Search results

Abstract
This article examines the 1971 refugee crisis between India and Pakistan and discusses its enduring lessons for the global refugee regime. The crisis, which drove an estimated ten million refugees into India within a space of nine months, led to a war between the two countries. The events of that year had significant geopolitical consequences. It led to the break-up of the Pakistani state, created the new country of Bangladesh, and involved the United Nations in one of its earliest, and largest, refugee repatriation campaigns. Yet, the case has received little attention in the refugee studies literature. Based on extensive archival research of the records of the US, British, and Indian governments, and of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this article examines why and how the refugee crisis escalated into an interstate war. The study links the India–Pakistan case to ongoing challenges confronting the international refugee regime, particularly from the perspective of first-host countries. The 1971 crisis reminds us that refugee governance norms and practices must include more critical considerations of the conditions necessary to resolve forced migration situations.

AbstractThis paper explores the motivations and actions of Indian Americans who actively oppose Hindutva, that is, a Hindu nationalist vision for India. Diaspora activists who advocate in favour of progressive values for India tend to be underreported in the media and underanalysed in scholarship. The following study addresses this gap. Based on public records, interviews with activist leaders, and participant‐observation, the paper demonstrates how anti‐Hindutva diaspora actors identify and leverage political opportunities in order to engage in moral signalling in local, national and global spaces. By shining a light on ongoing counternarratives to Hindutva, this study highlights contestations within Indian‐origin communities and challenges monolithic portrayals of diaspora politics.

AbstractThe dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is one of the world's most protracted and potentially dangerous conflicts. While the international community has strong interest in limiting violent conflagration between the two states, third party action aimed at amelioration has been very limited. This contrasts with overall global mediation efforts, which have increased in the post-Cold War period. Using archival research, this study explores the reasons for the Government of India's implacable opposition to any external intervention in the conflict. We argue that both strategic and ideational motivations have influenced its decisions. In particular, India's strict adherence to the principle of strategic autonomy precludes the possibility of accepting external mediation. By exploring how and why strategic and ideational motivations intersect to become a formidable barrier to third party intervention, this article contributes to our understanding of why certain countries develop resistance to mediation.

The international community has been increasingly interested in the ways by which external actors help end civil conflicts. This study compares and contrasts the conflicts in Sri Lanka and Indonesia (Aceh) in order to understand why international intervention has failed in Sri Lanka but has been successful in Aceh. In Sri Lanka, the intensely fractured nature of domestic politics has been one of the most significant obstacles to successful peace talks. Although international intervention has become necessary to overcome the trust barriers between the two parties, it is seen as a threat to national sovereignty and therefore rejected. In contrast, the democratization process in Indonesia created new opportunities for peace. The political will of principal actors and their receptivity to external assistance enabled a peace agreement in 2005. The findings of this study show that both domestic political consensus and a supportive international environment, which protect the reputational concerns of the negotiating state, are necessary for resolving protracted ethnonational conflicts.

The "Global War on Terror," led by the United States, emphasizes the role of international alliances in tackling terrorist threats. By their very nature, international counterterrorism efforts challenge state sovereignty by requiring changes to both foreign and domestic policies. This, in turn, creates complex sovereignty issues and raises some interesting questions for closer examination. How has cooperation in counterterrorism altered the perceptions and behavior of allies of the United States? Has the post‐9/11 security environment constrained the sovereignty of other nations? This article explores these questions in the context of Canada's cooperation with the United States. The study argues that Canada's sovereignty has been bounded, but not determined, by U.S. demands. Examining the relationship between the United States and Canada can help us understand both the limitations and the continuing relevance of the traditional concepts of power, sovereignty, and interdependence in international relations.La "Guerra Global contra el Terrorismo," encabezada por los Estados Unidos, enfatiza el rol de las alianzas internacionales para afrontar las amenazas terroristas. Por su propia naturaleza, las acciones contra el terrorismo ponen a prueba la soberanía de los estados al requerir cambios tanto en su política exterior como en la interna. Esto, a su vez, genera complejos problemas de soberanía y crea algunas preguntas interesantes para ser examinadas. ¿Cómo ha alterado la cooperación contra el terrorismo la percepción y el comportamiento de los aliadosde Estados Unidos? ¿Ha restringido la soberanía de otras naciones el ambiente de seguridad posterior a 11/9? Este artículo explora estas cuestiones en el contexto de la cooperación Canadiense con los Estados Unidos. El estudio argumenta que la soberanía Canadiense ha sido limitada, pero no determinada, por las demandas estadounidenses. Examinar la relación entre los Estados Unidos y Canadá puede ayudarnos a comprender tanto las limitaciones y la continua relevancia de las concepciones tradicionales de poder, soberanía, e interdependencia en las relaciones internacionales.