Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 41 items :

  • International Politics x
  • Terrorism and Security x
  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Edited by Hans-Joachim Giessmann, Roger Mac Ginty, Beatrix Austin and Christine Seifert

This content is available to you

Hans J. Giessmann and Roger Mac Ginty

This content is available to you

Edited by Michael Heazle and Andrew O’Neil

This content is available to you

Anthony M. Messina

Migration truly is a global phenomenon. Moreover, even in the current challenging economic environment international migration flows of all types are robust. Against this backdrop this chapter executes several tasks. First, it assesses the benefits and costs of each of the four major migration streams: labour, secondary, irregular, and humanitarian migration. Second, it posits a course along which the contemporary politics and policies of migration and immigrant settlement tends to proceed. Finally, it evaluates the appropriateness of framing the phenomenon of contemporary migration within the paradigm of securitization. The central thesis of this essay is that the purported global ‘crisis of migration’ is less of an objective, unrelenting, and universal emergency of unavoidable and unwelcome migration outcomes than it is a subjective, episodic, and selective set of challenges mostly founded upon unrealistic and/or contradictory migration expectations. The pertinent questions posed by contemporary migration and immigrant settlement patterns therefore are not why migration occurs, why do countries tolerate unwanted migration, and how do migrants precipitate societal and/or state insecurity; instead, they are: why don’t more people migrate, why do most migrants settle in relatively few countries, and why are migrants almost universally cast as a threat to states and societies?

This content is available to you

Edited by Simona Sharoni, Julia Welland, Linda Steiner and Jennifer Pedersen

This content is available to you

Victoria M. Basham

Feminists have long argued that gender has historically shaped and continues to shape who fights and dies, and in defence of whom. This chapter explores how state militaries continue to rely on gender constructs to motivate predominantly male soldiers to conduct acts of state sanctioned violence. It examines how gendered norms shape how militaries organize themselves and prepare for war, despite overwhelming evidence that the presence of women and sexual minorities has no discernible negative impact on military cohesion and performance and that soldiers do not need to bond socially in order to fight. It argues that militaries remain highly masculinized institutions because this is how militaries desire to see themselves and how most of their male members desire being seen. The masculinized character of military culture and identity thus remains significant; it facilitates war, even if it does not actually enable soldiers to kill and be killed.

This content is available to you

Paul Jackson

This content is available to you

Edited by Paul Jackson

This content is available to you

Nick Ridley