Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society

2016/2: Violence in the Post-Soviet Space



Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society
2016/2: Violence in the Post-Soviet Space
34,00 €

Paperback 34,00 €

eBook 22,99 €

Zum Buch

Details

This special issue deals with the phenomenon of violence in the post-Soviet space. The central preoccupation is to examine both political and legal discourses and practices of internal and external violence, broadly conceived, in this space. Simultaneously the special issue aspires to situate these discourses and practices in the broader literature on political violence and ethnic and separatist conflict, and to examine these from political, legal, and security studies perspectives. The issue approaches the problem of violence in the post-Soviet space from three perspectives: The international-structural, inter-state, and domestic-political. The contributors focus on structural sources of violence: The relevance of the self-determination principle, the role of democratization, and the relationship between violent behavior inside and outside the state. They also analyze the role of the Russian Federation in generating, perpetuating, and mitigating political violence. Finally, they adopt a bottom-up approach, exploring how non-state actors contribute to political violence.
Zusatzinformation

Zusatzinformation

Lieferzeit 2-3 Tage / 2-3 days
Autor/-in Mischa Gabowitsch, Danielle Jackman, Annamaria Kiss, Olga Lebedeva, Anais Marin, Peter Marton, Hanna Smith
Herausgeber/-in Julie Fedor, Samuel Greene, Andre Härtel, Andrey Makarychev, Andreas Umland
Anzahl der Seiten 284
Sprache Englisch
Erscheinungsdatum 01.10.2016
Gewicht (kg) 0.0000
ISSN 2364-5334
ISBN-13 1234567891012
DOI

DOI: 10.24216/97723645330050202_02 Open Access

Anais Marin
Does State Violence Translate into a More Bellicose Foreign Behavior?
10.24216/97723645330050202_02
44 Seiten
Verfügbare Formate:
Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 DE https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/de/
With the questioning of the democratic peace axiom according to which democracies do not go to war with one another, scholars in comparative politics started investigating whether authoritarian regimes are more prone to launch or escalate an international conflict. Empirical studies have shown that state violence is often reflected in more aggressive foreign policy behavior. “Rogueness,” measured by the intensity of state violence (political repression, systematic torture), is usually correlated with a greater propensity to use force first in interstate disputes. Whereas Russia illustrates this “warmonger rogue” behavior, in other post-Soviet Eurasian countries the correlation is not fully verified, however. Building on empirical data on interstate conflict-onset, this paper demonstrates that violence-intensity at home does not necessarily translate into more bellicosity abroad. Belarus, Turkmenistan, and to some extent Kazakhstan are at the same time rogue countries—in the original sense of the term—and peaceful players (“peaceniks”) in IR. Refining existing authoritarian regime typologies, the paper singles out which regime and leadership features are conducive to international conflict-propensity, or war avoidance, in the region. Findings are not fully conclusive, but they contribute to highlighting the impact of underexplored domestic variables to explain variations in the conflict-propensity of transiting regimes.

DOI: 10.24216/97723645330050202_04 Open Access

Mischa Gabowitsch
Russia’s Arlington?
10.24216/97723645330050202_04
65 Seiten
Verfügbare Formate:
Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 DE https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/de/
Opened in 2013, the Federal Military Memorial Cemetery near Moscow is Russia’s new national cemetery. It is to supplant the Kremlin Wall as the country’s prime burial site, and was originally going to provide for the interment of both common soldiers and political as well as military leaders. Initially modeled after Arlington National Cemetery and designed as a landscaped park, the site was eventually built as a monumental complex dominated by bronze statues. This article analyzes the rival designs and the conflict surrounding the site’s construction against the background of Soviet war memorials and post‐Soviet commemorative practices. It also proposes a typology of national cemeteries. More than Arlington, the Federal Military Memorial Cemetery resembles heroes’ cemeteries in countries influenced by the ideas of revolutionary liberation struggles and socialist realism.