This book utilizes a systems thinking perspective to propose a holistic framework of analysis and practice for the regional security community (“RSC”) arrangement in Africa. In responding to the challenge of improving effectiveness of response to peace and security threats, African states tend to rely on ad hoc mechanisms. However, this approach has been mired with a myriad of structural limitations. The holistic framework reconfigures the traditional “RSC” into a simplified tool kit of “resources”, making this text book ideal for students and advanced researchers in international relations, and all those concerned with regional security and strategic studies.

This important book looks at the tumultuous recent events in the Arab region in the context of long-term historical pressure to build societies that will respond to Arab citizens’ longing for freedom and opportunity. Only through the painstaking process of constructing an Arab world defined by pluralism and tolerance can this dream be realized.

Marwan Muasher, former foreign minister of Jordan, asserts that all sides—the United States, Europe, Israel, and Arab governments alike—were deeply misguided in their thinking about Arab politics and society when the turmoil of the Arab Spring erupted. He explains the causes of the unrest, tracing them back to the first Arab Awakening, and warns of the forces today that threaten the success of the Second Arab Awakening. Hope rests with the new generation and its commitment to tolerance, diversity, the peaceful rotation of power, and inclusive economic growth, Muasher maintains. He calls on the West to rethink political Islam and the Arab Israeli conflict, and he underscores the importance of efforts to strengthen education and expand traditional definitions of Arab citizenship for the long-term process of democratic transition.

Certain regions of the world experience more conflict than others. Previous analyses have shown that a civil war in one country significantly increases the likelihood that neighboring states will experience conflict. This finding, however, still remains largely unexplained. We argue that population movements are an important mechanism by which conflict spreads across regions. Refugee flows are not only the consequence of political turmoil—the presence of refugees and displaced populations can also increase the risk of subsequent conflict in host and origin countries. Refugees expand rebel social networks and constitute a negative externality of civil war. Although the vast majority of refugees never directly engage in violence, refugee flows may facilitate the transnational spread of arms, combatants, and ideologies conducive to conflict; they alter the ethnic composition of the state; and they can exacerbate economic competition. We conduct an empirical analysis of the link between refugees and civil conflict since the mid-twentieth century, and we find that the presence of refugees from neighboring countries leads to an increased probability of violence, suggesting that refugees are one important source of conflict diffusion.

Migrant communities’ homeland‐oriented political campaigns are always related to, but often different from, the activism in which local people engage in their homeland setting. In seeking to understand the observed disparities between migrant campaigns and homeland activism, several studies have demonstrated the influence of contextual factors like political opportunity structures on homeland‐oriented migrant politics. Complementing these studies are works that focus on changes to identity and belonging associated with migration and resettlement. In this article, I build on these debates by offering a combined analysis of the intersections between, and interplay of, contextual and identity‐based factors. I use this analytical approach to examine the case of Sudanese political activists resident in the UK. I demonstrate how forms of belonging emerge here as part of – and not in isolation from – the strategic navigations of multiple political contexts and opportunities. In doing so, I contribute to our understanding of how belonging can be contextualized to serve as an analytical lens for understanding homeland‐oriented migrant activism.

During the “Arab Spring,” the Chinese government instigated a series of harsh crackdowns on the exercise of free speech, a human right, to crush any budding protests. To justify its human rights violations, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has persistently raised the theory of cultural relativism, asserting that Asian cultures do not support all the rights articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Various scholars have written extensively on rights in Asian cultural paradigms, but this article focuses particularly on the diverging representations of “Asian values” advanced by different political regimes since the creation of the Universal Declaration.

Culture and politics are often intricately entwined. In some ways, political posturing may be the true impetus behind the PRC’s cultural relativism argument. This article points out the contrary positions taken by the PRC and its predecessor, the Republic of China (RoC), on universal human rights, although both regimes share the same cultural roots. To further dissociate politics from culture, this article compares the PRC’s position against two societies, one that is culturally similar (Japan) and one that is politically similar (the former Soviet Union). Although culturally similar, Japan’s position on human rights diverges in many ways from that of the PRC. On the other hand, the PRC’s stance on cultural relativism replicates that of the former Soviet Union. Given the inconsistent support for a purported theory on “Asian values” despite cultural ties, one can conclude that the PRC’s justifications for cultural relativism depend heavily on its political philosophy, rather than shared cultural values.

BEGINNING IN JANUARY 2011, the Arab world exploded in a vibrant demand for dignity, liberty, and achievable purpose in life, rising up against an image and tradition of arrogant, corrupt, unresponsive authoritarian rule over an alienated population. The Tunisians’ slogan was “Dignity, Liberty, Work, Citizenship”; the Egyptians’ was “Dignity, Freedom, Bread, and Social Justice,” later ensconced in their constitutions.