Theme: One International Relations or Many? Multiple Worlds, Multiple Crises
Wednesday 18 – Saturday 21 September 2013
Warsaw, Poland
Organised by the ECPR Standing Group on International Relations and EISA in cooperation with the Institute of International Relations, University of Warsaw and the Polish Association for International Studies.
This panel indicates and explains
frameworks and/or paradigms between International Relations and Islam.
Chair:
Prof. Dr. Maria do Céu de Pinho Ferreira Pinto (University of Minho, Portugal)
Discussant:
Prof. Dr. Katerina Dalacoura is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at
the London School of Economics and Political Science
Paper Presenters:
Islamist
Norm Entrepreneurs in International Society: Why, How and When do Religious
Norms Diffuse in Liberal International Organizations?
Gregorio Bettiza is currently a Max Weber Postdoctoral
Fellow at the European University Institute (EUI). Gregorio holds PhD in
International Relations from LSE and his research focuses on religion and
secularism in international relations. And, Filippo Dionigi is currently Fellow
at the London School of Economics (LSE). Filippo holds PhD in International
Relations from LSE and is interested in research on international norms and
Islamist movements especially in the Middle East.
Constructivist scholars have systematically neglected the
mechanisms of diffusion of religiously based non-Western norms in liberal
settings. In recent decades the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has
become an increasingly influential international actor through which
Muslim-majority states channel their normative concerns in international
society. In particular the OIC has become actively engaged in promoting
international norms that challenge, often from an Islamic perspective,
hegemonic secular liberal values embedded within the institutions of
international society. The paper focuses on two norms that the OIC has attempted to promote within the United Nations (UN) since the 1990s. The first are “dialogue of civilizations” norms. These were successfully institutionalized in 2005, after gathering substantial backing from Western states, with a major UN initiative, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. The second are “religious defamation” norms. These, instead, were relentlessly opposed by Western
states and led only to a minor and vague initiative largely outside the UN’s
purview in 2011, the Istanbul Process. What explains these diverging results?
The paper contends that religiously based non-Western norms have the greatest
chances of being fully institutionalized within the UN, an international
organization deeply embedded in and constitutive of the liberal international
order, only when they can be effectively “translated” into secular liberal
norms
The
United Nations in Muslim Political Thought and Discourse
Prof. Dr. Turan Kayaoglu (Associate Professor of
International Relations, Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of
Washington, Tacoma)
This paper analyzes four views on Muslim engagement in
the United Nations: rejectionist, realist, Islamic-conservatives, and liberal.
The rejectionist views the Muslim engagement with the UN as harmful to the
Muslim cause because the UN rests on values such as state sovereignty,
secularism, and cooperation incompatible with Islamic political values such as
the umma, shari’ah, and dar-ul Islam versus dar-ul Harb. The realist also
rejects the Muslim engagement with the UN not because of its incompatibility
with Islamic values but because of the imbalance of power within the UN between
the great powers and Muslim-majority states. Specifically, the American
influence over the UN combined with the deep resentment of American politics
towards the Muslim world prompts this group to be very cynical about the UN.
The Islamic-conservative views the UN as a forum which can be utilized to
demonstrate and defend the truth of Islam and to protect and promote Muslim
interest by influencing its normative and political structure. The liberal
perspective views the UN useful not just for serving to Muslim interests but
for the common good of broader international community.
Possible
Synergies between Cultural Globalization, Identity Affiliations and Islamic Religion
Dr. Julien Pelissier (University of Tehran, Iran)
The concepts of cultural globalization and Islamic
religion's revival on the international arena are sometimes viewed as
competitors or even as antagonists. By inducing two systems of thought, they
are supposed to develop feelings of unfitted cultural affiliation that would
lead to the emergence of more or less significant identity conflicts. But we
try to see here that, once agreed on the definitions to give to them, cultural
globalization and Islam may not be antagonistic, but rather complementary and
even unseparated on the path of a “world unification”. We try to show here that
Islam, as far as it is well-understood and practiced, allows multiple
relationships and affiliations which fit all the best with challenges raised by
cultural globalization. And indeed, should this assertion be proved to be
correct, no doubt that the cultural development of a globalized world would not
have to solve as many as false identity and cultural problems hindering this
very preventable process. To that extent, this brief article aims at improving
the basis for a better understanding of possible synergies, at the cultural
level, between the global process of cultural unification on the one hand and
the Islamic revival on the other hand. This endeavor would rely on
anthropological concepts formulated by Western thinkers (Hall, Vultur, Harvey,
Giddens, Hannerz, Mattelard, Tomlinson, Morin…) as well as theological concepts
mostly derived from Quran and widely accepted prophetic narrations concerning
the very idea of universalism and globalization. This article would however
merely deal with concrete steps to be taken in order to match what can be
considered as two major cultural influences in process: cultural globalization
and Islamic revival.
Regional
Integration and Crises on the Persian Gulf Sub-region. Casus of Gulf
Cooperation Council
Dr. Wojciech Jerzy Grabowski, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Political Science Institute (Asian and African States section) at Gdansk University. He is the author of the monograph “Muslim fundamentalism in the Middle East” and of many articles on various subject matters in the international relations field, especially regional, Middle Eastern order, role of Islam and fundamentalism in politics, influence of terrorism on the states functioning. He was involved in EU grants dedicated to these issues and NATO workshops dedicated perseverance of terrorism: focus on leaders. Currently, he is involved in exploring regionalization processes in the Persian Gulf sub-region. He is a member of the Polish Association of International Studies and European Institute of Security.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) helps to constitute
boundaries of inclusion and exclusion that strengthen six states in the region,
characterized by revisionist powers. By participants of the GCC it is viewed as
an institution leading sub-region to the broader Arab unity. During the Gulf
War 1990/91 participating states were not willing to resolve common,
sub-regional problem, but they were looking for the help from non-Arab states.
Processes of the regionalization help to generalize conditions or people within
sub-regional boundaries speaking about Gulf policies, business, identity
opposed to Arab spheres of activities. The GCC poses a forum of exchange of
political views. But the GCC stands in front of challenges of the inclusion
non-dynastic Yemen and post-Saddam Iraq which would have significant
consequences for the security and economic fields of the sub-region. One of the
problem of the organization is unfulfilled promises which damage credibility of
the organization. This may poses real threat to the objectives of the GCC. The
basic question I will try to find an answer to is: does the GCC guarantee
security to its members in the broad sense or does the GCC member-states have
to seek the security through bilateral agreements with external powers?
Overcoming
the Crisis of Islam and Buddhism – Institutionalizing Peace Building for Regional
Organizations
Amjad Saleem is currently working as Head of
Communications for The Cordoba Foundation, an independent policy, research and
public relations think tank based in London promoting intercultural dialogue,
peace building and positive coexistence among communities by advocating dialogue and promoting action to develop
understanding and acceptance of inter-communal and inter-religious issues in
particular improving the understanding between the Muslim World and the West
and vice-versa.
Incidents in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand, show an
increasing tendency for a clash between proponents of Theravada Buddhism and
Islam. This religious based ethnic
identity put forward by this particular strand of Buddhism poses a great
threat not only to religious freedoms in the region of South and South East
Asia but also to future security. The
intolerance of Buddhism has become in part due to a more militant, violent and ultimately
intolerant ideology. However, it is also
due as a response, according to Buddhists, to the increasing perceived
conservatism of Muslims across the region as a result of global Islamic reawakening
and reformation. The accusation is that
it is ‘the rise of Wahabi and Salafi movements’ that is affecting the
relationships between the communities, but it is more deeper entrenched than
that. This paper will argue about the need to incorporate peacebuilding and conflict resolution mechanisms within aspects of diplomacy so
that regional organizations like the OIC and ASEAN can work at a more efficient
level and ensure that the region of South and South East Asia are not affected.
No comments:
Post a Comment