Paying Refugees to Leave

States are increasingly paying refugees to repatriate, hoping to decrease the number of refugees residing within their borders. Drawing on in-depth interviews from East Africa and data from Israeli Labour Statistics, I provide a description of such payment schemes and consider whether they are morally permissible. In doing so, I address two types of cases. In the first type of case, governments pay refugees to repatriate to high-risk countries, never coercing them into returning. I argue that such payments are permissible if refugees’ choices are voluntary and if states allow refugees to return to the host country in the event of an emergency. I then describe cases where states detain refugees, and non-governmental organisations provide their own payments to refugees wishing to repatriate. In such cases, non-governmental organisations are only permitted to provide payments if the funds are sufficient to ensure post-return safety and if providing payments does not reinforce the government’s detention policy

Accounting for International War: The State of the Discipline

In studies of war it is important to observe that the processes leading to so frequent an event as conflict are not necessarily those that lead to so infrequent an event as war. Also, many models fail to recognize that a phenomenon irregularly distributed in time and space, such as war, cannot be explained on the basis of relatively invariant phenomena. Much research on periodicity in the occurrence of war has yielded little result, suggesting that the direction should now be to focus on such variables as diffusion and contagion. Structural variables, such as bipolarity, show contradictory results with some clear inter-century differences. Bipolarity, some results suggest, might have different effects on different social entities. A considerable number of studies analysing dyadic variables show a clear connection between equal capabilities among contending nations and escalation of conflict into war. Finally, research into national attributes often points to strength and geographical location as important variables. In general, the article concludes, there is room for modest optimism, as research into the question of war is no longer moving in non-cumulative circles. Systematic research is producing results and there is even a discernible tendency of convergence, in spite of a great diversity in theoretical orientations.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/69148/2/10.1177_002234338101800101.pd

Discussions and Reviews : The content of international studies in college: a review

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/67789/2/10.1177_002200276400800106.pd

Message Framing Surrounding the Oslo I Accords

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the secret negotiations and the public rhetoric of Palestinian and Israeli leaders leading up to the Oslo I Accords. To accomplish this goal, we coded public statements made by Israeli and Palestinian leaders in the months preceding the accords and the events that unfolded during the talks. We hypothesized that the Palestinian leaders, as nonstate actors, would engage in outbidding by showing a more aggressive, backward-looking orientation in public. Israeli leaders, as state actors, would engage in frontstage-backstage behavior and display a more balanced public rhetoric. The results showed that the Palestinians focused on justice issues framed as mistrust and backward looking. This public framing was associated with retreat in the private talks. In contrast, the Israelis switched between positively and negatively framed rhetoric with forward-looking and affiliative statements correlated with lack of progress and backward-looking and mistrust rhetoric associated with progress in the talks.27 page(s

On Legitimacy Crises and the Resources of Global Governance Institutions: A Surprisingly Weak Relationship?

While scholars commonly assume that Global Governance Institutions (GGIs) need legitimacy to perform effectively, there are few systematic empirical studies assessing the consequences of legitimacy (or the lack thereof) for the functioning of GGIs. Inspired by the new institutionalism in organization theory, which predicts that more legitimate organizations will get more resources than illegitimate ones, we look into how legitimacy affects the resourcing of GGIs. We assess how crises of legitimacy affect the staff and financial resources of 21 GGIs from 1985 to 2015. Multivariate statistical analysis suggests that the effects of legitimacy crises on GGI resourcefulness are interesting but surprisingly weak, often GGI specific, and dependent on time and the source of the challenge. Specifically, we find that elite criticisms of GGIs lead to deep resource cuts in the short and medium term, while the effect of mass protests takes longer. The paper concludes by setting an agenda for further theorizing and empirical testing of the consequences of legitimacy in global governance