Search results

Peace is not an absence, but rather a visibly identifiable set of norms. This visualization can take place through internationally recognized signs such as the white flag and the blue helmet. These representations of norms are united in their ability to be distinguished from similar objects or signs through their use of colors. The identificatory use of color avoids confusion between parties embroiled in a conflict, making an organization or envoy stand out and creating the expectation that they are encompassed by the specific norms of warfare, which these colors make visible. Through establishing such "dumb signs" of peace, as Grotius put it, the colors of peace have, we argue, played a notable part in establishing customary international law. The aim of our contribution is to offer an illustrative chromatological analysis of how peace and its norms are made visible through objects and symbols which are not connected with peace beyond their coloring (e.g., emblems, flags, helmets, or warzone vehicles). We show how certain colors, in their situated use, come to both symbolize and enact peace in terms of international politics.

The present article investigates how sovereignty is performed, enacted and constructed in an everyday setting. Based on fieldwork and interviews with international embedded experts about the elusive meaning of 'local ownership', we argue that while sovereignty may, indeed, be a model according to which the international community 'constructs' rogue or failed polities in 'faraway' places, this view overlooks that these places are still spaces in which contestations over spheres of authority take place every day, and thus also spaces in which sovereignty is constructed and reconstructed on a daily basis. Local ownership, then, becomes our starting point for tracing the processes of the everyday enactment of sovereignty. We make the case that sovereignty should not be reified, but instead be studied in its quotidian and dynamic production, involving the multiplicity of actors reflecting the active production of the state beyond its presumptive existence as a homogeneously organized, institutionalized and largely centralized bureaucracy.

The present article investigates how sovereignty is performed, enacted and constructed in an everyday setting. Based on fieldwork and interviews with international embedded experts about the elusive meaning of 'local ownership', we argue that while sovereignty may, indeed, be a model according to which the international community 'constructs' rogue or failed polities in 'faraway' places, this view overlooks that these places are still spaces in which contestations over spheres of authority take place every day, and thus also spaces in which sovereignty is constructed and reconstructed on a daily basis. Local ownership, then, becomes our starting point for tracing the processes of the everyday enactment of sovereignty. We make the case that sovereignty should not be reified, but instead be studied in its quotidian and dynamic production, involving the multiplicity of actors reflecting the active production of the state beyond its presumptive existence as a homogeneously organized, institutionalized and largely centralized bureaucracy.

The present article investigates how sovereignty is performed, enacted and constructed in an everyday setting. Based on fieldwork and interviews with international embedded experts about the elusive meaning of 'local ownership', we argue that while sovereignty may, indeed, be a model according to which the international community 'constructs' rogue or failed polities in 'faraway' places, this view overlooks that these places are still spaces in which contestations over spheres of authority take place every day, and thus also spaces in which sovereignty is constructed and reconstructed on a daily basis. Local ownership, then, becomes our starting point for tracing the processes of the everyday enactment of sovereignty. We make the case that sovereignty should not be reified, but instead be studied in its quotidian and dynamic production, involving the multiplicity of actors reflecting the active production of the state beyond its presumptive existence as a homogeneously organized, institutionalized and largely centralized bureaucracy.

The present article investigates how sovereignty is performed, enacted and constructed in an everyday setting. Based on fieldwork and interviews with international embedded experts about the elusive meaning of 'local ownership', we argue that while sovereignty may, indeed, be a model according to which the international community 'constructs' rogue or failed polities in 'faraway' places, this view overlooks that these places are still spaces in which contestations over spheres of authority take place every day, and thus also spaces in which sovereignty is constructed and reconstructed on a daily basis. Local ownership, then, becomes our starting point for tracing the processes of the everyday enactment of sovereignty. We make the case that sovereignty should not be reified, but instead be studied in its quotidian and dynamic production, involving the multiplicity of actors reflecting the active production of the state beyond its presumptive existence as a homogeneously organized, institutionalized and largely centralized bureaucracy.

In the Peruvian Amazon, a significant amount of the agricultural landscape is cultivated with cocoa (Theobroma cacao) mostly grown under the shade of Musacea and timber trees. There, deforestation and its control are one of the main environmental issues for the Peruvian government and further, for the international community. In these landscapes, farmers who want to establish new plantations have the choice between tropical forest and degraded lands. Most of the latest are abandoned pastures or annual crops with mostly red ferralitic soils heavily unsaturated. As a response to the loss of fertility, farmers have currently two alternatives: entering illegally into the natural forest or practicing shifting cultivation on a long term basis that can reach more than 15 years. In this last case, the fallow lands, locally called "Purma", are named under three categories according to the height of the pioneer vegetation: (i) low (10 years). Our study has been conducted with former coca farmers moved 20 years ago by the Peruvian government to the Ucayali department to produce cocoa. There, we compared soil quality, cadmium content and plant biomass including fine roots at 0-20 and 20-50 cm depth, among three land uses: (i) 31 agroforestry cocoa plantations at different ages, (ii) 24 low, 24 medium and 22 high "purmas", and finally (iii) 22 forest patches as a control. Our results provide an interesting basis to discuss the ability of cocoa-based agroforestry systems to maintain and even restore soil fertility in degraded landscape at the Amazonian forest margin. The evolution of Cadmium content depending on land use and fallow period gives interesting indications for further investigations.