UCD School of Politics & International Relations

Follow

SPIRe’s Week seven seminar will feature SPIRe PhD student, Mr. Justin Sinnott presenting on his research “How has nationalism developed in contemporary England? A case study of elite attitudes in local authorities in three English regions” from 12:00-13:00 Wednesday, March 6th  in G316 Newman Building, UCD Belfield.  All are welcome.

Abstract

This paper examines how nationalism has developed in contemporary England and
examines attitudes to Englishness and English nationalism among English elites at local
authority level. It sets out to capture the attitudes to nationalism and expressions of
Englishness in local authorities in three English counties separated by region. The use of
local authorities to ascertain how English nationalism has developed is useful for a variety of reasons. Firstly we can examine both political nationalism and cultural nationalism at close quarters at a local level. Secondly English local authorities have often been accused of preventing expressions of Englishness. This paper asks what local authority councillors’
attitudes are to nationalism, keeping in mind the context that they are often accused of being at the vanguard of preventing expressions of Englishness. This may be deliberate or because of sensitivities through living in a more multicultural society. This is often referred to as political correctness by English nationalists. The paper also examines local elite attitude to specific English cultural expression such as St George’s Day and the flying of the St George’s Cross the national flag on England. Finally the paper asks what are the current attitudes and views on more general attitudes to Englishness and cultural identity. Has there been a growth in Englishness and English culture at a local level?

Follow

SPIRe’s Week six seminar will feature SPIRe PhD student, Mr.Paul Quinn presenting on his research “African Waters: The Cooperation Question” from 12:00-13:00 Wednesday, February 27th  in G316 Newman Building, UCD Belfield.  All are welcome.

Abstract

Natural resource management poses challenges at multiple levels of governance; this is particularly true of transboundary water systems. No single approach is adopted internationally and each instance is characterized by diversity. Interactions between states range from verbal hostilities or military actions, to regime formation and cooperation; with instances of conflict and cooperation often occurring in tandem. This highlights the importance of riparian strategies and the effects of management approaches. It also poses many unanswered questions for International Relations ‘types’, who seek to understand the dynamic nature of multistate interactions.

Current research on issues of water security generally, and the effects of climate change in particular, focus on the climate change–‐conflict nexus and challenges posed by population growth, dependence and migration patterns. The issue of cooperation and governance has been dealt with to a much lesser extent, focusing on individual state roles. Many studies dealing with regime formation have relied on theoretical assumptions without a substantive empirical argument. Furthermore, while it is believed that regimes have significant impact on multi–‐lateral negotiations, these mechanisms have not occurred in all instances nor have they been equally resilient. This project analyses transboundary collective action problems associated with water management and is driven by an empirical puzzle: why successful regime formation, leads to successful conflict resolution and management solutions in some cases but not in others, and why is it that if a regime does not emerge, it sometimes leads nevertheless to successful conflict resolution and management solutions, but not in other instances. It follows the thread to success by answering two research questions. Firstly, how and under what conditions are transboundary cooperative regimes established to manage shared resources and mediate disputes between riparian states? Secondly, how effective are these regimes in resolving conflicts and achieving management solutions?

These research questions, not only how regimes are established, but also their efficiency as a mechanism to mediate potential disputes. In doing so, it fills an empirical gap in the research on how states manage conflict and collective action problems associated with transboundary waters. To do this a multivariate model is put forward, addressing strategies for long–‐term mutual gains and the conditions required for regional harmony; tested through four case studies on the basis of most similar systems design. The project investigates the conditions in which riparian ‘games’ are played and offers a valuable contribution to understanding the barriers and catalysts to successful cooperation.