Search

The purpose of this paper is to exemplify how conflict and cooperation co-exist in transboundary water management. Previously, conflict and cooperation have been treated as independent forms of interaction among actors in transboundary water management, especially states. The underlying assumption was that conflict could give way to peaceful co-operation. However, even during violent confrontation between actors, a form of collaborative action can take place, while peaceful cooperation can hide important tensions and inequities. ‘Securitized’ and ‘desecuritized’ relations between actors in interdependent ‘basin hydro-security complexes’ can exist side by side. This paper therefore proposes that conflict and co-operation co-exist, to form a range of actions actors can take. The Transboundary Waters Interaction Nexus (TWINS) offers a conceptual approach in identifying differing levels of co-existing conflict and cooperation in riparian relations. The advantage of this approach is that the historical development and dynamics of riparian relations can be charted, so that the temporal component of conflict and cooperation which impact on today’s basin relations (the ‘shadow of the past’) is included.The relations in the Orange, Tigris-Euphrates and the Mekong River basins are subjected to a TWINS analysis. The case studies show various dynamisms in basin relationships, which indicate the changes of status quo in management regimes. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses from a modern systems theoretical perspective political discourses of conflict and cooperation in the Middle East. The specific regional focus of the paper are the Mashreq countries (Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon) and Israel in the period 1991-2005. The paper argues that the constructivist perspective of modern systems theory is particularly well suited to study both conflict and cooperation structures in the Middle East, thereby overcoming some of the shortcomings of more rationalist approaches which tend to conceptualise the Middle East as a regional ?container of conflict?. In contrast to such arguments, the paper argues that in spite of the prominence of political conflicts on the interstate and intrastate levels, the Middle Eastern region is also characterised by formal and informal structures of cooperation that limit the overall societal reach of conflict. By combining IR-approaches on ?regional security complexes? with insights from modern systems theory, the paper looks in particular at the relationship between collective identity constructions in the Middle East, on the one hand, and regional conflict and cooperation structures, on the other. The first part of the paper takes a closer look at the processes of collective identity constructions in the aforementioned countries. On this basis, it proposes a model of Self/Other distinctions that allows to conceptualise both conflictive and cooperative identity relations in the region. The second part of the paper then relates these discourses of identity to the regional structures of conflict and cooperation. Here, the paper is particularly interested in how these patterns of identity relations shape concrete political structures in the Middle East. It hence addresses in particular the role of political, military, religious, media and economic structures. The paper argues that the ubiquitous structures of conflict in the Middle East are balanced by manifold, but often more informal structures of cooperation that limit the overall societal reach of conflict. Such an argument questions the usefulness of conceptualising the Middle East primarily in terms of ?conflict? without an adequate analysis of discourses and structures of cooperation. Moreover, these arguments challenge all those approaches that assume a distinct conflict-inclination of societies and cultures in the Middle East. Rejecting these approaches, the final section of this paper hence puts the study of conflict and cooperation patterns in the Middle East into a world societal perspective. It argues that such a focus on structural developments in world society ? such as functional differentiation, inclusion/exclusion, (de-)bordering ? is better suited to describe patterns of conflict and cooperation in the Middle East, than rationalist, actor-centred or area-specific foci on this region. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article seeks to outline an integrative social psychology about fear and trust from an evolutionary perspective. Such an integrative social psychology about fear and trust provides part of the fundamental answer why international cooperation is difficult but conflict easy. Specifically, I argue that two broad types of intention, malignant intention and benign intention, pose almost diametrically opposite challenges for states. Comparing to benign intention, the problem for malignant intention is not that it is difficult to detect, but it is difficult to hide. In contrast, comparing to malignant intention, the problem for benign intention is not that it is difficult to detect, but it is too easily dismissed and discounted. It is because this general fact that makes international cooperation difficult; while makes international non-cooperation (cold peace, cold war, even hot war) more likely. I further argue that the ultimate cause behind this general fact lies with the evolutionary past of our species. During the long evolutionary process leading to modern human, two interrelated traits—indeed, these two traits can be understood as two sides of the psychology for coping with danger or fear--have been robustly selected for our survival. The first trait is to detect and (over)react to danger, whereas the second is to neglect and dismiss lack of danger. This core psychology of fear is further reinforced by three other traits: attribution biases, egocentrism, and disinclination for systemic thinking. Together, they have primed decision-makers toward overestimating danger and underestimating trust in international politics.In addition to providing some evidences from social psychology and IR literature, I also examine two empirical cases to show that there indeed exists an integrative social psychology of fear in human mind and it operates among decision makers. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since researchers of international relations have started using events data there seems to be a yearning to utilize this data for the purpose of measuring magnitudes of conflict and cooperation. Consequently a number of scales have been developed. Yet there are considerable problems with these scales. This is because the categories of events that are coded and the ranking of their relative severity might not be universal. Other researchers or even the participants themselves might perceive a different set of relevant categories and their severity. The simplest solution is to request from a sample of political scientists to provide their subjective rankings of the categories that were coded, and then build the scale on the basis of average rankings. But it is possible that state actions are motivated by the subjective rankings of the decision-makers themselves, so that a scale representing average rankings of a set of categories predetermined by the researcher might misrepresent these subjective perceptionsDue to this problem it could be argued that the entire project of categorizing events and scaling should be abandoned or individual scales for individual decision-makers must be sought. Still, it could be that there are certain types of events that are universally accepted by most decision-makers and are ranked in a similar manner (i.e. they are inter-subjective). In this case, a universal index might be possible, although the method for developing such a scale might need to be different than the previous methods. Some possible methods for pursing such a project will be discussed. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In our daily lifes few things are as important to us as gaining and preserving the respect of our peers. Yet in IR, we regularly assume that decision makers or collective actors hardly care for the consideration other actors show for their dignity, achievements or mere presence. All our major theories are based on the implicit premise that an international actor’s sense of its own worth is either unimportant or is totally unrelated to its interactions with others. Drawing mostly on insights from moral philosophy and social psychology I seek to substantiate the claim that respect is also likely to matter when large groups or communities interact. Even in IR social respect can be a significant goal, both for instrumental reasons and as an end in itself. As a matter of fact, as long as we ignore this dimension of international politics we will be unable to fully explain major features of world politics, specifically the intensity and duration of many conflicts. I shall try to prove this claim with case studies on transatlantic relations, the Middle East conflict and intercultural dialogue. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]