Sovereignty as It Should Be: Theoretical Gaps and Negotiations for Peace in Israel/Palestine

in International Negotiation
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This study suggests that one of the basic elements motivating political actors is their desire to minimize the tension caused by the theoretical gap between their theoretical knowledge and their perception of reality. In order to demonstrate this, the present study compares three different arenas of negotiations which reveal and represent the social construction of the concept of sovereignty: the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt (1979), the peace agreement between Israel and Jordan (1994), and the Oslo agreements between Israel and the plo (1993–1995). The comparison herein demonstrates how the need to deal with the theoretical gap can explain the sides’ behavior in reaching an agreement. Likewise, the comparison reveals that the concept of sovereignty has destabilized over the course of time. It also shows how political actors in these arenas chose to cope with the theoretical gap – mainly by changing reality – although the destabilization of the concept of sovereignty allowed them to be more creative, theoretically speaking, in the context of globalization processes.

Sovereignty as It Should Be: Theoretical Gaps and Negotiations for Peace in Israel/Palestine

in International Negotiation

Sections

References

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 76 76 11
Full Text Views 188 188 2
PDF Downloads 10 10 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0