Managing heritage in the wake of war and conflict in Cyprus

In the wake of a Greece-inspired coup against the Greek Cypriot President of Cyprus in 1974, the Turkish military occupied the northern third of the island and continues to do so. Ethnic communities are still separated: Greek Cypriots moved to the south and Turkish Cypriots to the north. This paper covers issues raised by the bi-communal conservation projects resulting from the European Union’s Partnership for the Future Programme being implemented by the United Nations Development Programme. The projects require co-operation between mutually distrustful, fearful and disdainful communities for the sake of common objectives – social and economic wellbeing. Cyprus has apparently opted for conflict management rather than resolution, with both sides focused on achieving prosperity. Heritage conservation has become a tool for peaceful co-existence and mutual pride. Initially the projects involved places of shared heritage rather than places reinforcing the separate cultural identities of the communities. Loss of cultural identity is a concern of both communities. Ongoing operational issues derive from the illegality of the Turkish government in the north and the repercussions of this for international aid. The paper will contribute to the conference theme by exploring the professional challenges related to these issues and their possible resolution.

The hidden war

Unpublished script for a 90 minute documentary

Rogue en vogue : North Korea and the war on terror

North Korea occupies a unique place in the thinking of US policymakers insofar as it represents both a direct, physical threat and also a reminder of the limits to American power. In numerous ways, North Korea is anathema to the US: it has fulsomely rejected America’s systems of political–economic organisation, its gradual rapproachment with South Korea threatens to undermine the rationale for America’s military presence in Northeast Asia, and its possession of nuclear weapons threatens the safety of the US and its allies. For these reasons, and despite its lowly standing in the international political system, North Korea continues to severely frustrate the superpower’s interests and thus represents an existential threat to the US.

Letting go without a fight : decolonization, democracy and war, 1900-94

Does the type of regime really make no difference to the likelihood of violent conflict over basic issues of stateness such as separatism and decolonization? Can democratic peace theory be successfully applied when dealing with the national identity or stateness question? This article extends the application of the democratic peace to the process of decolonization. It examines conflict between imperial states and their colonies during the process of decolonization and investigates the question of whether democracy affects the likelihood of conflict. The central finding is that, contrary to the implications of some prominent theories of state formation and democracy, democratic imperial states are significantly less likely to go to war with their colonial possessions in the process of achieving independence. Further, the authors find only a monadic, not dyadic, democratic peace effect. The regime type of the colony does not have a significant effect on the likelihood of war. It is the nature of the regime of imperial states, rather than that of colonies, that is a significant factor. In addition, the predominant source of this effect appears to be the institutional constraints placed on executive action within democracies, rather than the influence of mass politics or the effects of political competition. Regarding power-related factors, power parity between sovereign and colony makes conflict more likely (a colonial power-transition effect), but imperial decline actually makes war with colonies less likely. Sensitivity analysis reveals that a number of other hypothesized effects cannot find robust support. Simulations are used to assess the magnitude of the effect of regime type pre- and post-independence. Overall, the article contributes to theory development by investigating different institutional aspects of democracy and by distinguishing monadic and dyadic effects.

Alarmed, but not alert in the "war on terror"? The High Court, Thomas V Mowbray and the Defence Power

The article examines the judgment in Thomas v. Mowbray by the High Court in Australia handed down during the so called 'War on Terror'. According to the author, (i) the High Court de-emphasized the importance of the difference between war and peace in fixing the scope of the defence power in the Australian Constitution in a manner which was inconsistent with its earlier celebrated decision in the Communist Party Case in 1950 during the Cold War; and (ii) failed to apply a sufficiently rigorous test of proportionality in characterising the impugned Commonwealth laws. The article discuss the legal background and social implications of the High Court's decision, using the Communist Party Case in 1950 as a point of comparison.