Dams have a contentious reputation. Symbols of independence, progress, and prosperity to some, they are a lived reality of displacement, obliteration of sacred sites, and environmental degradation to others. Given the massive expansion of dam construction in recent years, this article engages in a critical assessment of the institutional limitations to dam opposition and explores alternative venues for anti‐dam mobilization and the voicing of claims to environmental justice. The article argues that a potentially effective means of dam opposition requires the alignment of both environmental justice and rights claims with mainstream societal conversations and government priorities. In order to resonate with a broader community vision of national interests and priorities, anti‐dam opposition also needs to integrate a message of collective duties and responsibilities.

Trafficking in persons is often referred to as a global problem that can only be resolved through collaborative action involving the entire global community. Since the early 2000s, the United Nations (UN) has spearheaded efforts to lead the global anti-trafficking campaign and advocate for the humane treatment of trafficked persons. This paper examines the effects of various legal documents and advocacy campaigns to argue that, for the present moment, the UN-led anti-trafficking collaboration fails on both counts-end trafficking and provide protection and support to trafficked persons. It further argues that the global anti-trafficking unity is maintained at the expense of solving the actual problem: identifying someone to blame and criminalize takes precedence over resolving socio-economic conditions, which are often at the root cause of trafficking. An extreme emphasis on criminality and morality, while well aligned with states' anti-immigration objectives and public outcries against illegal migration and prostitution, also leads to further ostracization of those in need of protection and options for reintegration.

No abstract

How can we think of human agency in a world driven by consumer preferences, environmental damage, and economic and political uncertainty? Is this the era of an 'anything-goes' approach or are there alternative ways of thinking about and anchoring political experience? In Appearances of Ē thos in Political Thought, Sophia Hatzisavvidou argues that the concept of ēthos sheds light on such questions and also allows for rethinking both the scope and meaning of political engagement. By recovering the original meaning of ēthos and re-conceptualizing it as ''a mode of dwelling,'' she seeks to formulate a democratic quality of political engagement that is defined by an ''assemblage of dispositions, affects, attitudes and patterns of thinking that animate established and emerging ways of political organization and action'' (p. x). For Hatzisavvidou, attending to ēthos highlights ''the transient yet decisive aspects of political experience that, along with established or familiar affiliation and modes of relating and acting, underpin and mobilize political engagement'' (p. 21). To develop her argument, Hatzisavvidou provides a brief conceptual history of ēthos (Chapter 2) that shows how re-conceptualization as ''dwelling'' is productive in thinking about democratic politics. Merging the archaic meaning of ēthos as topos with an active and dynamic conceptualization (p. 20), Hatzisavvidou argues that the plasticity and complexity of the term ultimately allows for denoting and connoting both ''the place of life-where one dwells-and the way of life-how one dwells'' (p. 2). The agents of this dwelling can be either individuals or communities; what characterizes them is their susceptibility to transformations and resourceful behavior (p. 2). Hatzisavvidou therefore defines ēthos as a ''complex and multifarious category, an assemblage of diverse components such as moral principles, ethical dispositions, corporeal reactions, affective responses and intellectual functions which participate in diverse ways in our perception of the world and our visions for its possible forms'' (p. xii). Conceptualizing ēthos as dwelling in other words enables Hatzisavvidou to argue for both a space and a mode of living where political engagement is a process of particular way of

No abstract