Spelling suggestions: "subject:"apolitical borders"" "subject:"apolitical 6orders""
1 |
O outro nas fronteiras. Para uma teoria política da migração / The other at the borders: towards a political theory of migrationVentura, Raissa Wihby 31 August 2018 (has links)
A quem os estados devem justificar suas ações quando regula o fluxo de pessoas nas suas fronteiras? Contra a suposição de que a pergunta normativa mais relevante que surge quando alguém é considerado indesejado e está nas fronteiras de uma comunidade política é aquela sobre se os estados têm o direito de excluir novos membros, este trabalho sustenta que, antes, é preciso ouvir o grito de quem denuncia: isso é injusto. Recolocar a pergunta nesses termos é uma resposta ao diagnóstico segundo o qual um dos traços fundamentais da injustiça que sofrem os sujeitos indesejados nas fronteiras é o desrespeito, como também é uma tentativa de recolocar o problema normativo da ética da migração, de modo tal que não incorra em um dos erros partilhados tanto pelas visões que afirmam como pelas visões que recusam o direito dos estados de fecharem suas fronteiras. Está-se falando do erro de silenciarem as experiências e as perspectivas de quem migra como relevantes para uma ética da migração internacional; um erro que pode ser traduzido nos termos de um tipo específico de injustiça, qual seja, aquela que recebe traços epistémicos. Uma teoria política crítica e normativa que escuta a afirmação de que essa situação é injusta e precisa responder à pergunta sobre a quem os estados devem justificação, reflete uma proposta metodológica e epistemológica que questiona tanto o nacionalismo/estatismo quanto o cosmopolitismo epistemológico como perspectivas adequadas. A proposta defendida é a de que uma resposta adequada ao problema da justificação, que nasce nas fronteiras dos estados quando identifica uma pessoa como indesejada e a envia, por exemplo, para centros de detenção, é aquela que propõe como solução normativa e política para esse contexto um processo de justificação em dois níveis um é normativo e o outro é político-deliberativo. Com essa formulação, este trabalho defende que, enquanto agentes morais, migrantes nas fronteiras podem reivindicar o respeito à sua dignidade, mas também que, enquanto agentes políticos, é preciso que se reconheça a necessidade de garantir espaços institucionais em que possam lutar pelos termos da relação que gostariam de estabelecer com a comunidade de chegada. Ao propor tal passo esta tese realiza seu objetivo transformador mais ousado: imaginar um mundo de fronteiras porosas não-opressivas no qual a migração deixa de ser tratada como um problema a ser combatido em nome do funcionamento normal daquelas peças que compõem a engrenagem dos estados soberanos territorialmente delimitados. / borders? This dissertation argues that, before posing the normative question regarding whether the states have the right to exclude new members or not, we should listen to the grievances cry of this is unjust. Recasting the migrations priority question on these terms, the dissertation acknowledges, at one hand, that instances of disrespect are among the main sources of injustice on the states borders and, on the other, it tries to avoid a mistake shared by both sides of the ethics of migrations literature, that is, the systematic disregard of the personal perspectives from those who actually are crossing borders on our world. This forceful disregard, it is argued, should be conveyed as a specific instance of injustice, namely, a form of epistemic injustice against migrants. A critical and normative theory of migration, i. e., capable of paying attention to peoples own voices regarding what is just or not, attempts to bring about a theoretical and methodological framework in which we can evaluate and criticize both sides of migrations theory, the nationalist/statist theories, on one side, and the cosmopolitan ones, on the other. None of them is able to address normative justifications two-tier levels at play on the states borders: the normative and the political-deliberative level. Based on this framework, the dissertation argues that not only have international migrants a legitimate claim on the respect of their dignity, qua moral agents, but also, we should acknowledge some space in the democracies main political institutions for their agency qua political subjects. Agents who should have a say on the terms under which their relations with potential arrival communities are stablished. Taken this step, the dissertation aims at a more transformative goal, namely, conceiving a world of states based non-oppressive porous borders, in which interstate migrations will no longer be treated as a technical problem for the national-based delimited state functioning.
|
2 |
State Territorial Structuring in Iraq (1920-2020): The Impact of Group Identities, Ideas, Interests, and Foreign InfluenceJaff, Rébar 12 April 2022 (has links)
Since the creation of modern-day Iraq by the British Empire in 1920, the country’s state territorial structuring has been an ever-evolving source of political instability and conflict. Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian groups have been locked in a near constant struggle over questions of self-rule, shared rule, and secession. Consequently, the territorial model of federalism has never been far from political discussions, negotiations, and territorial disputes. Federalism was finally officially adopted in 2005, giving a new definition to Iraq’s territorial model. But while federalism seemed a natural means of managing Iraq’s long-standing ethno-sectarian divisions and was democratically ratified in a process that included most ethnic and sectarian groups, the model has failed to materialize, and territorial structure remains a major point of contention between the groups. The overarching aim of this dissertation is to shed light on two key questions. First, how have the dynamics between the major ethnic and sectarian groups of Iraq shaped the evolution of the country’s territorial structure from 1920 up to and beyond the federal constitution in 2005? Second, what can the trajectory of this evolution teach us about why federalism was adopted but has failed to materialize? I shall argue that Iraq’s territorial structuring over the past century has been systematically influenced by at least one of four “I”s: the groups’ ideas concerning territorial structuring, their conceptualizations of group identities, their definitions of group interests, and the influence of foreign actors. Focussing on the Shiite Arabs, the Sunni Arabs, and the Kurds, I will examine how these four factors have interacted to shape the territorial organization of Iraq over four key time periods: (i) the foundation of Iraq in 1920 to Saddam Hussein’s rise to the presidency in 1979, (ii) Saddam’s rule from 1979 to 2003, (iii) Saddam’s deposition in 2003 to the adoption of the federal constitution in 2005, and (iv) the post-constitutional period from 2005 to the present. I thus hope to explain how evolving inter-group dynamics over the past century have impacted the development of Iraq’s territorial structure, arguing that this sheds light on both the reference to federalism in the 2005 constitution and its subsequent failure to materialize. This dissertation thus demonstrates the powerful ways in which Iraq’s territorial structuring has been shaped by past trends in ethno-sectarian dynamics, putting us in a better position to understand the complexities of the country’s current territorial politics.
|
Page generated in 0.0824 seconds