Gender,family law and citizenship in Syria

This paper explores the impact of family law on the structuring of gendered citizenship in Syria where the state's family law accords male and female citizens different legal status, thus ordering the distribution of basic rights and duties along gendered lines. Partial centralization and fragmented secularization of judicial authority relates to the accommodation of religious groups, a policy which was continued after the establishment of territorial states in the 1920s. Family law maintained its religious tenets and was included as part of the state's jurisdiction. The impact of family law on citizenship is exacerbated in that membership in religious groups is mandated and monitored by the state. Citizenship is thus mediated through a citizen's membership in a religious group where the religiously based family law applies as state law. Seen in theoretical terms, family law plays a crucial role in structuring gendered citizenship in ways that limit the legal authority of female citizens as full members of the polity. Two questions are addressed: First, how and why does family law premise gendered citizenship in Syria? Second, what characterizes the debates regarding changes within family law that surfaced after 2003 following the political regime's liberalization efforts?     

叙利亚冲突与国际人道主义法的“劫难”

国际人道主义法致力于规制武装冲突,以实现"军事需要"与"人道主义"之间的平衡。叙利亚冲突导致了震撼人类良知的人道主义灾难,也导致了国际人道主义法的巨大灾难。叙利亚冲突本身的特征、一些国家暴虐"反恐"的泛滥,国际人道主义法本身的缺陷,都影响了叙利亚冲突各方关于如何实现"军事需要"的考量,导致各方几乎都忽视了国际人道主义法的要求。以参与方的不平等和非对称为核心特征的叙利亚冲突,代表着全球范围内武装冲突的"新常态"。以平等为基础、以互惠为条件的既有国际人道主义法,已经难以满足此种"新常态"。在推进国际人道主义法的建设过程中,国际社会须将当代武装冲突的非对称性考虑在内,推动某种共同但有区别的责任与义务。国际社会迫切需要确定"恐怖主义"的定义,以免"恐怖主义"标签被进一步泛化和滥用。国际社会还需检视和减少国际人道主义法与国内外其他规范体系之间的矛盾和冲突,弥合不同规范体系之间的裂痕。     

The Syrian wars of words: international and local instrumentalisations of the war on terror

Abstract

This article presents a study of the ‘wars of words’ among selected parties involved in the Syrian conflict. Based on a combination of content analysis and critical discourse analysis (CDA), it examines actors’ discourses within the United Nations Security Council (2011–2015), the global arena of confrontation and international legitimisation of armed actions. Here, it investigates their instrumentalisation of the word ‘terrorism’ and the war on terror narrative, and it explores the dynamics of discursive (de)legitimisation of the use of violence in Syria. The article shows how parties instrumentalised this narrative to criminalise their enemies while legitimising their own violent actions. By doing this, the paper also offers a broader reflection on the global narrative on terrorism, and its different reception and instrumentalisation by core and peripheral actors.     

The Rebirth of Water as a Weapon: IS in Syria and Iraq

The so-called Islamic State (IS) has increasingly used water as a weapon in order to further its political and military aims in Syria and Iraq. In this water-scarce region, IS has retained water and cut off crucial supplies, flooded large areas as well as contaminated resources. The capture of large dams in the Euphrates and Tigris basin has made it possible to deploy the water weapon even more effectively and in a frequent, systematic, consistent and flexible manner. Measures to counter this weaponisation effectively have been limited to military means. However, several internal constraints create a dilemma for IS as its state-building ambitions conflict with the consequences of the weaponisation of water. The rebirth of using the water weapon in Syria and Iraq raises questions about protecting water infrastructures in conflict and post-conflict settings.     

Diaspora Mobilization for Western Military Intervention During the Arab Spring

ABSTRACT

Literature on diaspora interest groups suggests that they exacerbate home-country conflicts by lobbying for hawkish interventions. However, studies fall short of understanding why diasporas support militarized interventions in home-country conflicts. Using original data on Libyan and Syrian pro-revolution activism during the Arab Spring, I demonstrate that extreme escalations in state repression, activists’ transnational ties, and norms supporting the “responsibility to protect” produced perceptions that militarized interventions were necessary countermeasures to mass killings. Overall, analyses of diasporas’ orientations to home-country conflicts should account for annihilative threats to populations at home, diasporas’ relations with those on the ground, and humanitarian intervention norms.     

“出兵-撤兵”与俄罗斯在叙利亚地缘政治目标的实现

叙利亚危机爆发后第五年，俄罗斯正式出兵叙利亚，成为打击“伊斯兰国”的重要力量。通过军事行动，俄罗斯成功阻止了恐怖活动的进一步蔓延、提升了自身国际影响力、在困境中绝处逢生。当前，中东地区矛盾依旧纷繁复杂，多方势力持续深度博弈，俄罗斯两次宣布从叙利亚撤出部队，展现了其军事-外交联动运用的“巧实力”，获得了战略红利、实现了部分既定地缘政治目标。然而，俄罗斯长期介入叙利亚与美国及西方展开地缘博弈，对其国家振兴无疑是一个沉重的负担，尤其是叙利亚持续动荡的局势及域外大国的深度介入，使俄罗斯虽两次宣布撤兵，却从未真正撤出，围绕叙利亚及中东地区主导权和国际话语权的争夺还将在各大国间反复上演。随着普京开启其第四个总统任期，俄罗斯在解决叙利亚危机、破除西方制裁、振兴国家经济等问题上依然面临严峻挑战，这需要普京和俄罗斯精英阶层寻求解决问题的“新思路”。     

Fragmenting states,new regimes: militarized state violence and transition in the Middle East

Scholars working in the transitology tradition assume that authoritarian breakdown leads to movement towards democratization after an initial period of uncertainty. If a transition falls short of democratization, there is an assumption that a return to authoritarian normalcy has transpired. Yet, whether one looks at Egypt, Libya, Syria, or Bahrain, the emergent trend is neither democratization, a return to the old authoritarian order, or a delayed transition. Rather, the weakening and fragmenting of regimes by popular mobilizations stimulated elites’ militarization of the state apparatus and unprecedented levels of state violence against ordinary citizens in a process of regime re-making.     

Class forces,transition and the Arab uprisings: a comparison of Tunisia,Egypt and Syria

This article intervenes into an ongoing debate on authoritarian regimes in the Arab world following the uprisings of 2011, in particular addressing the perceived failure of those uprisings to bring about “transition” to liberal democratic models. Drawing upon the method of comparative historical sociology used in seminal analyses of democratization and dictatorship in Europe, Asia and the Americas, the article seeks to explain the varying trajectories of the Arab Uprising states in terms of several structural factors, namely the balance of class forces, the relative autonomy of the state and the geo-political context. The article provides an empirical comparison of the cases of Egypt, Tunisia and Syria as points on a continuum of outcomes following the Arab uprising. The article mounts a critique of the absence of class analysis in mainstream transition theory and hypothesises instead an important role for workers’ movements in bringing about even basic elements of liberal democracy. The empirical comparison is shown to support this hypothesis, demonstrating that in Tunisia, the state where the worker's movement was strongest a constitutional settlement has been reached while Syria, the state with the weakest and least independent workers’ movement has descended into counter-revolution and civil war: the case of Egypt lying between these two poles.     

Conversations in Istanbul: An interview with Bulent Ecevit

Turkey, a strategically located but often unappreciated ally of the West, receives inadequate attention in Western media. It has served as a crucial element of Western defense during the cold war and is a bridge between Europe and the Middle East. The following interview with former Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit examines the Turkish perspective on important Turkish foreign and domestic issues, specifically focusing on: Arab‐Israeli conflict, Turkish‐Greek dispute over Cyprus, Turkish relations with the Arabs, Turkish relations with the United States and West European countries, Arab relations with the West, and internal Turkish political affairs.     

More than Rubber-Stamps: The Consequences Produced by Legislatures in Non-Democratic States beyond Latent Legitimation

Despite various works suggesting the contrary, legislatures in non-democratic states are overwhelmingly generalised as ‘rubber-stamps’ that provide nothing other than latent legitimacy for those in power. Based on examination of legislatures in 10 of the world's most undemocratic states this paper highlights their capacity to act in precisely the opposite manner, serving to empower citizens, strengthen opposition groups and weaken dictatorial regimes. Whilst recognising that legislatures can be manipulated and subjugated by such regimes, the article seeks to highlight the variations between legislatures and the need to take account of their true potential.