peace processes, state building, and the constitutionalisation of conflict resolution. What do the findings in the individual chapters suggest about the effects of European
relations theory and examine the EU’s conflict resolution capacity in terms of power (Barnett and Duval 2005 ), actorness (Ginsberg 1999 ), regional interdependence (Tavares 2004 ), security community building (Deutsch et al . 1957 ; Wæver 1998 ), reconciliation as a result of a common European identity (Parsons 2004 ), or desecuritisation (Diez et al . 2008a ). The
influential third powers, international organisations, structural interdependence, and liberal internationalism. The objective is to identify the elements and causal paths of integration with a capacity to resolve conflict and to contribute new insights into the intriguing relationship between European integration and peace. Building upon the proposition about the transformative nature of European governance
have bought into the idea that the state has become obsolete. Clearly it has not, 1 and the claims that neutrality holds back further integration and interdependence is a misguided view that neglects an important variable in the processes of globalisation. Sovereignty may be taking on a new form, but it is still the state that creates the conditions for a globalised world. If this were not the case
’ (Browning, 1999 ; Bukovansky, 1997 ; Goetschel, 1999 ; Goldmann, 1994 ; Malmborg, 2001 ), but this makes up a minority of the literature. Rather than mine this vein, the attachment to identity is pitched against the more important demands of interdependence and new ‘realities’ in the international system. There has been a distinctive debate which has clouded any potential work that may conceptualise neutrality as something other
characterised the immediate aftermath of bipolarity’s demise. During the Cold War years, the enemy was clearly defined. Subsequently, security was broadened to include economic, immigration, and environmental threats. Terrorism, civil conflict, human rights and individual security rose to the top of the security agenda. Interdependence and cooperation became the key to tackling the diffuse and varied security
. In fact, the problem of institutional coherence was more or less under control until the beginning of the 1980s, if only because the member states were strongly opposed to the use of communitarian instruments to implement EPC. Similarly, the Commission tried to avoid contamination of the Community pillar with intergovernmental practices (Nuttall, 2000 : 25–7). However, the growing interdependence