Search results

This study employs Stein Rokkan's methodological approach to analyse state formation in the Greater Middle East. It develops a conceptual framework distinguishing colonial, populist and democratic pacts, suitable for analysis of state formation and nation-building through to the present period. The framework relies on historical institutionalism. The methodology, however, is Rokkan's. The initial conceptual analysis also specifies differences between European and the Middle Eastern state formation processes. It is followed by a brief and selective discussion of historical preconditions. Next, the method of plotting singular cases into conceptual-typological maps is applied to 20 cases in the Greater Middle East (including Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey). For reasons of space, the empirical analysis is limited to the colonial period (1870s to the end of World War 1). Three typologies are combined into one conceptual-typological map of this period. The vertical left-hand axis provides a composite typology that clarifies cultural-territorial preconditions. The horizontal axis specifies transformations of the region's agrarian class structures since the mid-19th century reforms. The right-hand vertical axis provides a four-layered typology of processes of external intervention. A final section presents selected comparative case reconstructions. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first time such a Rokkan-style conceptual-typological map has been constructed for a non-European region.

This paper aims to study recent approaches to peacemaking, particularly by Turkey and Russia, in a changing world and their implications for UN-led peace processes. The authors analyze the factors that allow parallel processes to UN mediation to emerge and discuss their influence.

The paper presents two in-depth case studies of mediation in Syria and Libya, where the UN, as well as Russia and Turkey, were actively involved in peacemaking.

The authors find that parallel processes to UN mediation emerge if the UN process does not show progress toward a negotiated settlement and other third parties have leverage over the conflict parties. However, whether these parallel processes pose a fundamental challenge to the UN-led process depends on how sustained the third parties’ leverage over the conflict parties is. If it lasts, it puts the UN in a difficult position to either participate in the parallel process and contain it but thereby also legitimizing it, or to abstain from participating but thereby risking to lose control over the mediation process.

Analyzing different approaches to mediation helps to better understand current dynamics of multiparty mediation, including an increased questioning of the effectiveness of UN mediation, and provides insights on how the UN may adapt to keep its relevance in a changing world.

The paper is based on original first-hand data gathered between 2018 and 2022 through more than 50 interviews with UN officials, negotiation team members, political and civil society actors from Syria and Libya, (former) state officials and experts from Russia and Turkey, as well as external observers.

Based on the social exchange theory, the aim of the present study is to examine the effects, both direct and indirect (through sustainability-oriented innovative behaviors [SIBs]), of sustainable project leadership (SPL) on sustainable project performance (SPP). Project management approaches (PMAs) (traditional, hybrid and agile) were examined as conditional factors in the “SPL–SIBs” relationship.

The study employs structural equation modeling based on data collected from 197 software engineering project team members working in the financial industry in Poland.

The study revealed that SPL significantly, positively affected SPP. It also provided evidence for the significant mediating impact of SIBs in the relationship between SPL and SPP and the conditional effect of agile and hybrid PMAs on the “SPL–SIBs” relationship.

The novelty of this work lies in introducing sustainable leadership into project management research, proposing and testing a unique and complex research framework, designing valid scales for measuring SPL and SPP, and suggesting many theoretical and empirical implications.

Although the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize the importance of leaving no one behind, the opposite is happening for the world's 89 million forcibly displaced people who are mostly left out of SDGs’ reporting and progress. A key reason for this poor outcome is that host country governments plan refugee camps as short-term shelters, but refugees stay in these camps for more than a decade on average due to ongoing conflicts in their home country. This disparity between intent and reality prevents sustainable living conditions for refugee populations. Operational innovations are needed to find sustainable solutions that ensure a higher quality of life and progress toward sustainability in refugee camps.

Through an abductive case study, the authors develop a theoretical framework on sustainable operational innovations for refugee camps. The authors use this framework to analyze four sustainable operational innovations implemented in three refugee camps in Jordan.

The authors develop three research propositions that describe the conditions required for these operational innovations to succeed: they need to include specific needs and cultural preferences of refugees, they must accommodate host governments' restrictions that limit permanent settlement, and finally, technological innovations require careful data management policies to protect refugees. Doing this, the authors account for the broader political-economic and ecological environments that refugee camps are embedded in.

This paper opens a new area of research on sustainable innovation in humanitarian operations. It provides insights into key contingency factors moderating the link between operational innovations and sustainability outcomes. It represents one of the few studies that build their theorizing upon field data collected in refugee camps.

The study aimed to listen to refugee survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and/or torture and explore what justice meant to them in exile. This study argues that what the survivors who participated in this research wanted was “viable justice”. The research was funded by the British Academy and Leverhulme Trust.

Using a survivor-focussed justice lens combined with a trauma-informed approach, narrative interviews were held with 41 women and 20 men refugee survivors living in refugee settlements in Northern Uganda. The researchers also conducted semi-structured interviews with 37 key informants including refugee welfare councils, the UN, civil society, non-government and government organisations. Thematic analysis of the data resulted in the following themes being identified: no hope of formal justice for atrocities that occurred in South Sudan; insecurity; lack of confidence in transitional justice processes in Ugandan refugee settlements; abuse and loss of freedom in refugee settlements; and lack of access to health and justice services in refugee settlements.

This study argues that what the survivors who participated in this research wanted was “viable justice”. That is justice that is survivor-centred and includes elements of traditional and transitional justice, underpinned by social justice. By including the voices of both men and women survivors of SGBV and/or torture and getting the views of service providers and other stakeholders, this paper offers an alternative form of justice to the internationally accepted types of justice, which offer little relevance or restitution to refugees, particularly where the crime has been committed in a different country and where there is little chance that perpetrators will be prosecuted in a formal court of law.

The research findings are based on a small sample of South Sudanese refugees living in three refugee settlements in Northern Uganda. Thus, wider conclusions should not be drawn. However, the research does suggest that a “viable justice” approach should be implemented that is gender and culturally sensitive and which could also be trialled in different refugee contexts.

Improvements in refugee survivors’ dignity, resilience and recovery are dependent upon the active engagement of refugees themselves using a “survivor-focussed approach” which combines formal and community-based health services with traditional and transitional justice responses.

The provision of a “viable justice approach” ensures those who have experienced SGBV and/or torture, and their families, feel validated. It will assist them to use their internal, cultural and traditional resilience and agency in the process of recovery.

The research findings are original in that data was collected from men and women survivors of SGBV and/or torture and service providers. The empirical evidence supports this study’s recommendation for an approach that combines both formal and survivor-focussed approaches towards health and viable justice services to meet the needs of refugees living in refugee settlements. This is a response that listens to and responds to the needs of refugee survivors in a way that continues to build their resilience and agency and restores their dignity.