European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Keal, Paul

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491467

Cited by 256 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 108 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The apparent influence of developed nations that this represents is worrying in the context of international power relationships. Historically, the dominance of the West has been justified with convincing rhetoric, irrespective of sad outcomes (Keal, 2003), and so the laudable aims of IWRM are not guarantees of positive outcomes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The limits of Web–based empowerment: Integrated water resource management case studies

Thelwall¹,

Barlow²,

Vann³

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is an analysis of the limits of Web–based empowerment of the voiceless, leveraging from five Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) case studies, and motivated by several recent Web–based empowerment success stories. For IWRM, the Web picture is of an emerging academic–trained professional community of water professionals, with close ties to national governments, but closer ties to powerful international NGOs and NGOs sponsored by western governments. Nevertheless, no Web evidence was found for the involvement of ordinary citizens in IWRM, despite this being a key theoretical goal, and no Web evidence was found of the emergence of genuine grass–roots pressure groups. A comparison with other high–profile Web–enabled issues, such as the anti–World Trade Organisation protests, indicates that the Internet can be used to help give a voice to the voiceless in many different ways, but that its use at a grassroots level is not automatic.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The limits of Web–based empowerment: Integrated water resource management case studies

Thelwall¹,

Barlow²,

Vann³

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The above arguments are but a sampling (and one can find plenty of other international jurists making similar arguments Anghie (2005:32–114) and Keal (2003:84–112), however they represented the jurisprudential consensus of the late nineteenth century asserting European exceptionalism in establishing a distinctive legal and political order promoting mutual independence and tolerance. According to the international jurists of the age of Empire, such as Wheaton, Hall, Westlake, Twiss, Lawrance, Oppenheim, Europe had formed a superior order composed of sovereign and secular states, an order significantly shaped by the Peace of Westphalia and the increasing number of treaties and conventions followed Westphalia, making international law, in essence “Westphalian.”…”

Section: The Construction Of the Westphalian Narrativementioning

confidence: 95%

Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory

Kayaoğlu

2010

International Studies Review

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past 10–15 years, an increasing number of revisionist scholars have rejected the most significant elements of the argument about the centrality of the Peace of Westphalia (1648) to the evolution and structure of international society. At the same time, the prominence of this argument has grown in the English School and constructivist international relations scholarship. I deconstruct the function of the Westphalian narrative to explain its pervasiveness and persistence. I argue that it was first developed by nineteenth century imperial international jurists and that the Westphalian narrative perpetuates a Eurocentric bias in international relations theory. This bias maintains that Westphalia created an international society, consolidating a normative divergence between European international relations and the rest of the international system. This dualism is predicated on the assumption that with Westphalia European states had solved the anarchy problem either through cultural or contractual evolution. Non‐European states, lacking this European culture and social contract, remained in anarchy until the European states allowed them to join the international society—upon their achievement of the “standards of civilization.” This Westphalian narrative distorts the emergence of the modern international system and leads to misdiagnoses of major problems of contemporary international relations. Furthermore, their commitment to the Westphalian narrative prevents international relations scholars from adequately theorizing about international interdependencies and accommodating global pluralism.

show abstract

“…While the English School sees international society as based on the principle of tolerance and coexistence, its relations with the outsiders had been driven by the belief in the superiority of European civilisation and the need to spread it by all means, including through force and colonisation (Keene 2002, Keal 2003. The relatively more successful latecomers internalised both patterns of order in world politics -toleration and civilisation (Keene 2002: 97-119).…”

Section: International Society and Its Undersidementioning

confidence: 99%

Russia's Postcolonial Identity

Morozov

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Cited by 256 publications

References 108 publications

The limits of Web–based empowerment: Integrated water resource management case studies

The limits of Web–based empowerment: Integrated water resource management case studies

Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory

Russia's Postcolonial Identity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About