Sustained vs episodic mobilization among conflict-generated diasporas

There is increased interest in the connectivity of migrants with both their host-lands and their original homelands. This article brings a social movement perspective to bear on the issue of diaspora mobilization. Why do conflict-generated diasporas from the same original homeland and living in the same host-land mobilize in sustained versus episodic ways? This article focuses on the sustained mobilization of Bosnian Muslims versus the episodic mobilization of Croats and Serbs in the Netherlands in the early 2010s. I argue that a traumatic issue that binds three actors – diaspora, host-state, and home-state – is central to such mobilization. This issue is the failure of Dutch peace-keeping forces to protect the Srebrenica enclave in 1995. Migration integration regimes, threats from radical right parties, host-state foreign policy, and transnational influences can trigger episodic diaspora mobilization, but not sustain it

'Warlord' : a discursive history of the concept in British and American imperialism, 1815-1914 and 1989-2006

The renewed interest in empire, particularly in its British and American variants, has brought into sharper relief the difficulties both metropoles faced in projecting order in the global south. Far from cohesive entities, the British and American empires tried to manage territories that defied many of the political, economic, and legal systems, as well as normative and moral understandings, that enabled their imperial ascendancy. Despite a considerable literature about how metropoles comprehended these frustrated imperial plans, limited insights can be found into the way Britain and the United States coped with the influence of war in the uneven expansion of order. This challenge is brought into focus by examining one of the most direct formulations of the relationship between war and order in US and British imperialism, namely the concept of warlord. The concept’s history, it is argued, provides a glimpse into the far-reaching influence cultural constructions of war had in how US and British policymakers, journalists, and advocates conceived of and projected order in the non-European world. Such influential understandings also inspired overstated conclusions about the degree to which both imperial powers could realise their visions of order in the global south. Drawing on discursive and historical methods, the dissertation develops a conceptual framework that distils the core features of ‘warlords’ in the US and British imperial imaginaries. This conceptual approach is used to revisit some of the most formative encounters with colonial and contemporary ‘warlords’, as captured in British and American policy debates, political commentary, and popular culture, during two highpoints in British and American imperial history, 1815-1914 and 1989-2006 respectively. These arguments bring to the forefront how instead of an ancillary part of conclusions about the inferiority of non-European cultures, as suggested in much of the post-colonial literature, notions of war conditioned many of Britain and the United States’ enduring conception of and strategies for managing the uneven development of order in the global south.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Rethinking political foundations with Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin

The problem of understanding political foundings is situated at the nexus between political philosophy and political science. This thesis rethinks founding by asking both the philosophical question of how political order comes into being, and the political science question of how to understand particular founding moments. These two questions stimulate and structure a dialogue between the works of Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin. The approach of founding in all three has a common starting point: they begin from ordinary experience and outline a political science that is mindful of the phenomenality of political life. I show that Strauss’s return to ordinary experience is partial. By limiting political life to the normative claims raised in it and submitting them to philosophical judgment, Strauss moves too quickly beyond political phenomena. His account of founding, as a consequence, vacillates between understanding particular founding acts and conceiving the perfect founding moment in abstract thought. Arendt’s work decisively shifts the problem on the side of practical understanding. Yet, her ontological account of action as appearance subtly displaces her concern for understanding historical actions. I move away from approaching historical foundings as a mode of appearing in the world, by recovering an account of action as experience. On that basis, I suggest a hermeneutics of experience which approaches foundings in light of the quest for meaning. With Voegelin founding is recovered as a symbol that exists only in the quest of understanding. Founding occurs in the experience of struggle to restore a reality that has become symbolically opaque. This experience is shared by the philosopher and the political actor; therefore to understand moments of founding requires the interweaving, and not separation, of political philosophy and political science. At the end, the quest of understanding founding moments is neither derivative, nor preparatory, but encompassing the philosophical question of how order comes into being.This thesis is not currently available in ORA

From Neo-Republicanism to Critical Republicanism

The aim of this chapter is to show how what I call critical republicanism can be developed by rethinking the neo-republican theory of domination on the basis of a more continental line of republicanism. On the one hand, I argue that with regard to all three of the most important elements of a theory of non-domination, its normative core, the conception of domination, and its institutional implications, Pettit’s neo-republicanism does contain a powerful critical potential, too easily dismissed by some of his critics. On the other hand, I show how this critical potential can be strengthened by reconceptualizing each of the elements of his theory of domination from a perspective inspired by the Kantian line of republican thought and contemporary critical theory

From Neo-Republicanism to Critical Republicanism

The aim of this chapter is to show how what I call critical republicanism can be developed by rethinking the neo-republican theory of domination on the basis of a more continental line of republicanism. On the one hand, I argue that with regard to all three of the most important elements of a theory of non-domination, its normative core, the conception of domination, and its institutional implications, Pettit’s neo-republicanism does contain a powerful critical potential, too easily dismissed by some of his critics. On the other hand, I show how this critical potential can be strengthened by reconceptualizing each of the elements of his theory of domination from a perspective inspired by the Kantian line of republican thought and contemporary critical theory