With growing multipolarity and geopolitical polarization, the role of international organizations as third-party actors within the framework of liberal peace, has been steadily declining over the past two decades. The most recent spike in armed conflict since 2014 has not been accompanied by an associated increase in peace agreements and negotiated settlements, as was the case in the 1990s. Considering the undersupply of conflict management by international organizations, the role of state actors in third-party roles has grown, often with weak normative support and commitment to nonviolent conflict management. This has often legitimized the use of violence as a strategy of coercive kinetic diplomacy. Drawing from historical analyses of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, this article examines the question as to whether the current period of growing illiberalism in peacebuilding is historically anachronistic. It introduces a framework of analysis and engages in concept development to understand and operationalize “illiberality of peacebuilding.”
Diaspora groups across the world have been known for adopting and inventing processes and forms of ‘homemaking’ in their host lands. This article brings into focus the methods of homemaking assumed by the Indo-Surinamese Hindustani diaspora in the Netherlands, which owes its origin to colonial dispersal. Considering their status as a ‘twice-migrant’ diaspora, the process may appear to be distinctly difficult for the Hindustanis, a position this article seeks to examine. The article interrogates the notion of homemaking in the case of the Hindustanis through ethnographic conversational interviews of Indo-Surinamese interlocutors—a unique perspective based on personal histories and everyday experiences.
Extending voting rights to citizens living abroad has been one of the longest debated subjects in the Turkish Parliament, even more persistent than is generally assumed in academic and political circles. In this study, we aim to understand how Turkish political decision-makers conceived Turkey’s external residents’ right to vote from abroad and the rationalisations and conjectures put forward by parliamentarians during different political times. For this purpose, we traced parliamentary minutes back from the beginning of Turkey’s two party-system to the present. We found that two channels of demand for change existed: pressure from citizens living overseas and individual parliamentarians who had connections with residents abroad. We also noticed that opposition parties’ agenda towards the Turkish diaspora’s right to vote differed when they took control of the government. Additionally, we found that coups d’état and the established bureaucracy in Turkey resisted the diaspora’s right to participate in national elections.
Domestic support reforms remain an unresolved and contentious issue in the WTO agricultural negotiations. There are proposals to halve the current global trade-distorting domestic support entitlements by 2030, where members would have to undertake reductions proportionate to their existing domestic support entitlements. This study critically examines the implications of the proportional reduction approach on the policy space of 164 WTO members to support their farmers. The results show that this approach fails to address the issues and concerns of developing members regarding domestic support reforms, and these members would be required to undertake higher reduction commitments than their developed counterparts. Additionally, the per-farmer entitlement for developed members would remain massive under this approach. Contrary to general belief, the least developed countries would lose half of their flexibility to support their farmers. Further, the proposed approach would dilute the existing special and differential treatment for developing, and least developed, members.
I had the occasion of visualising the French political Twitter just before the presidential election of 2022, in collaboration with other researchers and the journalists of the French newspaper Le Monde. In this paper, I reflect on this case in an auto-ethnographic style to open the black box of visual network analysis and expose the entangled dialogue between human expertise and computation. I contend that the visualisation’s validity does not root in mechanical objectivity because human judgement was involved at multiple levels, even though that work is not visible in the produced image itself. Like the proverbial “mechanical Turk”, a 18th century chess-playing automaton actually hiding a human player, this big data visualisation hides a reliance on man-made decisions. I first present the origin and social dynamic of this project, I document the methodology employed, I unpack what the map represents, and I explain how to read it (that section is incidentally relevant to the reader interested in French politics). I then return to the question of human judgment to expose in detail how the map was shaped by a negotiation between the journalists from Le Monde, my own research agenda, our methodological commitments, the algorithms employed, and the constraints imposed by the data themselves.
This article investigates the interplay between liberal norms, hybridity, and illiberal peace by proposing ‘hybridity by design’ as a framework for understanding domestic agency of political actors in ‘homegrown’ peace processes. Hybridity by design refers to strategies used in peace processes that are not guided by external third parties for selectively adopting norms and practices associated with the liberal peace model while maintaining an illiberal peacemaking approach. The study focuses on the case of Turkey’s recent experience in peacemaking regarding the Kurdish conflict in two periods. First, the 2009–2015 period is analyzed as a ‘homegrown’ peace process during which ‘hybridity by design’ was the primary strategy used by the government to promote peacemaking combining liberal and illiberal norms and practices. In the post-2015 period, the government emphasized the ‘authentic’ aspects of the Kurdish issue, adopting a friend/enemy discourse, delegitimizing opponents, and rejecting negotiations as a means for solving the conflict.