Non-Nationalist Politics in a Bi-National Consociation: The Case of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

Through a case study of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, this article examines the contention that consociational power-sharing, in its determination to include dominant and conflicting identity groups, exalts these identities and excludes others including gender, class and other ethnicities and nationalities. The article describes and assesses the Alliance Party’s arguments that the power-sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland are philosophically objectionable, practically ineffective, and politically detrimental to parties which, like Alliance, are designated as “others.” The article finds that the party’s critique of consociationalism as implemented in Northern Ireland is overstated and that the party has been able to play a number of pivotal roles in the new politics.     

Internal Report Submitted to the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies

Dissident Irish Republicans have increased their violent activities in recent years. These “spoilers” reject the 1998 Good Friday Agreement power-sharing deal between Unionist and Nationalist traditions in Northern Ireland. Instead dissident IRAs vow to maintain an armed campaign against Britain's sovereign claim to Northern Ireland and have killed British soldiers, police officers, and civilians in recent years. These groups have small political organisations with which they are associated. The assumption across the political spectrum is that, whereas Sinn Fein enjoyed significant electoral backing when linked to the now vanished Provisional IRA, contemporary violent Republican ultras and their political associates are utterly bereft of sympathy. Drawing upon new data from the Economic and Social Research Council 2010 Northern Ireland election survey, the first academic study to ask the electorate its views of dissident Republicans, this article examines whether there are any clusters of sympathy for these irreconcilables and their modus operandi. The piece assesses whether there are any demographic, structural, ideological, religious, or party trends indicating Republican dissident sympathies. It also assesses the extent to which dissidents are seen as a threat and examines whether this perception is shared evenly across Northern Ireland's two main communities.     

Letting “the people(s)” decide: peace referendums and power-sharing settlements

Referendums have been used to legitimate power-sharing settlements in deeply divided societies transitioning from conflict. This article assesses the capacity of referendum rules to facilitate the “voice” of multiple groups or “peoples” in the decision to share power as a “constitutional moment.” Drawing on the constitutional referendums in Northern Ireland in 1998 and Iraq in 2005, the author demonstrates that referendum rules matter in highlighting the variable degrees of support for the elite-negotiated deal on the part of the contending groups. The institutional design process prior to the referendum is crucial for incentivising groups to support the settlement, particularly the previously dominant group. When faced with a choice between a simple majority threshold and countermajoritarian procedures, majoritarianism is appropriate only in so far as the main groups see their constitutional preferences satisfied and concurrent majorities can be secured. A qualified majority referendum threshold to protect a minority group is appropriate for divided states where the groups are regionally concentrated and when the groups agree to such rules. Important for the legitimation of power-sharing, referendums highlight the likely variable extent of approval on the part of the main groups, necessitating ongoing efforts to foster public support for the deal.     

Power-sharing after the Arab Spring? Insights from Lebanon’s Political Transition

Abstract

The article looks at the legacy of consociationalism in Lebanon with the aim of illuminating some insights on the linkages between power-sharing and conflict resolution in the post-2011 Middle East. It highlights three core dilemmas or governance traps that have recurred in Lebanon’s political dynamic: the power-sharing formula’s proneness to deadlock, its dependence on the external environment as an avenue for partisanship and sectarian leverage, and its weak responsiveness to demands from below. The article shows how these dilemmas are tightly linked to the politics of sectarianism. While Lebanon’s postwar transition (1990 onward) serves as a backdrop for exploring these dilemmas, emphasis is placed on the performance of Lebanon’s political system in the post–Arab Spring era. The aim is to assess whether Lebanon’s consociational performance has matured over time. The Lebanese experience brings into sharper focus the limitations of sectarian power-sharing. Still, it provides useful insights for reshaping the debate on power-sharing in divided societies of the Arab world.     

Setting Aside the “Others”: Exclusion amid Inclusion of Non-dominant Minorities in Peace Agreements

This article analyzes the exclusion-amid-inclusion of “Others” within territorial power-sharing arrangements. While territorial power-sharing is often used to accommodate national minorities, it risks excluding non-dominant minorities at sub-state levels of governance. The article charts how negotiated settlements have addressed this dilemma by formally acknowledging the plurality of non-dominant minorities within territorial power-sharing arrangements, including de facto minorities and other “non-aligned” or less politically relevant minorities. Using the PA-X Peace Agreements Database, this article conducts a qualitative content analysis of 1518 peace agreements from 1990-2016, to shed light on the EAI dilemma within negotiated settlements in divided societies.     

Victimisation and Attitudes Towards Former Political Prisoners in Northern Ireland

The release of ex-combatants and the mechanisms for their re-integration within society has become an increasingly controversial issue in peace settlements. Yet to date, the view of victims concerning such arrangements in post-conflict societies remains unexplored. Mindful of this omission and using Northern Ireland as a case study, this article investigates the relationship between victimisation and attitudes towards the treatment of former political prisoners. Based on the 2011 Northern Ireland Social and Political Attitudes Survey, the results suggest that individual victims—those who directly and/or indirectly experienced violent incidents—are notably less supportive of a punitive approach towards the treatment of former political prisoners than non-victims. Moreover, this is particularly the case when victims from within the Catholic community are considered. The Northern Ireland evidence suggests that victims can act as a positive and inclusive force in terms of the rehabilitation and re-integration of former combatants in societies emerging from conflict.     

The Influence of Religion and Ethnonationalism on Public Attitudes towards Amnesty: Northern Ireland as a Case Study

The granting of amnesties has now become a cornerstone of peacebuilding efforts in societies emerging from conflict. Yet, the impact of the role of religion and ethnicity in determining attitudes towards such arrangements has not been empirically assessed. Mindful of this omission, this article investigates the relationship between a range of religious measures — religious practices and beliefs in and about God — and ethnonationalist identity on public attitudes toward amnesty in Northern Ireland. Based on nationally representative survey data, the results suggest that, although Protestants are significantly more opposed to such an initiative than Catholics, both religious beliefs and ethnonational identity are significant, albeit divergent, net predictors with respect to their differing views.     

Lorenzo Vidino. Al-Qaeda in Europe: The New Battleground for International Jihad

This article reviews the changing patterns of violence in Northern Ireland from the period just before the paramilitary ceasefires in 1994 through the duration of the years of the peace process. It provides an overview of data on activities including paramilitary activities, ‘punishment’ attacks, racist, homophobic and domestic violence, public disorder and rioting as well as serious and violent crime. The article then analyzes the changes, and offers some reasons accounting for them. This includes a review of the role of young people, paramilitary organizations and the police reform program in the ongoing violence, as well as an acknowledgment of a wider culture of violence that helps to sustain such activities.     

No Sheriff in Town: Governance for Online Dispute Resolution

Online dispute resolution (ODR), the practice of resolving disputes via the Internet or digital applications, has been developing since the mid‐1990s. As the field has grown and gained traction, it has increasingly received attention from professional associations and industry leaders in the world of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). More recently, it has begun to receive recognition from sources outside of this field — in both the public and private sectors. As the field develops and individual initiatives become widely adopted, the attention it receives from external sources will undoubtedly focus on questions of quality, ethics, practitioner training, service provider qualifications, and monitoring. These questions — already beginning to be heard from within the field — derive, in essence, from one shared overall question, that of appropriate governance for the ODR field. In this article, we will explain what we mean when we discuss a field's governance and suggest that the field itself should investigate issues of its own governance. We explore and explain the current “low‐to‐no” state of governance in ODR — and the developments that are likely, should the field fail to actively address this issue. We discuss the costs of no governance, and the potential costs and disadvantages of employing a higher‐governance model. We ask whether ODR can, indeed, be governed at all, and illustrate why addressing ODR governance is a very complex venture, in terms of the web of factors to be addressed, no matter how beneficial internal governance may be. We do not, in this article, intend to decide any of these questions — but, rather, to pose them to the ODR field and to the wider fields of ADR and conflict management. We point out why the ODR field is at a developmental point that is highly suitable for discussing and deciding these questions — and why these decisions might have far‐reaching implications for a wide range of conflict‐related fields.     

Congressional Hearings on Northern Ireland and the “Special Relationship,” 1971–1981

In 1971, Senator Edward Kennedy co-sponsored a resolution in Congress calling for the withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland. The House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Europe held hearings on this resolution in February 1972 in the immediate aftermath of the deaths in Londonderry of “Bloody Sunday.” These hearings represented the first time that several high profile American political figures had spoken out on the developing conflict in Northern Ireland and, whilst the hearings did not lead to a significant change in American policy towards the conflict, the threat of further ones persisted from the Richard Nixon to the Ronald Reagan administrations. This analysis examines the impact of the 1972 Congressional hearings and the threat posed by the possibility of future ones in the wider context of United States policy towards the Northern Ireland conflict until 1981.     

Internet Governance in a Multipolar World: Challenging American Hegemony

This article traces the evolution of Internet governance, beginning with the earliest trans-Atlantic Internet ‘community’ associations that formed in the 1970s, up to and including the present mosaic of semi-private ‘self-regulating’ agencies headquartered mostly in the US. The effectiveness of the current system of Internet governance, based in large measure on US-sponsored bodies such as the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), is assessed and contrasted with an emerging international paradigm that seeks greater cross-border harmonisation and multilateral oversight of cyberspace resources. Political disputes arising amongst governments and other interested stakeholders concerning allegations of American regulatory unilateralism are examined. Fuelled in part by a digital divide between the technological haves and have-nots, the battle for the heart and soul of the Internet has reached fever pitch, without any definitive prospects for achieving a global consensus. Special emphasis is placed on emerging US–EU policy differences, as well as divergent North–South positions within the UN-sponsored Working Group on Internet Governance and related conferences. Strategies for enhanced international coordination of Internet governance, building on existing organisational structures and processes, are proposed.     

Public Support for Political Violence and Paramilitarism in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

Most of the research on paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland has concentrated on either the historical origins of paramilitary organizations or the background characteristics of individuals who engage in this activity. Less attention has been given to analyzing public attitudes in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland toward the use of paramilitary violence as a political tool within this society. In this paper we argue that one of the reasons for the intractability of the conflict and the current impasse over the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons is the widespread latent support for paramilitary activity among the civilian population in both these societies. Overall, the results suggest that only a lengthy period without political violence in Northern Ireland will undermine support for paramilitarism and result in the decommissioning of weapons.     

Northern Ireland's Flags Crisis and the Enduring Legacy of the Settler-Native Divide

The upsurge of unrest in Northern Ireland in December 2012 was unexpected as it ran counter to the prevailing assumption that the settlement of the conflict embodied in the Good Friday Agreement of April 1998 had finally taken root. Prior to the Belfast City Council's decision to limit the flying of the Union flag to designated days, Northern Ireland's political dispensation seemed completely secure. Indeed, arrangements for Northern Ireland's governance were being widely touted as a model for the resolution of ethnonational conflicts. The crisis has given resonance to an older interpretation of the problem in terms of settlers and natives.     

Public Opinion as a Domestic Constraint in International Negotiations: Two-Level Games in the Anglo-Irish Peace Process

This article aims to broaden the theoretical foundations of the two-level games approach to understanding international negotiations by considering the conditions under which public opinion can act as a domestic constraint on the ability of international negotiators to reach agreement. In determining the role that public opinion plays, three factors are of central importance: (1) the preferences of the public relative to those of decision makers and other domestic constituents; (2) the intensity of the issue under negotiation; and (3) the power of the public to ratify a potential agreement. Evidence from the last decade of Anglo-Irish negotiations over the future and status of Northern Ireland shows that public opinion acts as a constraint on negotiators when the public has the power to directly ratify an international agreement. When the public's power to ratify an agreement is indirect, the intensity of the issue under negotiation will play a critical role in determining whether public preferences serve as a constraint on decision makers.     

Power-sharing and peace in Côte d'Ivoire: past examples and future prospects

Many scholars have expressed grave concerns over the increased popularity of power-sharing agreements in Africa, arguing that power-sharing is an unstable form of government that provides only short-term reprieve from violent conflict. While most African experiments with power-sharing have failed, this does not necessarily invalidate the case for employing such agreements. The critical importance of context has been cited as a key factor in explaining the success or failure of power-sharing. In other words, it is not that power-sharing is inherently flawed but rather that it should only be employed in certain contexts. This article examines the role of context in explaining different power-sharing outcomes by analysing power-sharing in Côte d'Ivoire. The country provides an excellent case study for examining the importance of context as power-sharing agreements have been adopted in a variety of contexts with diverging outcomes. The article systematically examines key peace agreements and resulting power-sharing arrangements since the outbreak of civil war in 2002 in order to evaluate which factors help to explain successes and failures of power-sharing in Côte d'Ivoire. The article concludes by considering how previous examples may help to shed light on future prospects for power-sharing in Côte d'Ivoire and elsewhere.     

The Northern Ireland crisis in perspective

Abstract

The urban guerrilla warfare that has been taking lives in Northern Ireland for the past sixteen years cannot be regarded as an anachronistic settling of scores between “papists” and “prods” in an inferior remake of Europe's seventeenth‐century wars of religion. It is a conflict of our time and its distinguishing features cannot quite conceal a problem common to most divided countries, especially those—like Cyprus and Lebanon—which are shaken by similar convulsions.     

Framing the IRA: beyond agenda setting and framing towards a model accounting for audience influence

Coverage of Irish Republican Army (IRA) attacks and the Northern Irish peace process is affected by both the country a media organisation is located and their format. The coverage of the IRA in 1996 was studied in five newspapers based in Ireland, Northern Ireland, the UK and the USA to reveal similarities and differences in language use, stories reported and general emphasis. The frequency of keywords was examined to show that the location a newspaper is based in affects the stories run by the newspaper. However, the format of a newspaper affects the framing of this coverage more than the location. These results were analysed through the lens of two leading theories pertaining to media–public relations: agenda-setting theory and framing theory. While both are shown to be partially useful in explaining the results, a more holistic view that accounts for public influence on media coverage would be even more useful. As a result of this narrow focus on only one part of media–public relations, the two theories do not exhibit predictive power, and further study should be conducted to expand their scope to encompass the public’s affect on media coverage.     

Changing the Rules of the Game: Comparing FIFA/UEFA and EU Attempts to Promote Reform of Power-Sharing Institutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina

This article compares two international attempts to promote reform of power-sharing institutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina: failed European Union-led efforts to promote reform of the country's constitution, which was established by the 1995 Dayton Agreement; and the recent successful reform of Bosnia-Herzegovina's institutions of football governance, promoted by the game's international and European governing bodies, FIFA and UEFA. The article outlines the history of these two reform processes and seeks to explain why FIFA and UEFA have been more successful in promoting reform in this post-conflict setting than the EU. It argues that, in contrast to the EU, which has been vague about the precise reforms expected of Bosnia-Herzegovina's politicians, leaving the details to be negotiated by domestic political elites, FIFA and UEFA were more precise in their demands and were also willing to capitalise on popular frustration with the governance of the sport and to bypass nationalist elites who stood in the way of reform.     

Economics of peace making: the case of The International Fund for Ireland

The civil unrest in Northern Ireland, which began in 1969/1970, formally came to an end on May the 8th 2007, when devolved government began in earnest in Northern Ireland, with Unionist (Protestant) and Republican and Nationalist (Catholic) political parties joining together in government. One of the reasons for this historical peace is related to the work of The International Fund for Ireland. This article will discuss the mechanisms this Fund used to transform structures of conflict, and to create economic foundations for peace in Northern Ireland. The author was Director (1989–1993) and Chairman (1993–2005) of the International Fund for Ireland.     

Northern Ireland ‐ a British isles security complex

This article, drawing on the work of Barry Buzan, creates a British Isles security complex. Six patterns of enmity and amity are identified as making up this complex: Northern Ireland Protestants and Catholics; Northern Ireland Protestants and mainland Britain; Northern Ireland Catholics and mainland Britain; Northern Ireland Protestants and the Republic of Ireland; Northern Ireland Catholics and the Republic of Ireland; and mainland Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Applying the notion of a security complex to Anglo‐Irish Agreement not only reveals issues and areas that create or exacerbate conflict, but also that amity in one area of the complex can produce enmity in another area. A security complex approach allows for the systematic analysis of change and demonstrates the multidimensional and interdependent nature of conflict in Northern Ireland.