Low Expectations? Stabilization and stability operations as the ‘new normal’ in international interventions

We are pleased to present the workshop “Low Expectations? Stabilization and stability operations as the ‘new normal’ in international interventions”. This terrific workshop will take place at the University of Trento, in February (2nd-3rd, Department of Sociology and Social Research).

Here you’ll find all the details.

Here below additional info on the event and the programme.

The notion of “stability” and the practice of “stability operations” experienced a resurgence in the last decade. The United Nations, with operations in Haiti, in the Central African Republic, in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Mali has re-framed the lexicon and practice of its interventions in this direction. NATO has been similarly focusing on “projecting stability” as one of the cornerstones to guarantee the Alliance’s security.
The reasons for such re-framing are diverse. The lengthy, costly and casualty-heavy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq inevitably led to intervention fatigue. In the last decade or so, either interventions in conflict-ridden countries did not take place (as in Syria) or were based on minimal footprint (as in Libya), at least compared to the previous large-scale operations with ambitious social, economic and political engineering goals. In this evolving context, the conceptual and operational parameters of these stabilization interventions are still opaque.
This workshop aims at dissecting how these “new” practices emerged and are unfolding, how they have been analysed in the academic literature, what are their sub-components (e.g. what role civil-military relations or intelligence play in these operations), and how they are linked to the broader security and development discourse.

Program

Day 1, Friday, February 2nd

13:00 pm Light Lunch
2:00 pm Roberto Belloni (University of Trento) & Francesco N. Moro (University of Bologna)
Introduction to the Workshop
2:15 pm Stefano Costalli (University of Florence) & Francesco N. Moro (University of Bologna)
Promoting democracy or averting war? Regime transitions, international interventions, and political instability
3:15 pm Jana Krause (University of Amsterdam)
Communal violence in the shadow of civil war: Implications for Stabilization and Protection
4:15 pm Coffee break
4:30 pm Marina Henke (Northwestern University, USA)
Why do UN peacekeepers die?
5:30 pm John Karlsrud (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Oslo)
Getting the Right Tool for the Wrong Reasons? Examining United Nations Stability Operations
6:30 pm End of Day 1
8:00 pm Social dinner

Day 2, Saturday, February 3rd

9:00 am Mats Berdal (King’s College, London)
NATO’s Attempt at Stabilisation in Afghanistan, 2003-2014: Issues and Lessons
10:00 am Luca Raineri (Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa) & Francesco Strazzari (Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa & Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Oslo)
Hybrid orders and stabilisation efforts in the Sahelo-Saharan space
11:00 am Coffee break
11:15 am Roberto Belloni (Trento) & Irene Costantini (“L’Orientale” University of Napoli)
Iraq 2003-2017: changing approaches to stability
12:15 pm Discussion on future prospects
1:00 pm Light lunch
2:00 pm Tavola Rotonda – Roundtable (in Italian):
Lo studio della pace e della guerra in Italia e nell’Unione Europea – The study of peace and war in Italy and in the European Union

Participants:

  • Valentina Bartolucci (Agency for Peacebuilding, Bologna)
  • Roberto Belloni (University of Trento)
  • Vincenzo Bove (University of Warwick)
  • Stefano Costalli (University of Florence)
  • Irene Costantini (”L’Orientale” University of Napoli)
  • Fabrizio Coticchia (University of Genova)
  • Sara De Simone (University of Trento)
  • Bernardo Monzani (Agency for Peacebuilding, Bologna)
  • Francesco N. Moro (University of Bologna)
  • Francesco Strazzari (SSSUP, Pisa & Oslo)

Convenors:

  • Roberto Belloni, University of Trento
  • Francesco N. Moro, University of Bologna

 

See you in Trento.

Share Button

La missione in Niger e la politica di difesa italiana. Un’analisi.

A quanto sembra, l’Italia invierà un contingente militare (circa 500 unità) in Niger. Sia il Primo Ministro Gentiloni che la responsabile del Dicastero della Difesa Pinotti hanno confermato la prossima operazione italiana nel Sahel. Nei prossimi giorni il Parlamento affronterà la questione e avremo maggiori dettagli rispetto al tipo di attività previste sul campo. Sono comunque già emersi alcuni particolari relativi al prossimo impegno delle forze armate oltre confine. Come scrive la Rivista Italiana Difesa: “La missione, che verrà dispiegata nel Paese del Sahel nelle prossime settimane, avrà il compito di addestrare le Forze Armate e di Polizia nigerine e supportarle nel controllo e monitoraggio di un’area strategica al confine con la Libia, fondamentale per i flussi migratori ed i traffici diretti verso l’Europa e l’Italia […] La missione sarà composta da un numero massimo di 470 militari ed oltre 100 veicoli e si schiererà sul terreno in 3 fasi con una prima aliquota di 30 unità, poi 120 ed il totale entro la fine dell’anno”.

Quali gli obiettivi della missione? Nelle parole di Gentiloni: “Il terrorismo è andato consolidandosi in questi anni nel Sahel, in Africa, ed è questo uno dei motivi per i quali una parte delle forze che sono state dispiegate in Iraq – questa è la proposta che il governo farà in Parlamento – saranno dispiegate nei prossimi mesi in Niger, con una missione che avrà il ruolo di consolidare quel Paese, contrastare il traffico degli esseri umani e contrastare il terrorismo”.

Secondo Jean-Pierre Darnis, responsabile del Programma di ricerca Sicurezza, Difesa, Spazio dello IAI, la nuova missione italiana in Niger rappresenta per l’Italia la saldatura tra “un interesse nazionale essenzialmente rivolto alla Libia” e “la visione francese, tedesca e statunitense di stabilizzazione dell’intera zona saheliana, con un connubio fra lotta al terrorismo, stabilità delle frontiere, contrasto all’emigrazione clandestina e sviluppo locale” (qui la sua analisi).

Alcuni hanno criticato la “missione in teatro di guerra” che “rischia di prestarsi alla violazione dei diritti umani di tante persone perseguitate, che cercando di fuggire dalle zone di conflitto”.

Al di là di polemiche e del dibattito contingente, alla luce del lungo processo di evoluzione post-bipolare della Difesa italiana e della considerevole trasformazione militare avvenuta, è opportuno evidenziare gli elementi di continuità e discontinuità della missione, nonché gli aspetti-chiave che consentono di illustrare lo stato attuale della Difesa. In altre parole, prendendo spunto dalla discussione attuale relativa alla missione in Niger è possibile – attraverso uno sguardo più ampio – illustrare lo “stato dell’arte” della Difesa italiana ed i suoi tratti peculiari. Eccone alcuni:

  • Come accade spesso, l’iter parlamentare relativo ad una operazione militare nazionale non appare “lineare”. L’Italia, infatti, contrariamente ad altri paesi (per esempio la Germania), non si è dotata (per decenni…) di una legislazione chiara sul ruolo delle Camere in materia di approvazione di operazioni militari oltre frontiere (per una riflessione accademica sul tema si rimanda ai paper e ai lavori di alcuni autori di questo convegno). La retorica delle “operazioni di polizia internazionale” (inaugurata nel 1990-91 ai tempi di “Desert Storm”) e delle “missioni di pace” ha consentito per anni di bypassare i limiti costituzionali, tanto che spesso gli interventi sono stati approvati da deputati e senatori dopo l’effettivo impiego delle forze militari (come nel caso del Kosovo nel 1999). Le riforme successive (1997, 2000), pur “regolamentando” la pratica del rifinanziamento, non hanno fatto chiarezza, limitando nei fatti il dibattito nelle aule parlamentari, riducendo così gli audience costs per il governo di fronte ad una opinione pubblica spesso in disaccordo sulle missioni, e garantendo ad un generalizzato sostegno bipartisan sulle “operazioni di pace” uno scarso – ma funzionale – livello di attenzione politica. Solo nel dicembre 2016 l’Italia si è dotata (finalmente!) di una legge organica sulle missioni. Vedremo, a partire dal caso del Niger, se le cose cambieranno e se il parlamento avrà effettivamente un ruolo più incisivo riguardo le operazioni oltre confine (costi, obiettivi, durata, regole di ingaggio, ecc.);
  • La missione in Sahel conferma un tratto dominante dell’impegno militare italiano oltre frontiera: il ruolo dell’addestramento delle forze locali. Il training delle forze di sicurezza e di polizia è divenuto cruciale nelle odierne operazioni (in particolare di quelle di stabilizzazione e di contro-insorgenza) data la necessità di rafforzare la capacità delle strutture statuali delle aree di intervento nel garantire con proprie forze la sicurezza, limitando al contempo i boots on the ground di forze occidentali. Gli italiani, inoltre, impiegano da anni un asset particolarmente apprezzato e richiesto: i Carabinieri. Data la loro natura “mista” essi infatti hanno da lustri collezionato una vasta esperienza di formazione di forze locali. Ma anche altre forze nazionali sono state constatemene impiegate nell’addestramento, come avvenuto anche di recente in Iraq, nei confronti dei soldati iracheni e delle milizie curde. Appare interessante notare come all’addestramento si accompagni spesso un processo di supporto e di assistenza delle forze locali sul campo, anche in operazioni di combattimento (come sta ancora avvenendo in Afghanistan nonostante il buio mediatico). Vedremo se anche in Niger accadrà lo stesso (di certo il livello di attenzione dei media scommettiamo rimarrà molto limitato se non assente..);
  • Al di là delle polemiche attuali relative al controverso rapporto con la Francia, la missione in Niger conferma la centralità di quella che può essere considerata la caratteristica dominante del complesso percorso di trasformazione delle forze armate italiane: l’interoperabilità multinazionale. In altre parole, la capacità delle forze di operare sul campo assieme ad altri contingenti. L’Afghanistan ha dimostrato il livello di sviluppo di tale interoperabilità, soprattutto all’interno di framework multilaterali, in primis la NATO. Vedremo se anche nel caso del Niger il contesto multilaterale si confermerà come linea guida centrale della politica di difesa italiana oppure se l’operazione avverrà (come più raramente è successo) in uno scenario multinazionale, forse preludio di uno sviluppo “a cerchi ristretti” delle difesa tra paesi europei;
  • Come già avvenuto più volte nel contesto bipolare, l’Italia impiega il proprio strumento militare per contrastare minacce non militari, come appunto l’”immigrazione clandestina” o il crimine organizzato. Dalle operazioni navali contri pirateria e traffico di essere umani, fino all’uso della portaerei Cavour in seguito all’”emergenza umanitaria” di Haiti, l’Italia da anni schiera i proprio soldati (all’estero ma anche in Italia) contro tali minacce “multidimensionali” alla sicurezza nazionale (per un’analisi cross-time dell’uso delle forze armate italiane contro minacce non militari si veda questo paper). Terrorismo e flussi migratori appaiono i due temi-chiave anche della missione in Niger;
  • Infine, la missione in Niger sembra rappresentare un passaggio-centrale nel processo che potremmo definire di “riposizionamento strategico” dell’Italia, evidente (almeno nelle intenzioni) dal Libro Bianco 2015 (per un’analisi approfondita si veda qui). Il Mediterraneo viene definito, infatti, come l’area strategicamente centrale per l’interesse nazionale italiano: “La nostra posizione geopolitica, centrale nel bacino Mediterraneo, inoltre, ci offre opportunità, ma anche ineludibili obblighi. L’Italia è capace e desiderosa di esercitare un ruolo riconosciuto di responsabilità nella sua area di riferimento agendo, secondo le sue possibilità e in armonia con la Comunità internazionale, per contribuire alla pace e allo sviluppo regionale. In tale ottica, la Difesa metterà al servizio del Paese le sue multiformi capacità di capire, prevenire, affrontare e risolvere le situazioni di crisi e di sviluppare un tessuto di relazioni in grado di favorire la stabilizzazione dell’area mediterranea”. Proprio nel Mediterraneo, dalle operazioni navali fino alla Libia, l’Italia ha svolto (se con successo o meno non stiamo qui a giudicarlo) un ruolo di primo piano negli ultimi anni. Certo, dall’impegno umanitario di Mare Nostrum alle controverse decisioni adottate questa estate rispetto al tema del “rafforzamento della guardia costiera libica” e al traffico di migranti (ampiamente, e con estremo dettaglio, denunciate da organizzazioni che tutelano i diritti umani) il cambiamento è apparso considerevole. Dalle parole dei decision-makers italiani relativi alla missione in Niger, sembra poi che si stia verificando uno shift considerevole in materia di impegno militare nazionale, dall’Afghanistan e l’Iraq (i teatri centrali della presenza militare italiana nel post-11 settembre) fino al Sahel (chiamato un po’ stranamente “Mediterraneo allargato”…).

Vedremo se tale percorso di “riposizionamento strategico” sarà effettivo o meno solo in futuro. Nelle prossime settimane avremo notizie più dettagliate relative all’impego militare italiano in Niger. Venus continuerà a seguire da vicino la missione, cercando sempre di collegare gli eventi della difesa italiana (e non solo) al dibattito accademico (seppur limitato nel caso nazionale, comunque presente).

Nel frattempo Venus va in vacanza qualche giorno e augura ai suoi lettori buone feste…

Share Button

Projecting Stability in an Unstable World

What is stability? What policies can lead to “stable” outcomes in countries emerging from civil wars or undergoing political upheavals? A 2-day workshop sponsored by NATO – Allied Command Transformation and organized by the University of Bologna and the Istituto Affari Internazionali – IAI has been addressing these questions in the past Spring. Academics, think tankers and practitioners (from IOs and NGOs) participated to the event.

Now, a report summarizing the main findings of the Workshop has been released (you can find it on the UNIBO and IAI websites).  The report, entitled “Projecting Stability in an Unstable World” and edited by Sonia Lucarelli and Francesco Moro (UNIBO) and Alessandro Marrone (IAI), features 3 sections discussing (1) stability and stabilization, (2) the interactions among international stakeholders and (3) the interactions between IOs and NGOs.

Share Button

Italy from Crisis to Crisis: Political Economy, Security, and Society in the 21st Century

We are really pleased to recommend you this book, just published: “Italy from Crisis to Crisis: Political Economy, Security, and Society in the 21st Century“, edited by Matt Evangelista (Routledge, 2017).

Here you’ll find the table of contents

Among the contributors: Sidney Tarrow, Jonathan Hopkin, Julia Lynch, Elisabetta Brighi and many others. Also “our” Fabrizio Coticchia wrote a chapter on Italian post-Cold War defense policy.

Here below a summary of the book

Italy from Crisis to Crisis seeks to understand Italy’s approach to crises by studying the country in regional, international, and comparative context. Without assuming that the country is abnormal or unusually crisis-prone, the authors treat Italy as an example from which other countries might learn.

The book integrates the analysis of domestic politics and foreign policy, including Italy’s approach to military interventions, energy security, economic relations with the European Union (EU), and to the NATO alliance, and covers a number of issues that normally receive little attention in studies of “high politics,” such as information policy, national identity, immigration, youth unemployment, and family relations. Finally, it puts Italy in a comparative perspective – with other European states, naturally – but also with Latin America, and even the United States, all countries that have experienced similar crises to Italy’s and similar – often populist – responses.

This text will be of key interest to scholars and students of, and courses on, Italian politics and history, European politics and, more broadly, comparative politics and democracy.

 

Share Button

Call for papers – Between Rights and Fear: Evaluating the Migration-Terrorism Nexus in Europe

Guest Post by Elisa Piras*

 

The University of Bologna Team of GLOBUS, coordinated by Sonia Lucarelli, organises a workshop to explore the (actual and perceived) links between migration and terrorism from different perspectives and disciplinary approaches. The workshop will take place at the University Centre of Bertinoro, on June 4-6, 2018.

GLOBUS – Reconsidering European Contributions to Global Justice (2016-2020) is a multidisciplinary, transnational research project coordinated by the ARENA Centre for European Studies at the University of Oslo and funded by an Horizon 2020 Action. The University of Bologna Team is one of the eight research partners involved in the project; its research activities focus on migration.

About the workshop

In the past few years, the EU has seen significant arrivals of migrants and refugees that have challenged the EU’s internal cohesion and have been instrumentally used by populist and nationalist movements to raise public concerns. At the same time, terrorist attacks have multiplied in Europe, some perpetrated by migrants of first or second generation claiming allegiance to Islamic fundamentalist groups.

The workshop has four main aims:

  1. Evaluate the relations between terrorism and migration at the global level, exploring the ethical implications
  2. Study the social construction through narratives and practices of the link between migration and terrorism in European societies.
  3. Study the link between terrorism and migration in the EU’s foreign policy and in the global governance of migration
  4. Study the tension between different justice claims through case-studies We welcome proposals for papers relevant to any of the above aims.

Expenses: Participants from Universities who are not GLOBUS partner institutions will have their expenses fully covered.

Proposals: Please send a proposal with name, affiliation, title and abstract of the paper to sps.globus@unibo.it and michela.ceccorulli2@unibo.it by 15 December 2017. A selection will follow. Please acknowledge that only a limited number of papers will be accepted due to space constraints in the workshop programme.

Deadline: The accepted participants should send the full paper to the organizers by May 15, 2018.

Further information

Please visit the page http://www.globus.uio.no/events/workshops/bologna-migration-and-terrorism-june-2018.html

 

* Research Fellow in Political Philosophy at Sant’Anna School for Advanced Studies

Share Button

Nasce l'”Osservatorio sui Conflitti”

Venus è lieta di dare risalto al nuovo “Osservatorio sui Conflitti” creato dal Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche (DISPO) dell’Università di Genova.

Qui trovate tutte le informazioni su questo centro di ricerca e i dettagli relativi agli eventi (passati e futuri) organizzati a Genova.

L’”Osservatorio sui Conflitti” si pone lo scopo di creare “un centro per lo studio dell’evoluzione della sicurezza internazionale, dei conflitti contemporanei, della politica comparata, del pensiero politico sulla pace e sulla guerra“. Da segnalare (come emerge dal profilo del comitato scientifico) l’approccio interdisciplinare (e internazionale) allo studio dei conflitti.

I temi di ricerca affrontato dall’Osservatorio riguardano “lo studio dei conflitti, del pensiero politico relativo alla pace e alla guerra, della relazione tra narrazioni strategiche e sicurezza, della trasformazione militare, del terrorismo, delle politiche estere e di difesa in Italia ed in Europa, del peacebuilding, del rapporto tra partiti e politica estera“.

La “sede” del centro è rappresentata unicamente dalla sua piattaforma web.

L’Osservatorio si collega anche al nostro blog per una serie di iniziative alle quali daremo visibilità in futuro.

Share Button

Guest Post. Italian Foreign Policy: To Take Arms against a Sea of Troubles?

We’ve already talked about the special issue on Italian foreign policy recently published by the Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica.

Here below we present two very interesting papers published in the special issue.  We would like to thank the authors for the summary of their papers.

 

  • Italy and the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Playing the two-level game

By Andrea Cofelice*

“The Human Rights Council is built on the same foundations of our Constitution: human rights and international peace, to be sought through dialogue among peoples of different cultures”. This brief excerpt from a speech delivered by the former President of the Italian Republic Giorgio Napolitano in 2011, singles out a relevant component of Italy’s foreign policy, namely the promotion of human rights, multilateralism, and the international system governed by the rule of law. This “national role conception”, which is constantly reaffirmed by Italian highest-level political representatives and diplomats in multilateral contexts, does not denote a legitimization of an intransigent pacifism, but rather epitomizes a concrete political choice dictated by the realism suited to a middle-sized power, indicating the community of nations as the frame of reference for Italy’s place in the world.

Due to the relevance of human rights and multilateralism for Italy’s foreign policy, this article aims to assess Italy’s actual behaviour in the framework of the United Nations Human Rights Council, that is the main multilateral forum dealing with human rights at the global level. The focus, in particular, is on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), i.e. a peer review mechanism launched in 2008, through which all UN member states can make recommendations to each other regarding human rights practices. Since it represents a new global approach in the promotion of human rights, how it performs and how credibly its work is viewed will considerably impact on the perceptions of the Human Rights Council more broadly.

Drawing on role theory, liberal and constructivist institutionalism, and the two-level game approach, the analysis reveals that Italian decision-makers played parallel games at the domestic and international tables of the UPR, and managed to adapt country’s human rights foreign policy goals according to the different social contexts where they operated. Indeed, while in the review phase in Geneva, Italy sought legitimacy for both its policies and its status as an international ‘human rights friendly’ actor, at domestic level a policy of inactivity was chosen, in order to minimize the impact of the most costly UPR recommendations, and protect the dynamics of domestic politics. These findings concur to convey the idea that, in its foreign policy, Italy tends to adopt an instrumental approach towards human rights promotion in order to gain international reputation.

 

  • Italy and the Fiscal Compact: Why does a country commit to permanent austerity?

By Manuela Moschella**

The paper sheds light on the factors that led the Italian government to accede to the Fiscal Compact – an international Treaty whose implementation is, at least, problematic for a country with high debt and low growth as Italy is. Specifically, the paper investigates Italian policymakers’ preferences during the negotiations.

Based on a systematic examination of the public pronouncements of the key government officials that led the Italian negotiating team, the article found only limited support for the propositions according to which the government used the Fiscal Compact to led a dysfunctional political system to adopt sound macroeconomic policies. Likewise, the analysis does not support the conclusion that the Italian government supported the Compact out of a profound belief about the benefits of the enhanced fiscal discipline that the Treaty stipulates. Government members did not reject the principle of fiscal discipline as a good practice to be followed. However, they were not significantly persuaded that this was the best strategy to follow in the period under investigation. In short, the analysis thus not lend support to the basic propositions that underpin the logic of the ‘external constraint’ as articulated in most of the scholarship that examined the Italian stance in the negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty.

If the logic of the ‘external constraint’ is not substantially supported by the documentary evidence, the logic of punishment was key in inducing the government to support the Treaty. In particular, Italian government officials were deeply convinced that the country was in no position to articulate a serious criticism to the edifice of the Treaty because doing otherwise would have led to adverse market reaction. Interestingly, this conclusion was reinforced by the fact that, at the time the Fiscal Compact was negotiated, the Eurozone had still not developed its crisis management framework. Such an institutional gap in the EMU governance exposed Italy to the risk of entering into a financial crisis without a serious insurance from other Eurozone members. Furthermore, the fact that the Fiscal Compact was embedded in a larger set of fiscal rules that would remain in place, even if the Treaty were to be rejected, contributed weakening opposition to the new provisions.

In addition to the institutional set up, the documentary evidence reveals that the weight attributed to market instability was amplified by the pro-European attitude of key government officials. Specifically, the strong pro-European orientations of Monti and Moavero contributed to the conclusion that Italy had to remain at the negotiating table – its costs notwithstanding.

 

Here you’ll find the link to the whole Special Issue.

 

We would like to thank again the authors.

*ANDREA COFELICE Centre for Studies on Federalism, Turin.

** MANUELA MOSCHELLA Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa-Florence.

Share Button

Call for Papers & Panels – 2nd Annual Conference of the European Initiative on Security Studies (EISS)

We are pleased to highlight the 2nd annual conference of the European Initiative on Security Studies (EISS). The conference will be held in Paris on 21-22 June 2018 at the University Panthéon-Assas (Paris 2).

The EISS is a Europe-wide network of over sixty universities that share the goal of consolidating security studies in Europe. Here you’ll find all the info on the EISS.

Here the call for papers and panels with a description of: the objectives of the EISS, key information on the conference (including on the difference between ‘closed’ and ‘open’ panels), the draft program and the panels’ abstracts.

The EISS conference is organized by the Association for the Study of War and Strategy (AEGES) in collaboration with the Center Thucydides and the Center for Studies and Research on Administrative and Political Science (CERSA) of the University Panthéon-Assas (Paris 2).

 Here you’ll find all the details on the conference.

 The deadlines for submitting paper proposals for closed panels and panel proposals for open panels are as follows:

31 January 2018: deadline for sending paper proposals to the panel chairs and panel proposals to the EISS. NB Paper proposals should be sent to the panel chairs (cf. their emails in the attached document) while panel proposals should be sent to the EISS  (eissnetwork@gmail.com)

Mid-late February 2018: decision on open panels by EISS; and on papers for closed panels by chairs

March 2018: final program sent to participants

The report of last year’s conference (EISS 2017) is available here

 See you in Paris…

Share Button

Emotions, Ideologies and Violent Political Mobilization

Emotions such as anger, resentment and fear do play a big role in explaining why people take up arms (well, and do many other things in “ordinary” life). Ideologies too are often invoked as a motive for action: Banners of different colors are often inextricably linked to rebellions, and are certainly a powerful driver of all sorts of political mobilization. Yet, their study in the context of civil wars has been limited to a few, although very important, studies such as Roger Petersen’s work the link between emotions and conflict in Eastern Europe (and the Balkans). The recent Symposium on PS: Political Science & Politics, organized by Stefano Costalli (University of Florence) and Andrea Ruggeri (University of Oxford), constitutes an important addition to the field. Featuring an Introduction by the Editors and 6 articles dealing with different aspects of how emotions, ideology and collective armed mobilization interact. Venus in Arms suggests you to read them all, as the pieces are filled with insights on how to connect these phenomena and enriched by quite a few empirical examples that show such connections at work. If you dig into the articles, you might even find a piece titled “Organizing Emotions and Ideology in Collective Armed Mobilization“. If you really don’t have time to go through the issue, well you can skip that one. You know the author and nothing good should be expected.

Share Button

Political Parties and Foreign Policy: a couple of workshops

The debate in comparative politics, international relations, and (even more surprisingly), in Foreign Policy Analysis, has devoted limited attention to the role of political parties in foreign and security policy. A recent wave of studies has tried to address this gap, aiming to “bring political parties in” the debate ). However, systematic analyses on whether party politics makes a difference in foreign and security policies are still lacking.

Thus, it is worth noticing two upcoming workshops that focus on political parties and foreign policy.

The workshop “Party politics of foreign and security policy in Europe” will be held in the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (4-6 October 2017). This workshop, which has been organized by Wolfang Wagner and Tapio Raunio, deals with the issue of party politics in foreign affairs. Drawing together a group of international scholars, the workshop asks: does or should party politics really matter less in foreign affairs than in domestic policy?

Here you’ll find additional details on the seminar. Here the program of the workshop, with paper givers and abstracts.

The “NASP International Workshop on Political Parties and Foreign Policy” will be held in the University of Genoa (16 November 2017). The seminar, which has been organized by our Fabrizio Coticchia, will also celebrates retiring Professor Luciano Bardi.

Here you’ll find all the details on the events.

Venus in Arms will attend both the workshops. See you there.

Share Button