This book provides a critical overview of China’s engagement with Eurasia, focusing on 21st-century challenges that will need careful management over coming decades. China’s emerging role goes well beyond the standard ‘geopolitics’ of the Eurasian ‘chess board’. China is seeking to evolve new agendas and relationships that avoid the dilemma posed by its slowing economy and potential containment by the United States. This will be a challenging task given divergent perceptions of global issues by the EU, Russia and China, and the changing Eurasian balance of power only partly moderated by bilateral dialogues and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Here the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will be a necessary but complex task, forcing China into intensified engagement with conflict prone regions across Eurasia, thereby posing several environmental, developmental and strategic dilemmas. PRC has a tight timeframe to establish itself as an essential arbiter in Eurasian integrative processes and emerge as a sustainable global power.
Browse by title
R. J. Ferguson
In this editorial introduction, the editor reflects on the general nature of the concept of social justice, using the position of minority ethnic groups as a case example (to be developed in a later chapter). The rationale for the book is outlined: to retrieve social justice as a concept owned by the political left (and not a term which can be used from a variety of political standpoints), to understand how the concept might be understood in a number of national contexts, and to illuminate how the concept of social justice informs practice in a number of welfare contexts. Furthermore, because most of the debates in the book are set within a liberal ‘Western’ paradigm, the chapter begins a discussion about how the concept of social justice might be understood in other religious and national settings.
Edited by Jens Bartelson, Martin Hall and Jan Teorell
Sylvia I. Bergh and Salima Ahmadou
Since October 2016 and starting in the northern Rif region, Morocco has witnessed popular protests fuelled by a widespread sense of hogra, i.e. deprivation of dignity due to nepotism, corruption and marginalisation. These protests can be considered a revival of the spirit of the February 20 Movement (F20M) of 2011, which led to the adoption of a new Constitution. Based on interviews with activists in Rabat, Casablanca and Tangier, this chapter addresses the following questions: How did these activists keep the spirit of the F20M alive? How are their ‘acts of citizenship’ (Engin Isin) helping them to claim public spaces? How do they understand the concept of citizenship as compared to how it is used in the state’s discourse? What are the state’s reactions to their activities, and how do the groups in turn respond to them? Finally, what, if anything, does the 2011 Constitution mean to these activists?
Culture is not an essence, it is produced and not only reproduced, it combines tradition and innovation. Cultural security means for some people the possibility to reproduce their culture, for others to produce new cultural forms. This means that some social conditions are fulfilled, and this is connected with the issue of human rights. The framework for these issues is global, and not only national, including the relationship between violence, war and security. The chapter provides some concrete analysis, and not only theoretical perspectives, taking the recent French experience as an example, and dealing with such issues as terrorism, Islam and migration.
Edited by Nils A. Butenschøn and Roel Meijer
Jens Bartelson, Martin Hall and Jan Teorell
This introduction outlines the main problem areas addressed by this volume. In academic international relations, comparative politics and historical sociology, the study of state making has traditionally been focused on the emergence of states in early modern Europe. The introduction makes the case for a de-centering of the study of state making, by shifting its focus to other historical and geographical contexts. It also elaborates on the preconditions for such de-centering, by discussing how the anachronism and Eurocentrism widespread within this field are best overcome. The authors conclude that this is best accomplished by aligning the concerns of comparative politics and international relations more closely, by moving beyond the tendency to accord primacy to warfare when explaining the making of states, and, finally, by overcoming the divide between materialistic and ideational approaches to state making. This is followed by a brief overview and discussion of individual contributions.
Nils A. Butenschøn
Presenting main academic discourses on Israel as an ‘ethnic’ state, ‘democratic’ state, and ‘Jewish’ state, Nils Butenschøn maintains that whereas the legal and institutional fabric of the State of Israel is ethnocratic in distribution of rights and resources, the state itself, just like Palestine, is still a state in the making, an unfinished state. He argues that the citizenship approach is sufficiently open in its theoretical orientation and precise enough as an analytical tool to capture the complexities of Israel as a state formation, and yet identify the distinct challenges this state poses in its relations with the various demographic groups that have claims to the territories under its current rule or control. The nature of these challenges can only be fully comprehended with a view to the extent, content, and depth of citizenship as premised by Zionism, the state ideology, and the historic conditions of the unfolding Palestine conflict.