首页> 外文期刊>The RUSI journal >Power Sharing and Power Relations After Civil War
【24h】

Power Sharing and Power Relations After Civil War

机译:内战后的权力分享与权力关系

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In their new edited volume, Power Sharing and Power Relations After Civil War, Caroline A Hartzell and Andreas Mehler argue that scholars of power-sharing must not only study the impact of such institutional designs on 'peace', usually defined as the non-recurrence of violent conflict, but should also consider their impact on power relations between and within different organisations and groups. While the existing narrow focus on 'peace' is understandable given the human suffering caused by violence, it has meant that previous studies have not sufficiently considered the effect of power-sharing on power dynamics, though it is logical to expect that this effect would be considerable. The book's argument is compelling, especially in light of the inability of studies which focus on peace as the independent variable or outcome to reach a consensus, often, as Hartzell and Mehler highlight, due to differing understandings and operationalisation of both power-sharing and peace. Their argument is further strengthened by their reference to the fact that the use of power-sharing as a conflict resolution mechanism is logically based on an expectation that it will alter power dynamics, and hopefully correct exclusionary power structures that were part of the causes of the conflict. Their argument goes beyond ideas of power-sharing as a 'credible commitment' and instead asks whether 'power-sharing institutions of a peace agreement provide incentives for the conflict parties to transform their power relations' and whether 'government-rebel power relations thus can change from violence to nonviolence and politically exclusive to inclusive' (p. 21).
机译:Caroline A Hartzell和Andreas Mehler在其新编辑的《内战后的权力共享和权力关系》一书中指出,权力共享的学者不仅应研究此类制度设计对“和平”的影响,通常将其定义为“非重复”暴力冲突,但也应考虑其对不同组织和团体之间以及内部的权力关系的影响。鉴于暴力造成的人类苦难,目前对“和平”的狭narrow关注是可以理解的,但这意味着以前的研究并未充分考虑权力共享对权力动态的影响,尽管可以合理地预期这种影响将是大量。该书的论点令人信服,尤其是鉴于Hartsell和Mehler强调指出,由于对权力共享与和平的理解和运作方式不同,因此无法将和平作为自变量或结果达成共识的研究无能为力。通过提及以下事实,他们的论点得到进一步加强:使用权力共享作为冲突解决机制在逻辑上是基于一种期望,即它将改变权力动态,并有希望纠正构成权力冲突根源的排他性权力结构这一事实。冲突。他们的论点超越了将权力分享视为“可信承诺”的观念,而是询问“和平协议的权力分享机构是否为冲突各方提供动力来转变其权力关系”,以及“政府与叛军之间的权力关系是否可以从暴力变为非暴力,从政治上变为包容性”(第21页)。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The RUSI journal》 |2019年第3期|74-75|共2页
  • 作者

    Dawn Walsh;

  • 作者单位

    University College Dublin, Ireland;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号