Patterns and practices of everyday resistance:
a view from below
What is everyday resistance?
he informalities, ambiguities and contradictions that peacebuilding runs
into reflect the political nature of the process. These become visible when
examined from the everyday practices of the actors involved. In IR the
everyday has become synonymous with the makings of actual subjects in their
most quotidian roles (Autesserre 2014; Hobson and Seabrooke 2007; Mitchell
2011b; Neumann 2002). This is not so much a new field of study, as it represents a common call
Obama, Trump and the Asia Pacific political economy
international order informed by US values and interests. 3
The Trump administration is the first in the post-war era to question explicitly the desirability of America’s hegemonic aspiration and the durability of its hegemonic role. Its “America First” rhetoric and objectives signal a preference to depart from order maintenance in favour of the more transactional politics of the balance of power. Its National Security Strategy (NSS) of 2017 explicitly casts China and Russia as competitors, rather than as potential partners in the US hegemonic project.
eventually the asylum seekers were transferred to the tiny Pacific
Island nation of Nauru. This was the first of several government actions
to dramatize the problem of what they called illegal immigrants, and to
successfully neutralize what had become a running political sore for it.
Two weeks later the terrible events of September 11 made security
concerns far more urgent than they had been at least since the end of
environmental degradation and the outbreak of violent
civil or interstate conflict’.2 This proposition reflects current research
suggesting that globally fresh water is the renewable resource most likely to
be a source of conflict in the near future.3
Historically water provided a cultural, economic and geographical focus
for Central Asia. The khanates’ political culture, including deferential collectivism, was associated with water scarcity and the organisational requirements of the construction and maintenance of irrigation systems.4 Irrigation
was ‘one of the principle
that not only did David Cameron feel compelled to back Labour’s pledges on aid spending but his first Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, claimed that international development policy had moved beyond party politics (Glennie, 2012 ). Labour’s policy effort in government was not without its problems and tensions, and has been the subject of a substantial literature. 1 However, in opposition, and in a markedly different domestic and international climate, Labour had to rethink its approach.
How Labour’s policy
foreign policy elites ( Kerr et al ., 2003 ; Thomas and Tow, 2002a ; Tow et al .,
2000 ). The importation of human security concerns to
Southeast Asia has thus been conducted in such a way as to reduce
its impact on security politics by replacing its primary concern
with individual insecurity 1 with the concerns and interests of elites.
Similarly, the importation of ‘constructivism’ into
Keeping this in mind, it is significant here that the key participants in this research project are youth, since, although it has only just begun to be well recognised, ‘Young people are key stakeholders in peace and security efforts’.
The early part of the twenty-first century has seen an increased focus on youth in global political discourse, including that of key international aid and development programmes, such as those hosted by the UN and the World Bank, among others.
-referential, in the
process drawing on an ever smaller number of (usually American) gurus
who have little regard for the longer-term currents of world history, even
within their own culture. Yet the older traditions of international relations’
political and intellectual history are far too precious to be left to moulder
away on the shelves of libraries. If this book has one good effect it will be to
take the strain off borrowings of international relations theorists of the
1970s and 1980s and to put it back on to, especially, those writing between
the 1920s and the 1940s.
Twentieth-century Germany in the debates of Anglo-American international
lawyers and transitional justice experts
twentieth century. Though being deeply complicit in the racist ideologies and practices of European imperialism, its followers also promoted a ‘progressive’ or ‘scientific’ understanding of law as opposed to politics, and the idea of a ‘global humanity’ with common moral standards, shared by a transnational community of experts and enlightened citizens.
Due to the various ‘cultural turns’ in law and political sciences, critical assessment of international law’s ideological roots and baggage has become the state of the art in legal historiography. Thanks to the studies
theoretical context within which I situated my analysis, I understand what has been discovered here as an effect of power relations as well as recognising that the knowledge is produced by a source that demonstrates a novel epistemic authority on account of its own technical know-how and the special information it is privy to. Rather than simply being viewed as benign or neutral elements of a discourse, the various features I have unearthed should be understood as intentional actions, operationalised within determinate political contexts ( Heller, 1996 , p. 87). In