{"id":10,"date":"2018-08-10T16:10:13","date_gmt":"2018-08-10T16:10:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/simplexera.com\/test\/?page_id=7"},"modified":"2025-05-05T13:20:14","modified_gmt":"2025-05-05T13:20:14","slug":"research","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/jamielevin.myqnapcloud.com:8000\/WordPress\/research\/","title":{"rendered":"RESEARCH"},"content":{"rendered":"

Firearms Analogies And Settler Colonialism In US Nuclear Deterrence Strategy<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Nuclear strategy has long been formulated through analogies. We focus on one in particular: guns. Early nuclear strategists in the United States used multiple analogical comparisons to make sense of the new, apparently unprecedented technology that confronted them. They compared nuclear deterrence to gun dueling and the nuclear revolution itself to the rise of gunpowder on European battlefields. Both analogies invoked empire, in the form of American settler frontier gunfights and the impact of firearms on European expansion. This article offers a critical reading of them. We show both analogies were historically flawed, relying on outdated accounts of how firearms shaped military-political change. Our argument proceeds in three stages. First, we document the role of gun analogies in early US nuclear strategic writing. Second, we critically evaluate the analogy, showing its historical and analytical limits. Drawing on firearms literatures in history, sociology, criminology, and economics, we show that much of what we now know about firearms diverges from nuclear theory and history. Third, we develop an alternative interpretation, contrasting these analytical fictions with the actual history of nuclear colonialism.<\/p>\n

Co-authored with Joseph MacKay.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Published in\u00a0the\u00a0Security Dialogue<\/em>\u00a0(2025).<\/p>\n

Nomads In International Relations: Post-Sedentarist Dialogues<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The key concepts and reference points of International Relations (IR) are informed by a sedentarist worldview anchored on the territorial state. IR\u2019s conception of its subject-matter is thus \u2018static\u2019 in both senses of the word: state-centric and immobile. One of the consequences of this sedentarist worldview has been a neglect of the world\u2019s nomads. Defined by their spatial mobility, nomads have been either ignored or, less frequently, brought in as an exceptional \u2018Other\u2019 against which concepts such as statehood and territoriality can be defined. The interventions in this forum challenge IR\u2019s sedentarism by recovering the world\u2019s nomads as international political actors past and present, thus enriching the range of empirical cases upon which IR scholars may build their theories and challenging teleological narratives that view the history of the international system as the inevitable triumph of the territorial state. At the same time, the forum cautions against the reification of the nomad as the \u2018Other\u2019 of the state by disaggregating nomadism from mobility and problematising the sedentarism\/nomadism binary. The goal of the forum is not to provide a blueprint for how IR scholars should study nomads, but to promote a critical reflexivity about IR\u2019s sedentarist assumptions.<\/p>\n

Co-authored with Jaakko Heiskanen, Joseph MacKay, Iver Neumann, Einar Wigen, Ingrid Eskild, Martin Hall, Alice Engelhard, Hannah Owens, and Franca Kappes.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Published in\u00a0the\u00a0Cambridge Review of International Politics<\/em> (2024).<\/p>\n

Israel: A Novel\u00a0Wedge Issue in Canadian Electoral Politics<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

This article investigates the relationship between partisan foreign policy positions on Israel and the voting behavior of religious minorities in Canada. It discusses Stephen Harper\u2019s strong pro-Israeli stance in foreign policy when the Conservatives were in power and focuses on two main explanations accounting for such politicization of Israel, namely moral obligations and political clientelism. These hypotheses are tested using the 1968-2015 Canadian Election Study (CES) surveys and the 2011-2015 Vox Pop Labs election data. The results suggest that the Israeli issue had an impact on the support for the Conservatives among voters from religious minorities. Considering the effect of this foreign policy positions, Jewish Canadians are shown to be more supportive of the Conservatives, while the opposite pattern is observed among Muslim Canadians. The implications of these findings are then discussed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Co-authored\u00a0with\u00a0Yannick Dufresne, Jonathan Paquin, and Marc-Antoine Rancourt<\/p>\n

Published in\u00a0the\u00a0Politics and Religion.<\/em>\u00a0(2023): 1-18.<\/p>\n

Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations: Before and After Borders<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

This edited volume explores non-state actors that are or have been migratory, crossing borders as a matter of practice and identity. Where non-state actors have received considerable attention amongst political scientists in recent years, those that predate the state\u2015nomads\u2015have not. States, however, tend to take nomads quite seriously both as a material and ideational threat.\u00a0 Through this volume, the authors rectify this by introducing nomads as a distinct topic of study. It examines why states treat nomads as a threat and it looks particularly at how nomads push back against state intrusions. Ultimately, this exciting volume introduces a new topic of study to IR theory and politics, presenting a detailed study of nomads as non-state actors.<\/p>\n

Published by Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.<\/p>\n

Introduction in Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

State consolidation has commonly been understood as depending on the coercive power of governments. Nomads are less easily coerced than settled populations, are difficult to track or otherwise administratively document, tax or conscript. Nomads, therefore, undermine or stand outside of core features of the modern international order. However, they also present a challenge to the legitimacy of the state. Nomadic societies are not just non-state actors. They are non-state political communities<\/em>, independent, or potentially so, in their modes of social ordering. Fixed and monopolistic territoriality is important not only to the efficiency of modern states, but it is also a defining element of their identity. As such, nomads challenge the legitimacy of modern statehood. Furthermore, their lack of fixity stands at odds with the project of modern nationalism. The movement of a cohesive group across, and their presence within, national borders is contrary to the notion that a particular geographically bounded area (i.e., a state) is the exclusive home to one people who share a common language, culture, and history (i.e., a nation). Among premodern states, migratory peoples were commonly derided as uncivilized, barbarian, or archaic. These biases seem to have persisted even in the context of scant material threats.<\/p>\n

Co-authored with Joseph MacKay<\/p>\n

Published by Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.<\/p>\n

Before and\u00a0After Borders\u00a0<\/i><\/i><\/span><\/a>in Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations<\/a><\/strong><\/i><\/p>\n

While non-state actors have recently proliferated, nomads we argue nomads challenge sovereignty in ways others do not. Nomadism undermines states\u2019 capacity to tax, conscript, and otherwise regulate population. However, nomadism constitutes an additional non-material threat to the modern territorial state. By disrupting states\u2019 claims to territorial exclusivity, nomadism undermines the ideational foundations of statehood. States have responded to nomadism in three ways. Many forcibly settle nomads. Weak states, unable to secure borders, may allow nomads to migrate relatively freely. Others voluntarily facilitate freer migration by reducing the salience of borders. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Co-authored\u00a0with\u00a0Gustavo de Carvalho, Kristin Cavoukian, and Ross Cuthbert<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Published by Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.<\/p>\n

Review of Nomad-State Relationships in International Relations: Before and After Borders<\/i><\/i><\/span><\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Throughout history, nomads have been considered to be out on the frontier, wandering aimlessly around the far borders of civilisation. Nomadic people were usually described as backward and uncivilised. Even today, nomads are still misunderstood, marginalised and often treated with disdain by settled peo- ples. Fortunately, there is now increasing recognition of the value of nomad\u2019s traditional ecological knowledge and the efficacy of many of the livestock and grazing management practices that nomads still use. . .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

Written by Daniel J. Miller<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Published in\u00a0Nomadic Peoples<\/em><\/p>\n

A Test of the Democratic Peacekeeping Hypothesis: Coups, Democracy, and Foreign Military Deployments<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The effects of peacekeeping on\u00a0the durability of peace (c.f., Fortna, 2004),\u00a0democratization (Fortna, 2008), and economic development (Doyle and Sambanis\u00a02000) in receiving states are well documented. However, to date\u00a0no\u00a0comprehensive statistical analysis has been undertaken of the effects of\u00a0peacekeeping on sending states. We assess the impact of peacekeeping on\u00a0undemocratic and weakly democratic states, which increasingly\u00a0contribute\u00a0disproportionately to peacekeeping in the post-Cold War era.\u00a0Does\u00a0peacekeeping encourage democratization?\u00a0Recent research arrives at conflicting conclusions about how contributing\u00a0troops to international\u00a0peacekeeping missions impacts the process of democratization\u00a0in contributing states.\u00a0Given these\u00a0competing views, and the relatively broad range of causal mechanisms proffered\u00a0to explain it, we narrow our scope of\u00a0inquiry.\u00a0We investigate whether contributing troops to peacekeeping\u00a0missions abroad increases the likelihood of a military intervention in politics\u00a0at home.\u00a0We find that following\u00a0deployments, non-democratic and weakly\u00a0democratic troop contributing states\u00a0become more prone to military coups. This effect is specific to non- or weak democracies,\u00a0however. In contrast, established democratic states instead appear to become\u00a0less coup-prone\u00a0after contributing troops to peacekeeping missions. Our findings\u00a0have implications both for how we understand the impact of participation in\u00a0peacekeeping, and for the potential international determinants of domestic\u00a0autocracy.<\/p>\n

Co-authored\u00a0with\u00a0Joseph MacKay Abouzar Nasirzadeh,\u00a0and Anthony Sealey<\/p>\n

Findings\u00a0presented at the\u00a0International Studies Association\u00a0Conference.\u00a0San\u00a0Francisco, CA. 2018.<\/p>\n

Published in\u00a0The\u00a0Journal of Peace Research. <\/em>58.3 (2021): 355-367.<\/p>\n

Domestic entanglements: Family, state, hierarchy, and the Hobbesian state of nature<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

This article revisits the Hobbesian account of the state of nature and\u00a0the formation of states, paying close attention to Hobbes\u2019 account of the\u00a0family. Drawing on feminist readings, we find in the\u00a0Leviathan\u00a0an account of the\u00a0family as a natural political\u00a0community. We contend specifically that a focus on conceptions of family life\u00a0in the\u00a0Leviathan, and secondary works\u00a0by Hobbes\u2019 early modern peers, points to the role of the family as a site of\u00a0socialization in the prelude to early state formation and in the formation of\u00a0political hierarchies more generally\u2014including, we suggest, the formation of\u00a0international hierarchies. These accounts have thus far been missing from\u00a0IR\u00a0theory. Contra conventional IR theoretic readings of the\u00a0Leviathan, the Hobbesian state of nature contains the seeds of both\u00a0anarchy and hierarchy, as overlapping social configurations. While anarchy\u00a0emerges clearly in the\u00a0famous condition of \u201cwar of all against all\u201d, hierarchy\u00a0also exists in Hobbes\u2019 depiction of family life as a naturally occurring\u00a0proto-state setting. On the basis of this contemporary feminist analysis of a\u00a0classic test, we consider\u00a0implications for the emerging \u201cnew hierarchy studies\u201d\u00a0in IR.<\/p>\n

Co-authored\u00a0with\u00a0Joseph MacKay<\/p>\n

Findings\u00a0presented at the\u00a0International Studies Association\u00a0Conference, 2010;\u00a0Canadian Political Science Association Conference, 2010.<\/p>\n

Published in\u00a0The\u00a0Review of International Studies. <\/em>45.2 (2019): 221-238.<\/p>\n

Credible Commitments and the Right to Bear Arms: The Second Amendment from a Game Theoretic Perspective<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

For most of its existence, the Second Amendment was\u00a0largely ignored by constitutional scholars. Recently, a veritable cottage\u00a0industry has developed in which two distinct camps have surfaced:\u00a0so-called\u00a0\u201cStandard Modelers,\u201d who argue that individuals have a right to bear arms for\u00a0self-defense, the defense of the state, and, in the most extreme examples, to\u00a0overthrow the government\u00a0should it become tyrannical, and those who view the\u00a0Second Amendment as a collective right vested in the state militias for the\u00a0purposes of law enforcement, to protect against foreign aggression,\u00a0quell\u00a0domestic insurrection, and as a check against federal overreach.\u00a0Despite the enormous gulf between\u00a0them, both\u00a0sides agree that the right to bear arms provides a counterbalance\u00a0against the federal government. This paper uses insights from game theory to\u00a0shed new light on the adoption of the Second Amendment. The states suffered a\u00a0commitment problem. They wished to cooperate with each other by founding a new\u00a0republic, but feared the consequences of doing so: losing their freedom to a\u00a0powerful government. The Second Amendment militated against the need\u00a0for a\u00a0large federal army, acted to counterbalance federal forces, and created the\u00a0offensive means with which to confront a tyrannical government.<\/p>\n

Published\u00a0in The\u00a0Journal of American Studies<\/em>. 53.4 (2018): 1024-1045.<\/p>\n

The European origins of the Israeli\u2013Palestinian economic union: A genealogical approach<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The Oslo peace process established a modified\u00a0economic union between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Economic unions\u00a0require extensive collaboration and are generally found between\u00a0states that\u00a0enjoy pacific relations and are looking to deepen integration and political\u00a0ties.\u00a0The choice of an economic\u00a0union between these adversaries is puzzling given the aim of the peace process\u00a0was to disentangle Israelis and Palestinians by establishing two separate\u00a0states. Today, after the optimism surrounding the process has faded, it is easy\u00a0to see the arrangement as a perpetuation of Israeli control over Palestinian life.\u00a0However, such assessments fail to consider: a) the depth of the negotiations,\u00a0b) the significant differences between the outcome of the negotiations and what\u00a0was previously imposed by Israel, and c) the gap between what was negotiated\u00a0and what was later implemented. This paper traces the genealogy of the\u00a0economic\u00a0union by exploring all three factors. While the negotiators did not start with\u00a0a\u00a0tabula rasa, they attempted to\u00a0alter the existing economic arrangement along the European neo-functionalist model\u00a0of integration. However, this was\u00a0later largely abandoned; what followed bore\u00a0little resemblance to the positive spillover effects in Europe.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Published in The Economics of Peace and Security Journal<\/em>. 13.1 (2018): 21-31.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Exploring\u00a0Palestinian Weapons Proliferation During the Oslo Peace Process<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Oslo\u00a0peace process created a Palestinian police force for the purposes of law\u00a0enforcement and preventing terrorism. However, Israel soon accused the\u00a0Palestine\u00a0Liberation Organization (PLO) of creating a paramilitary force as a\u00a0means to spoil the peace process and achieve by force what it could not through\u00a0negotiations.\u00a0Others argued that PLO chair Yasir Arafat was engaged in coup-\u00a0proofing the fledgling Palestinian Authority (PA). This article proposes that\u00a0the PLO\u2019s weapons\u00a0proliferation was meant as an insurance policy to deter\u00a0Israel from reoccupying the Palestinian Territories.<\/p>\n

Published in\u00a0The Middle East Journal<\/em>.\u00a072.1\u00a0(Winter 2018): 48-65.<\/p>\n

A Hegelian\u00a0Realist Constructivist Account of War, Identity, and State Formation<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This article offers a realist constructivist account of\u00a0armed conflict, based on the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel has\u00a0received relatively little attention in mainstream IR theory.\u00a0When he has been\u00a0read, four readings have predominated: realist, liberal, critical, and\u00a0normative. Instead, we link his thought to both realism and constructivism. For\u00a0Hegel, a persistent struggle\u00a0for recognition and identity between individuals\u00a0and groups drives much of human interaction. In his account of the causes of\u00a0war in Philosophy of Right, Hegel relates international violence not\u00a0only to\u00a0realist international-structural pressures, but also to nationalism, and to the\u00a0internal socioeconomic imperfections of the modern state. The result is broadly\u00a0realist constructivist, linking a\u00a0major international phenomenon \u2014 armed\u00a0conflict \u2014 to interactions between power and ideas. Previous readings of Hegel\u00a0in IR have deemphasised some or all of these features. Recovering\u00a0them\u00a0furnishes realist constructivism with theoretical tools for explaining the\u00a0processes linking ideas and power politics \u2014 tools it has lacked thus far \u2014 in\u00a0the context of a substantive\u00a0phenomenon: armed conflict.<\/p>\n

Co-authored\u00a0with Joseph MacKay<\/p>\n

Findings\u00a0presented at\u00a0Canadian Political Science Association\u00a0Conference, 2010;\u00a0Midwestern Political Science Association Conference, 2010.<\/p>\n

Published\u00a0in The Journal of International Relations and Development<\/em>.\u00a021.1 (2018): 75-100.<\/p>\n

Immersive\u00a0Politics and the Ethnographic Encounter: Anthropology and Political Science<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This chapter surveys the use of\u00a0anthropological findings and, especially, ethnographic methods, in political\u00a0science. We show that immersive inquiry is increasingly used to study\u00a0politics.\u00a0Indeed, the use of these methods is rapidly expanding across a\u00a0wide variety of topics and geographical areas. Nonetheless, we find in this\u00a0area of inquiry a central tension: On\u00a0the one hand, use of immersion to study\u00a0power has proven strikingly fruitful, opening a range of new avenues of inquiry\u00a0for the discipline. On the other, this method, and its attendant\u00a0theoretical\u00a0ethos, remains somewhat marginal in a discipline widely influenced by\u00a0statistical and formal or rational choice methods. We also find some practical\u00a0limitations on how\u00a0politics can be studied ethnographically, owing to problems\u00a0of access (because political institutions may be closed to immersive study) and\u00a0aggregation (because political science so\u00a0often deals with large-scale\u00a0phenomena).We conclude that political scientists using ethnographic methods\u00a0have nonetheless tended to convert these limitations into strengths, using\u00a0ethnographic methodology to open new areas for inquiry.<\/p>\n

Co-authored with\u00a0Joseph MacKay<\/p>\n

Published in In\u00a0Coleman Simon, Susan Hyatt, and Ann Kingsolver eds.\u00a0Routledge Companion to Contemporary Anthropology<\/em>.\u00a0Taylor &\u00a0Francis,\u00a02016.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Imperative to Explore the Impact of Disarmament on Peacemaking Efforts and\u00a0Conflict Recurrence<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

There is today a well-established consensus that\u00a0belligerents must be disarmed in order to reconstruct shattered states and\u00a0establish a robust and durable peace in the wake of internal armed\u00a0conflict.\u00a0Indeed, nearly every UN peacekeeping intervention since the end of the Cold War\u00a0has included disarma- ment provisions in its mandate. Disarmament is guided by\u00a0the arrestingly simple\u00a0premise that weapons cause conflict and, therefore, must\u00a0be eradicated for a civil conflict to end. If the means by which combatants\u00a0fight are eliminated, it is thought, actors will have little choice\u00a0but to\u00a0commit to peace. Disarmament is, therefore, considered a necessary condition\u00a0for establishing the lasting conditions for peace. To date, however, no\u00a0systematic quantitative analysis has\u00a0been undertaken of the practice of\u00a0disarmament and the causal mechanisms remain underspecified. This paper is a\u00a0preliminary attempt to fill that gap. In it we outline a series of hypotheses\u00a0with\u00a0which to run future statistical analyses on the effects of disarmament\u00a0programs. The success of negotiations and the durability of peace are, perhaps,\u00a0the single most salient issues concerning\u00a0those engaged in conflict termination\u00a0efforts. We therefore focus the bulk of this paper on a review of the supposed\u00a0effects of disarmament on negotiating outcomes and war recurrence.<\/p>\n

Co-authored by\u00a0Dan Miodownik.<\/p>\n

Published\u00a0in\u00a0Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy<\/em>.\u00a022.4 (2016): 347-356.<\/p>\n

Selectorate\u00a0Theory and the Democratic Peacekeeping Hypothesis: Evidence from Fiji and\u00a0Bangladesh<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

UN peacekeeping has undergone two major shifts since the end\u00a0of the cold war. The first is a move away from limited efforts to maintain\u00a0peace in post-conflict environments towards more robust\u00a0efforts at peace\u00a0enforcement. Second, the composition of peacekeepers has changed. In 1990, the\u00a0leading contributors of personnel to UN peacekeeping missions were notable\u00a0supporters of\u00a0multilateral cooperation and other liberal-democratic norms with\u00a0extensive peacekeeping experience. As of 2012, however, the top contributors to\u00a0UN peacekeeping missions had changed\u00a0dramatically: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia\u00a0and Nigeria have replaced traditional peacekeepers Canada, Finland, Austria and\u00a0Norway. While liberal-democratic nations continue to bear most of\u00a0the costs,\u00a0they have all but disappeared on the ground, leading to a precipitous decline\u00a0in the quality of peacekeeping. The consequences of the latter shift are the\u00a0subject of considerable debate.\u00a0Some argue that peacekeeping facilitates the\u00a0transmission of democratic norms and institutions to sending states. Others\u00a0increasingly argue that the so-called \u2018democratic peacekeeping\u2019\u00a0hypothesis is a\u00a0\u2018myth\u2019. We go further, suggesting that autocratic states may take on\u00a0peacekeeping duties as a way of maintaining costly security apparatuses for the\u00a0purposes of domestic\u00a0repression. Peacekeeping \u2013 a feature of liberal post-cold\u00a0war global governance \u2013 risks becoming a means to facilitate illiberal domestic\u00a0governance in the developing world. We demonstrate this\u00a0in two tentative but\u00a0cautionary cases: Fiji and Bangladesh.<\/p>\n

Co-authored with\u00a0Joseph MacKay and Abouzar Nasirzadeh.<\/p>\n

Findings\u00a0presented at the\u00a0International Studies Association\u00a0Conference, 2014; the\u00a0Midwestern Political Science Association Conference, 2014<\/p>\n

Published in\u00a0International Peacekeeping<\/em>.\u00a023.1 (2016): 107-132.<\/p>\n

Hanging\u00a0Out in International Politics: Two Kinds of Explanatory Political Ethnography\u00a0for IR<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The use of ethnographic methods is on the rise in\u00a0International Relations. However, research in this area has largely been\u00a0constrained to critical or interpretive analysis of nontraditional objects of\u00a0study. This has been driven in part by two practical problems that limit\u00a0ethnographic analysis: that of aggregation, as international phenomena are\u00a0necessarily large in scale, and that of access, as\u00a0institutional settings are\u00a0often closed or secretive. While we commend critical and nontraditional\u00a0research for driving much-needed expansion of the disciplinary agenda, we offer\u00a0a\u00a0complementary account, arguing that scholars can also use ethnographic\u00a0methods in explanatory research. To do so, we draw on two methodological\u00a0literatures in anthropology. The first\u00a0approximates ethnographic research\u00a0through historical immersion. The second applies ethnographic methods at\u00a0multiple research sites, tracking trans- national phenomena across them. The\u00a0paper\u00a0sketches prospective studies of each kind, concerning the creation and\u00a0implementation of the United Nations. While neither method is entirely new to\u00a0IR, the methodological literatures in\u00a0question have yet to receive systematic\u00a0treatment in the field.<\/p>\n

Co-authored with Joseph MacKay<\/p>\n

Findings presented at\u00a0the\u00a0International Studies Association\u00a0Conference, 2010;\u00a0International Studies Association Conference, 2013.<\/p>\n

Published\u00a0in\u00a0International Studies Review<\/em>.\u00a017.2 (2015): 163-188.<\/p>\n

Before and\u00a0After Borders: The Nomadic Challenge to Westphalia<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Although non-state actors have recently proliferated, many\u00a0predate the modern state system itself. Among these, traditional nomads\u00a0uniquely challenge sovereignty. Nomadism undermines states\u2019\u00a0capacity to tax,\u00a0conscript and otherwise regulate population. However, nomadism constitutes an\u00a0ideational as well as material threat to states. By disrupting states\u2019\u00a0territorial configuration,\u00a0nomadism undermines the ideational foundations of\u00a0statehood. States have responded to nomadism in three ways. Many forcibly\u00a0settle nomads. Weak states, unable to secure borders, allow\u00a0nomads to migrate\u00a0relatively freely. Others voluntarily facilitate freer migration by reducing\u00a0the salience of borders. We offer three examples: Bedouins, often forcibly\u00a0settled; African pastoralists,\u00a0permitted to migrate through porous borders; and\u00a0Roma, permitted to migrate transnationally within the European Union. While the\u00a0Bedouin and African instances suggest a necessary conflict\u00a0between the role of\u00a0state and the culture of nomadism, the European experience suggests border\u00a0relaxation can permit states and nomads to coexist.<\/p>\n

Co-authored\u00a0with Joseph MacKay, Gustavo Calvalho, Kristen Kavoukian, and Ross Cuthbert.<\/p>\n

Findings\u00a0presented at the\u00a0American Political Science Association\u00a0Conference, 2009.<\/p>\n

Published\u00a0in\u00a0International Politics<\/em>.\u00a051.1 (2014).<\/p>\n

Peace and\u00a0Pollution: The Political Economy of Toxic Waste in the Case of the Israeli\u00a0Palestinian Peace Process<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As part of the Oslo Accords, Israel and the Palestinian\u00a0Authority agreed to jointly manage issues of environmental concern according to\u00a0internationally recognised standards. The purpose of this\u00a0paper is to\u00a0qualitatively evaluate the outcomes of the Palestinian \u2013 Israeli Oslo\u00a0environmental peace agreements regarding trans-boundary hazardous waste\u00a0management. Hazardous waste is an\u00a0area of particular importance given the\u00a0potential for inefficient management to impact on public health and shared\u00a0ecological resources. Although the environmental negotiations that took place\u00a0within the framework of the Oslo Accords can be seen as a significant milestone\u00a0for environmental cooperation, many objectives were never achieved. Ultimately,\u00a0both parties were left with\u00a0suboptimal trans-boundary management, in practice,\u00a0because broader political disputes derailed cooperation in many technical\u00a0spheres. This outcome can be attributed to four main factors: Israeli\u00a0security\u00a0concerns, territorial disputes, logistical ambiguities and Palestinian\u00a0institutional constraints. The outcomes of the environmental agreements\u00a0challenge neo-functionalist approaches to\u00a0peacebuilding at the inter-state\u00a0level. Given the risks environmental concerns pose to both sides, new models\u00a0are needed that disentangle the management of immediately shared environmental\u00a0challenges from the ongoing conflict.<\/p>\n

Co-authored\u00a0with Ilan Alleson, Shmuel Brenner, and Mohammad Said Al Hmaidi.<\/p>\n

Published\u00a0in The Journal of Peace, Conflict and Development<\/em>. 8.1 (2013): 15-29.<\/p>\n

Accord to\u00a0Discord: A Political Economy Approach to the Oslo Process<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Paris Protocol, signed in April\u00a01994 as part of the Oslo Accords, set out the economic relations between Israel\u00a0and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Unlike the\u00a0“unilaterally imposed\u00a0customs union” (CU) that followed the 1967 Six Day War, the Paris Protocol\u00a0specified almost every form of daily (non-security) interactions,\u00a0covering\u00a0cooperation in water, electricity, energy, finance, transport, communications,\u00a0trade, industry, labor relations and social welfare issues. The Protocol was\u00a0predicated on cooperation with the aim of “strengthening the economic base\u00a0of the Palestinian side and for exercising its right of economic\u00a0decision-making in\u00a0accordance with its own development plan and\u00a0priorities.” It specifically granted the PA autonomy over “the\u00a0exchange of goods, fiscal policy, currency\u00a0arrangements, and labor services<\/p>\n

Published\u00a0in The\u00a0Palestine Israel Journal<\/em>.\u00a014.3 (2007): 62-68.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Firearms Analogies And Settler Colonialism In US Nuclear Deterrence Strategy Nuclear strategy has long been formulated through analogies. We focus on one in particular: guns. Early nuclear strategists in the United States used multiple analogical comparisons to make sense of the new, apparently unprecedented technology that confronted them. They compared nuclear deterrence to gun dueling … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/jamielevin.myqnapcloud.com:8000\/WordPress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/jamielevin.myqnapcloud.com:8000\/WordPress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/jamielevin.myqnapcloud.com:8000\/WordPress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jamielevin.myqnapcloud.com:8000\/WordPress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jamielevin.myqnapcloud.com:8000\/WordPress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10"}],"version-history":[{"count":63,"href":"http:\/\/jamielevin.myqnapcloud.com:8000\/WordPress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":440,"href":"http:\/\/jamielevin.myqnapcloud.com:8000\/WordPress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10\/revisions\/440"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/jamielevin.myqnapcloud.com:8000\/WordPress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}