IN RECENT YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN SUSTAINED ACADEMIC AND political scrutiny of externally located 'kinsfolk': that is, groups of individuals located outside of a nominally national 'kin-state', and over whom the state in question lays claim to various forms of symbolic and/or legal jurisdiction (Duvold 2015; Pogonyi 2017). Academically, this literature is often nestled within broader, critical discussion of contemporary nations and nationalisms (Agarin & Karolewski 2015), with scholars noting 'the increasingly transnational character of global migration flows, cultural networks and socio-political practices' (Smith & Bakker 2008, p. 3). Often premised on the assumption that globalisation has the capacity to erode traditional borders, these transnational developments have spurred significant research interest into kin-state policies across the globe. These policies are typically enacted by states to construct diasporic identities that create strong bonds of identity between co-ethnics and their supposedly external homeland (Stjepanovi c 2015, p. 144). The kinsfolk question is consequently salient for the foreign policy actions of self-designating external homelands, but can also be heavily securitised by states that house groups of individuals who have the potential to be 'diasporised'. Owing to the scale of its potentially diasporic kinsfolk, the Russian Federation stands out globally as a significant agent of kin-state nationalism. Indeed, in recent years the Russian authorities have directed substantial resources towards kin-state activities, even codifying Russian-speaking 'compatriots' as central elements of the country's assertive foreign policy (Grigas 2016, pp. 57-93). While much has been written on Russia's politicisation of Russian speakers in its so-called 'near abroad' (Cheskin 2016; Grigas 2016; Duvold 2015; Schulze 2018), the essays in this volume place greater emphasis on the exploration of trends within the various communities of Russian speakers themselves. In this endeavour, we are influenced by Rogers Brubaker, who admonishes us to think of a diaspora as 'a category of practice … used to make claims'; diaspora, he goes on to say 'does not so much describe the world as seek to remake it' (Brubaker 2005, p. 12). This special issue consequently investigates trends in how 'Russian

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to develop a conflict analysis framework that better captures the complexity of conflicts in divided societies by including the differing perceptions of identity boundaries between ethnic majorities and minorities in divided societies. Design/methodology/approach -The analysis draws on the social boundaries and societal security literatures to develop a typology representing four dyads of perceived identity boundaries that illustrate the different dynamics of ethnic relations in divided societies. Findings -The exploratory cases illustrate how the perceptions of identity boundaries have implications for conflict dynamics that call for different conflict management strategies. Research limitations/implications -The empirical cases serve to illustrate the application of the theoretical framework. Policy makers devising conflict management strategies in these deeply divided societies are likely to err if differing perceptions of social boundaries are not taken into consideration. Thus, the authors provide explicit policy recommendations for conflict management in each of the dyads presented in the typology. Practical implications -Using the framework that incorporates differing perceptions of identity allows analysts to account for the impact of external actors in shaping and maintaining identity boundaries and allows for a consideration of the possible differing interpretations of the boundary held by different groups as well as the implications this has for conflict analysis and management. Originality/value -The authors develop a model that accounts for the perceptions of both the majority and the minority of the identity boundaries that separate divided societies. They account for the implications for conflict dynamics and thus for conflict management strategies of differing perceptions of identity boundaries, which provides a perspective that is both theoretically significant and policy relevant, as most policy makers assume that ethnic minorities and majorities see the social boundary between them in similar terms.

This article examines the efforts of the High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to manage tensions in Ukraine between the substantial Russian minority and the Ukrainian government, and to prevent potentially violent conflict in Crimea from 1994 to 2001, as well as the subsequent efforts to promote peace and stability. It questions why the HCNM was remarkably successful in crisis management from 1994 to 2001, especially in averting secessionism in Crimea, but was hampered in his efforts to achieve a solid foundation for durable peace through the creation of a robust system of minority rights protection. The central argument is that regional politics often preclude the construction of a minority rights regime that could otherwise provide the foundation for durable peace.

Exercises that encourage active and direct participation by students are often seen as a way to bridge the theory of classroom learning and the outside world. While most of the attention devoted to incorporating effective active learning strategies in the international relations classroom has focused on simulations, we argue that short field studies abroad, embedded in a regular course, are an excellent tool for bringing concepts and theories studied in class to life. We developed a course on minority rights and ethnic conflict that included a one-week field study in Ukraine. Through visits to international institutions and historic, strategic, and cultural sites, students see how theories of conflict management and human and minority rights are reflected in policy. The classroom program supports and reinforces student learning by preparing them to critically analyze information they encounter while abroad. The in-country experience supports and reinforces the formal learning on campus by making the theories and historical readings more meaningful. Through short-term field studies, we argue that students are able to grasp sophisticated theoretical arguments and make the connection between theory and policy, enriching their understanding of the world in which they live. Our experience has special relevance to teaching in international affairs, as we explore how to capitalize on short-term experiences abroad to deepen and broaden student learning about the world.