ORCID Profile
0000-0001-5027-7874
Current Organisation
University of Tasmania
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 12-2004
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 06-2013
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 11-2013
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan UK
Date: 2016
Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing
Date: 02-12-2201
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 16-05-2018
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 08-06-2200
DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190904418.013.7
Abstract: This chapter explores how sociological methods, concepts, and theories have been engaged to study international peacebuilding. Sociology is used in three ways to study peacebuilding: as general ontological understanding of the research object as a “society” in which policymakers can intervene in order to achieve specific policy goals as a set of observation methods and as a reference in social theory and philosophy that allows criticizing peacebuilding’s configurations of power and inequality. Given their substantially different epistemologies, these ways draw a very uneven image of what that society actually is, how it “works,” and how it affects or is affected by peacebuilding.
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan UK
Date: 2016
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 29-09-2023
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan UK
Date: 2006
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 18-05-2023
DOI: 10.1111/AJPH.12824
Abstract: Ralph Bunche, the first African American to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, was a committed anti‐imperialist, a fighter against racism and for civil rights. And yet, his action and appearance as special representative of the United Nations Secretary‐General in the Congo, made him appear as hostile to African independence and as a (neo‐colonial) “blanc,” questioning the sincerity of his anti‐imperialism as well as his anti‐racism. The article argues that Bunche's dilemma is paradigmatic for the paradox that exists between the United Nations' (UN) declared anti‐racism and anti‐imperialism, on the one hand, and its politics of peacekeeping and peacebuilding which are effectively a quasi‐imperial politics of world order, on the other. The article dissects Ralph Bunche's writing and thinking on the international system, Africa and the Congo in order to understand how in idual anti‐racist commitment can co‐exist, or even be co‐constitutive of, systemic racism of international politics and law. Apart from providing important insights into the thought of a central founding figure of UN peacekeeping and peacebuilding, the article contributes, hence, to ongoing discussions on Eurocentrism and race in international politics.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 19-10-2020
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 26-03-2014
DOI: 10.1017/S026021051300051X
Abstract: Cosmopolitanism has been argued to be a crucial component of peacebuilding, both with regard to its aims as well as its staff. In a universalist-liberal understanding of the concept, cosmopolitanism is the optimal mind frame for peacebuilders to rebuild post-war societies, due to the tolerance, justice-orientation, and neutrality regarding local cleavages that the concept entails in theory. This article argues, however, that cosmopolitanism cannot be understood outside of its social context, therefore requiring sociological empirical analyses. Drawing on three such sociological concepts, namely elite, glocal, and localisable cosmopolitanism, the article analyses empirically through interviews with peacebuilders in Kosovo whether and in which form these international civil servants display cosmopolitan worldviews. The study concludes that while in theory the localisable variant would be best suited to contribute to locally sensitive, emancipatory peacebuilding, this form of cosmopolitanism is absent in practice. Given the novel, exploratory character of this analysis of hitherto uncharted terrain, the article also discusses in detail how the findings were obtained and in how far they are generalisable.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 12-2008
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 22-11-2013
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 31-01-2022
Abstract: In 2018, the Trump administration separated thousands of families arriving at the US–Mexico border to ask for asylum in the framework of its “zero-tolerance” policy. This extraordinary act of cruelty violated several provisions of international human rights, refugee, and family protections, many of which the United States itself had drafted, initiated, and ch ioned. The article asks about the understanding of sovereignty that underscored the zero-tolerance policy. Drawing on Max Weber's distinction of several forms of legitimating political authority, the article develops the argument that this policy reflects a patrimonial understanding of sovereignty and how this understanding intersects with notions of family and nation. It specifically discusses these intersections in the case of United States’ sovereignty developing in a settler colonial state and in contested borderlands. By developing this perspective, the article draws out the conditions of possibility under which institutional and structural violence can tip into explicitly cruel policies like those of the US family separations of 2018. The article contributes, on the one hand, to analyze deeply the foundations of US understandings of the state's sovereignty and, on the other hand, to better comprehending which types of sovereignty enable cruelty against migrants and refugees at which points in time.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 22-11-2015
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 21-06-2018
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 12-2008
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 22-11-2013
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 19-02-2008
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 2016
Publisher: University of Michigan Press
Date: 09-05-2017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 2008
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 20-02-2012
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 02-11-2016
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 27-05-2019
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 16-05-2018
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 15-12-2023
Publisher: University of Michigan Press
Date: 09-05-2017
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 20-02-2012
Publisher: University of Michigan Press
Date: 2017
DOI: 10.3998/MPUB.7484138
Abstract: “Peacebuilding” serves as a catch-all term to describe efforts by an array of international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and agencies of foreign states to restore or construct a peaceful society in the wake—or even in the midst—of conflict. Despite this variety, practitioners consider themselves members of a global profession. In The Distinction of Peace, Catherine Goetze investigates the genesis of peacebuilding as a professional field of expertise since the 1960s, its increasing influence, and the ways it reflects global power structures. Goetze describes how the peacebuilding field came into being, how it defines who belongs to it and who does not, and what kind of group culture it has generated. Using an innovative methodology, she investigates the motivations of in iduals who become peacebuilders, their professional trajectories and networks, and the “good peacebuilder” as an ideal. For many, working in peacebuilding in various ways—as an aid worker on the ground, as a lawyer at the United Nations, or as an academic in a think tank—has become not merely a livelihood, but also a form of participation in world politics. As a field, peacebuilding has developed techniques for incorporating and training new members, yet its internal politics also create the conditions of exclusion that often result in practical failures of the peacebuilding enterprise. By providing a critical account of the social mechanisms that make up the peacebuilding field, Goetze offers deep insights into the workings of Western domination and global inequalities.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: Germany
Start Date: 2004
End Date: 2005
Funder: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2007
End Date: 2009
Funder: British Academy
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2012
End Date: 2014
Funder: University Of Nottingham
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2017
End Date: 2017
Funder: University of Tasmania
View Funded Activity