Borders, conflict and security

Abstract

Purpose Border environments differ as foci for conflict discourse. While classic realist theories are used to account for mechanisms of securitized borders, socially oriented theories are often invoked to characterize relaxed borders. This distinguishing pattern regarding securitization reflects a deeply rooted focus on idealized borders, based on implicit expectations that relaxed borders are a viable option and goal for all. This orientation is prone to mistaken assumptions regarding local, national and regional interests and ultimately threatens delicately balanced states of stability. This paper aims to question this somewhat simplified categorization and posit that securitized borders are longstanding realities which warrant more complex theoretical conceptualization. Design/methodology/approach The analysis is based on documentary study and qualitative field research, mapping and evaluating Israel–Jordan cross-border interactions conducted during 2006-2014. Local civilian interactions were studied using three tools: interviews, non-participant observations and a sector-based analysis of original and secondary sources. In the course of research, many tours and observations of the border region were conducted, and key actors in Israel and Jordan were interviewed: entrepreneurs, local residents, local and national government officials, security personnel and representatives of non-governmental organizations involved in the administration and funding of normalization-promoting initiatives. Findings In light of internal and external security threats which challenge states and border regions in conflict environments and in normalized settings, there is increasing value in recognizing multi-level power relations (“bringing the state back in”) that design, inhibit and ultimately control the inevitability, circumstance and social–political effectivity of any cross-border interaction. Cross-border cooperation (CBC), which evolves gradually, monitored by the border regime and reflecting actual levels of inter-state political dialogue, is a slower yet safer option and a more realistic expectation for CBC, especially in regions of minimal communication between cross-border neighbors. In the backdrop of the Middle East turmoil, Israel and Jordan mark 20 years of peaceful relations, enjoying stability based on shared political and security interests, yet displaying no apparent tendency toward increased cross-border interaction. Given the stark differences in regimes and ongoing regional unrest, this securitized border fulfills local and regional needs and is far from a temporary “second-best” reality. Originality/value The analysis is based on original fieldwork and documentary study, mapping and evaluating Israel–Jordan cross-border interactions conducted during 2006-2014.

On the dimensionality of intragroup conflict

“…Conflicts have both an attitude and a behavior component (Tjosvold et al , 2003). In fact, many researchers view behavior as the core process of conflict (Arieli, 2016; Wall and Callister, 1995) and propose behavioral conflict concerning behaviors such as debate, argumentation, competition, political maneuvering, backstabbing, aggression, hostility and destruction (Barki and Hartwick, 2004). Though this dimension has deepened our understanding of the conflict process, it has brought some measurement issues.…”

The Turów coal mine international dispute as a determinant of the cross-border integration of inhabitants of the Polish-Czech border

“…The prevalence of border disputes in cross-border conflict (as noted by Popescu, 2008;Schultz, 2015;Vazquez, 2015) has sparked research into the underlying causes of these conflicts, their escalation, and the conditions under which they can be resolved (Meinhof, 2003;Kurnicki & Sternberg, 2016). These conflicts can be analysed and categorised based on different aspects such as intensity, degree of actor involvement, and damage to cross-border assets (Arieli, 2016;Berg, 2018).…”

Behavioural conflict on employee wellbeing: role of negative affect state and workplace fun

“…Behavioural conflict and employee well-being Conflicts among employees have both affective and behavioural components. The conflict's behavioural manifestation is considered the significant conflict process (Arieli, 2016;Wall and Callister, 1995). Employees' behavioural conflict is defined as "conflicts associated with destructive clashesdestructive interactions such as fistfights, obstruction, and backstabbing" (Ma et al, 2017).…”