首页> 外文OA文献 >Why do conflict-generated diasporas pursue sovereignty-based claims through state-based or transnational channels? : Armenian, Albanian and Palestinian diasporas in the UK compared
【2h】

Why do conflict-generated diasporas pursue sovereignty-based claims through state-based or transnational channels? : Armenian, Albanian and Palestinian diasporas in the UK compared

机译:为什么冲突引起的侨民通过国家或跨国渠道追求基于主权的主张? :比较了英国的亚美尼亚人,阿尔巴尼亚人和巴勒斯坦人的侨民

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Over the past decade, diaspora mobilization has become of increasing interest to International Relations scholars who study terrorism, civil wars and transnational social movements and networks. Nevertheless, an important area remains under-researched: conditions, causal mechanisms and processes of diaspora mobilization vis-a-vis emerging states, especially in a comparative perspective. This article asks why diaspora entrepreneurs in liberal states pursue the sovereignty goals of their original homelands through the institutional channels of their host-states, through transnational channels or use a dual-pronged approach. Empirically, the article focuses on a comparison between the Albanian, Armenian and Palestinian diasporas in the UK and their links to the emerging states of Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh and Palestine. Two variables act together to explain differences in mobilization patterns: the host-state’s foreign policy stance towards the homeland’s sovereignty goal; and diaspora positionality, the relative power diaspora entrepreneurs perceive as deriving from their social positions in a transnational space between host-state and homeland. If a host-state’s foreign policy stance is closed towards the sovereignty goal, but diaspora entrepreneurs experience their positionality as relatively strong vis-a-vis the host-state, they are more likely to mobilize through host-state channels, as in the Armenian case. If the foreign policy stance is closed towards the sovereignty goal, but the diaspora positionality is weak, activists are more likely to pursue transnational channels, as in the Palestinian case. If the foreign policy stance is open towards the sovereignty goal, but the diaspora positionality is weak, entrepreneurs are likely to engage with both channels, as in the Albanian case.
机译:在过去的十年中,散居海外的动员引起了研究恐怖主义,内战以及跨国社会运动和网络的国际关系学者的越来越多的兴趣。然而,仍在研究一个重要领域:相对于新兴国家散居移民的条件,因果机制和过程,尤其是在比较的角度。本文提出了一个问题,为什么自由邦的侨民企业家通过其所在国的体制渠道,通过跨国渠道或采用双重方式追求其祖国的主权目标。从经验上讲,本文着重比较英国的阿尔巴尼亚人,亚美尼亚人和巴勒斯坦人的侨民及其与新兴国家科索沃,纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫和巴勒斯坦的联系。两个变量共同作用以解释动员方式的差异:东道国对祖国主权目标的外交政策立场;和散居者的地位,散居者企业家的相对权力被视为源自他们在东道国与祖国之间的跨国空间中的社会地位。如果东道国对外交目标的外交政策立场是封闭的,但散居在外的企业家相对于东道国而言的地位相对较强,那么他们更有可能通过东道国的渠道进行动员,就像在亚美尼亚那样案件。如果对主权目标不采取外交政策立场,但散居海外的人的地位很弱,那么与巴勒斯坦人一样,激进主义者更有可能寻求跨国渠道。如果对主权目标持开放的外交政策立场,但散居国外的人的地位很弱,那么企业家可能会像阿尔巴尼亚那样,通过这两种渠道参与进来。

著录项

  • 作者

    Koinova, Maria;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2014
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
代理获取

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