Search

Societies are increasingly subject to transboundary crises that pose new challengesto crisis management and require a structural rethinking of longstanding arrange-ments. This study explores which governance aspects could be embedded inlegislation to facilitate the organization of such transboundary crisis management. Itbuilds upon research findings from the comprehensive 2020 governmentalevaluation study of the Safety Regions Act in the Netherlands and the relevantliterature. First, we provide a framework for a systematic study of the relationshipbetween law and practice. Second, we present a model on how legislation for crisismanagement could be adapted to better fit with transboundary crises. This consistsof a set of 10 key aspects categorized into five pillars: the interconnectedness of thevarious phases of crisis management and risk assessments as a starting point; flexiblecrisis management organization and network collaboration; allocated facilitator andexceptional decision‐making power; professional competences and netcentricinformation management; and learning capacities and democratic feedback. Thismodel provides a point of departure for researchers and policymakers alike forrethinking the role that legislation can play in preparing for the crises of the future

Het kabinet heeft de AIV gevraagd advies uit te brengen over hybride dreigingen. Hybride dreigingen doorkruizen de scheidslijn tussen oorlog en vrede en vormen een steeds groter risico voor de Nederlandse en internationale veiligheid.

In this article, we examine the pre-existing state of knowledge, atti-tudes and sentiments that pupils have and display in relation to ter-rorism and violent extremism. Based on our experiences with our historical-pedagogical terInfo project, we propose a new approach for dealing with these topics in the classroom: the adoption of an histori-cizing approach in teaching about terrorism in class. this approach relies on the creation of a historical framework that serves as a tool to both deal with emotions of shock and panic, and to help teachers and pupils find an objectified ground to discuss terrorism on a knowledge-informed base.

Facing the looming threat of the climate crisis, climate movements using strategies of nonviolent civil disobedience have recently attracted attention. To better understand what drives such groups to protest possibly in law-violating ways, we conducted qualitative interviews among 106 people involved with Extinction Rebellion in the Netherlands. These interviews had two main goals: (1) to explore the relevance of perceived injustice as a motivation for protesters to participate in climate action and (2) to determine protesters’ justifications for breaking the law with civil disobedient protest. Our findings show that perceived injustice was an important motivation for the protesters we interviewed. Specifically, they perceived injustice in their personal futures, government actions (or lack thereof), the unequal distribution of climate change impacts and responsibility, police treatment, and societal systems. Furthermore, protesters indicated a willingness to break certain laws with civil disobedient protests in a nonviolent manner, but their definitions of nonviolence varied. In particular, protesters legitimized disruptive actions by citing the current urgency of addressing what is at stake, future moral goals, and the past effectiveness of disobedient strategies. These findings help to understand how climate protesters’ injustice perceptions and their intentions to participate in disruptive actions are shaped in today’s society.

From their beginnings, the revolutionary events that shook the Greek lands of the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s were neither contained nor constrained by national or imperial borders. What Ottoman contemporaries termed the ‘Greek mischief’ (fesad) and later historiography would call the Greek war of independence, became a protracted inter-imperial crisis as soon as it commenced.1 The present bicentennial of the Greek Revolution makes it all the more relevant to reassess and rethink this history from more than just a national perspective. Of course, a sizeable literature on the border-crossing dynamics of these events already exists. Historians have long debated the transnational appeal of the Greek cause. They have thoroughly unpacked the international involvement in the war of independence, whether it be with an emphasis on diplomatic or military events.2 The Greek revolutionaries, for their part, drew on crucial support networks that spanned the world and explicitly situated their struggle in a pan-European political setting. Maurizio Isabella, Konstantina Zanou and the late Richard Stites have shown this in excellent recent works.3 Border-crossing cooperation was not limited to the revolutionaries or the elite circles of high diplomacy. Contemporary imperial actors (whether they were Ottoman, Prussian, French, Russian, Austrian or British) also reacted to the upheaval of the 1820s and tried to manage it collectively. Historians have not probed the depths of this empire-crossing aspect of the Greek revolutionary struggle with the same vigour as the traditional themes of ideology, mobilization and diplomacy. Therefore, this special issue situates the Greek Revolution in its inter-imperial context and provides new insight into the upheaval as a shared crisis of empires. Scholars have mainly discussed the international dynamics of the Greek Revolution in terms of liberal nationalism and nascent humanitarianism.4 This emphasis has failed to explore the importanc

Rechtvaardigheid is een abstract begrip, een principe en een van de vier kardinale deugden. De bronnen van rechtvaardigheid veranderen door de tijd, maar het is in alle tijden hét middel om mensen door tijden van crisis heen te helpen. Om te begrijpen hoe dat kan, geven we eerst een korte samenvatting van de inzichten die de historische wetenschap ons hierover aanreikt. Dan zoomen we in op het belang van rechtvaardigheid als prepolitieke grondstof voor het slagen van een samenleving. Het beeld van de dramadriehoek wordt geïntroduceerd om uit te leggen hoe het kan dat het idee van rechtvaardigheid in de publieke en politieke arena tot een ‘blame game’ is verschrompeld. Tot slot volgen enkele concluderende opmerkingen over de uitdagingen en de noodzaak om in onze hedendaagse crisistijd naar bronnen van rechtvaardigheid te blijven zoeken.

This article investigates the phenomenon and practice of intercountry adoption from a historical perspective by using applied history methods. In particular, we employed the method of historicizing current concerns, such as the notion of abuses, and contextualizing them in history. With these methods, we contributed to the Dutch governmental assessment and evaluation of intercountry adoption, indicating that our findings (as laid down in the official report) need to be translated into revised governmental policies. In this paper, we describe how we applied our historicizing methods to intercountry adoption abuses by providing a narrative and genealogy of the topic. We also discuss the pitfalls and merits of conducting historical research into practices that are now considered immoral or unjust, but were long standard practice after intercountry adoption started in the Netherlands. In this way, we also contribute to the ongoing discussion on doing historical research in highly politicized contexts, where the danger of contributing to the ‘blame game’ often lies in wait.

In 1819, the disgruntled French archbishop Dominique de Pradt, who went into early retirement to continue a prolific career as expert and commentator on the affairs of the world, summarised the post-Napoleonic state of affairs in international relations as follows: ‘Two colossal powers have risen upon Europe, England and Russia … There existed, it is true, previously to the new order, preponderant powers, but not powers exclusively preponderant; whose force was so disproportional to that of others, as to reduce them to a state of absolute vassalage; unable to sustain them without a continual league’. The system of states of Europe could therefore no longer be considered a system propelled by the principle of the balance of power, since there was no longer any balance of multiple forces, only a hegemony of two ‘colossi’.1 This contemporary analysis precedes Paul Schroeder’s, one of the most incisive historians on the Congress System, by almost two centuries in interpreting the Vienna Settlement of 1815 as the hegemonic triumph of tsarist Russia and the British Empire.2 In recent years, most historians have followed Schroeder’s (and unwittingly also De Pradt’s) lead in subscribing to an analysis of the not-so-balanced treaty system after 1815.

In tien lessen geven door de wol geverfde sociale en geesteswetenschappers handvatten aan collega’s die impact willen maken met hun onderzoek. In een nieuwe brochure, een uitgave van de Sociaal-Wetenschappelijke Raad van de KNAW, pleiten ze voor meer waardering voor impact en geven ze praktische handvatten om aan de slag te gaan. Wetenschap met de ramen wijd open, tien lessen voor wie impact wil maken is een uitgave van de Sociaal-Wetenschappelijke Raad van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie voor Wetenschappen (KNAW). De brochure is geschreven door Godfried Engbersen, Andrea Evers, Beatrice de Graaf, Paul ’t Hart, Anita Jansen, Lotte Jensen, Leo Lucassen en Maarten Prak, allen hoogleraar in de sociale of geesteswetenschappen. De gedrukte brochure wordt in het Nederlands verspreid over alle faculteiten.

In this manuscript, we introduce a theoretical model of climate radicalization that integrates social psychological theories of perceived unfairness with historical insights on radicalization to contribute to the knowledge of individuals' processes of radicalization and non-radicalization in relation to climate change. We define climate radicalization as a process of growing willingness to pursue and/or support radical changes in society that are in conflict with or could pose a threat to the status quo or democratic legal order to reach climate goals. We describe how perceptions of unfairness can play a pivotal role in processes of climate change related radicalization. Without taking any position or judgment regarding climate concerns and associated actions, we suggest that although these behaviors drive many people to participate in peaceful climate protest, they may also lead others to radicalize into breaking the law to achieve their climate goals, possibly in violent ways. This process of climate radicalization, we argue, can be driven by people perceiving certain situations to be blatantly unfair. Specifically, we discuss how radical attitudes and behaviors can be products of perceived unfairness stemming from the past, the future, the immediate social environments of perceivers, as well as those that are spatially distant from them. We further argue that because radicalization processes are shaped by an interaction between individuals and movements, on the one hand, and societal actors and developments, on the other, they tend to develop in non-linear and dynamic ways. We therefore propose that climate radicalization is a (1) dynamic, contingent, and non-linear process, often of an escalating (and sometimes de-escalating) kind, (2) that develops over time, (3) through various interactions between individuals and their contexts, and (4) in which people and groups move back and forth from peaceful protest, through disobedient and unlawful methods, to violen

Trends en ontwikkelingen van veiligheidsdreigingen vragen om een meer hoogwaardige LE, die beschikt over andere capaciteiten en in staat is kennis(netwerken) te beheren en te borgen. De commissie wil eerst en vooral toekomstgericht adviseren. Daarom heeft de commissie prof. dr. Arjen Boin (Universiteit Leiden) en prof. dr. Beatrice de Graaf (Universiteit Utrecht) gevraagd om de trends en uitdagingen ten aanzien van vier dreigingsdomeinen in kaart te brengen. De commissie heeft zich op basis van dit onderzoek een beeld gevormd van de vereisten voor de toekomst. Zij beschouwt dit beeld als het vertrekpunt voor haar advies. (bron: Naar een toekomstbestendige Landelijke Eenheid, Tussenadvies van de Adviescommissie voor de Landelijke Eenheid, 28 februari 2022, pag. 8)

Op 24 februari werd Europa wakker met het nieuws dat de Russische invasie in Oekraïne was begonnen. Vrijwel alle leerlingen zullen over de oorlog hebben gehoord en hebben er vragen, meningen of emoties bij. Deze lesbrief is bedoeld ter ondersteuning van docenten in het primair, voortgezet en middelbaar beroepsonderwijs. Wat zijn manieren om de oorlog te bespreken? In deze lesbrief starten we met een kort historisch overzicht van de relatie tussen Oekraïne en Rusland en hoe de spanningen tussen beide landen de afgelopen jaren opliepen. In het tweede deel van de lesbrief geven we een pedagogisch kader waarin de recente gebeurtenissen kunnen worden besproken in de klas. De lesbrief biedt vervolgens werkvormen op verschillende niveaus en voor verschillende leeftijden, waarmee docenten de oorlog in Oekraïne kunnen bespreken.

Met regelmaat wordt in het publieke en politieke discours verwezen naar ‘Europese waarden’. Andere begrippen die vaak worden gebruikt ten aanzien van de Europese Unie zijn: Europese waardenunie, Europese identiteit, en Europees burgerschap. Deze factsheet geeft een aanzet deze begrippen, en potentiële relaties ertussen, te verhelderen.