Kapitelvorschau

Abstract

The tautological doubling of a self-relation and the paradoxical interlocking of a figure based on the subject (self) and the object (reflexivity) is currently program: relations (such as social structures, institutions, organizations) shall be arranged so as to anticipate their side-effects and consequences. Which logical and epistemic problems or challenges may be part of such a concept?

Abstract

Peace and security are more or less synonyms. This opinion is often heard, but not true. Firstly, the history of concepts differs. Secondly, their immanent grammar or logic works contrarily: Peace is a social and inclusive idea that implies symmetrical patterns of relation, whereas security is an asocial and exclusive idea that tends to asymmetrical patterns of relation. Peace limits the ambitions of an actor, security does not. Peace excludes, security includes violent means as normal instruments. Therefore, people striving for peace will develop another epistemic attitude than people struggling for security. Usually, peace is more disposed to self-reflexivity than security is. But peace can lose its reflexive character, especially where it ends, whereas security can gain a reflexive moment, especially where existential problems cannot be solved without it. Nevertheless, the difference between both categories remains important: Peace prepares the way to self-reflexivity much better than security ever could.

Abstract

The obvious demand for more self-reflection in security policy raises the issue of reflexivity of and in peace research itself. This article recalls the reflexive potential of critical peace research, but aims to expand it to a reflexive peace research based on its claim to reconcile its scientific approach and its practice orientation. Because peace research in this view is thus constantly involved in and dealing with political conflicts, it needs a reflexive perspective to be able to scientifically analyze these conflicts. This argument is further illustrated by the methodological challenges of empirical conflict analysis. The article ends with the outlook that in addition to the critical approaches also post-colonial perspectives offer promising links to pursue peace research as a practice-oriented, reflexive science.

Abstract

Since the Second World War, the German position relating to the use of military force is on the one hand characterized by a strong adherence to the principle of non-use of force (“never again”). Yet there has also been the recognition of military necessities. This tension is reflected in legal and political discourses over the last seventy years. The German Basic Law of 1949 formulates a sweeping prohibition of acts likely to disturb peaceful relations among peoples. This is not fully reflected in the implementing legislation. Since the early 1990ies, the use of German armed forces abroad has lead to controversies and litigation before the Federal Constitutional Court. The legal arguments put forward by the German government to justify its position in these cases are critically analyzed.

Abstract

The article looks at Germany’s arms export policy over the recent years and questions the ability for self-reflection. From the assumption that there is a certain degree of self-reflection, yet lacking transparency on the justification of arms export decisions, it argues for actually hindered self-reflection. While the number of questionable deals is increasing and some examples show that the German government now considers arms exports much more as an instrument of security policy, the political direction often seems unclear. Yet, the recently introduced new guidelines on the export of small arms and light weapons testify that there is some self-reflection within the government that can lead to a change in political decisions. Beyond economic arguments, the ability for a critical self-reflection based on foreign and security policy arguments is important not just for future political decisions, but also for its legitimacy.

Abstract

Neo-liberalism has become the principle for restructuring the world’s economy and societies. Upholding the principle of freedom, in reality it serves the immediate interests of dominant economic actors. The concentration of capital produces power which is then beyond democratic control, and which is responsible for the spreading of strive and misery. This policy is illustrated by the politics of the European Union and its free trade agreements throughout Africa with an empirical emphasis on the case of Tunisia. To earnestly combat impoverishment and misery in order to prevent conflict would need a radical change allowing - at least - the development of national capitalism and politically regulated social justice.

Abstract

While self-reflexivity certainly is useful when aiming to reconsider our thinking about and acting in international politics, it can also function as a hegemonic practice of containing radical critique. The author introduces approaches from critical peace studies, post- and decolonial as well as feminist theory that deal with this dilemma. Taking the dimension of epistemic violence and the coloniality of power, knowledge and being into account, she argues that the widely professionalized and pacified field of peace and conflict studies can learn from these perspectives in order to re-enhance positionality vis-à-vis a global system of inequality and violence.

Kapitelvorschau

Kapitelvorschau