From Community Autonomy in Hungary to Indigenous Self-Determination in the Outback of Australia: Can Non-Territorial Autonomy Find Traction Down Under?

Hungary has, during the past three decades, developed what could arguably be described as one of the most advanced institutional systems of non-territorial autonomy in the world. Being so advanced does not of course mean the system is perfect or beyond criticism. But it does provide potentially useful insights into how non-territorial autonomy can or cannot work in practice. This article reflects on the institutional design of Hungary and asks whether principles can be identified that may be employed by indigenous groups in Australia and beyond in their search for a form of self-government. The theory and practice of non-territorial autonomy has so far been the focus of experts predominately from Central and Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation. This article considers whether any insight can be gained to apply the principles of non-territorial autonomy to other jurisdictions. The institutional design in place in Hungary may offer useful insight into how indigenous communities, particular some Aboriginal communities in Australia, may be bestowed with legal powers as a community to make decisions of a cultural and linguistic nature and to cooperate via the legal entity with local and state authorities. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples refers to selfdetermination and autonomy without placing those terms into a specific set of institutional arrangements. Whereas non-territorial autonomy may not be suitable for all communities, this article contends that non-territorial arrangements may offer an opportunity for self-government to indigenous (and other) communities that share a strong sense of identity; that do not have a geographical base where they constitute the majority; and where a communal desire for a form of self-government in public law exists.

What Are Karelians Made of, RuNet?

The social construction of the concepts of Karelian people, culture, and land develops in temporal flux. In the 2010s, the expansion of internet usage empowered previously unheard voices engaging these concepts in Russia. In this article, Russian-language internet discussions are used to find out how the state of Karelianness was negotiated in Russian-language internet (RuNet) discussions in the 2010s. My research distinguishes how manifestations of (sub)national identifications were dialectically approved and disapproved in accordance with nationalism discourses that I codify as civic, regionalist, and ethnic. The discussions show how the territory of the Republic of Karelia defines the boundaries within which manifestations of Karelianness are considered. Moreover, they depict the critique and rejection of issues such as Karelian culture, language, and descent due to their perceived juxtaposition against Russianness.

Non-Dominant Groups in Kosovo: A Marginalised View on (De)Securitisation of Minorities After Conflict

Drawing on case studies and in-depth analysis of ethnic minorities in Kosovo against the backdrop of statebuilding since 1999, this article discusses how the securitisation and desecuritisation of minorities after conflict is particularly problematic when seen from the marginalised perspective of non-dominant groups. I therefore argue that the adoption of a multi-ethnic statebuilding model of governance, including consociational power-sharing arrangements, has triggered unintended consequences for the (de)securitisation of minorities in Kosovo. Among such consequences is the risk of perceiving all minorities as potential threats and approaching minority issues merely through the lenses of security. By exploring various social, economic, legal, political, and identity characteristics of non-dominant communities in Kosovo and drawing on personal interviews with key stakeholders, representatives, and members of minority communities, this article shows the need for a more inclusive understanding of security which stretches beyond the threat of physical violence. This would permit, among other things, a more effective approach to dealing with the different layers of securitisation of minorities identified here. Otherwise, minority rights and concerns cannot escape the straitjacket of emergency politics. In conclusion, the long-term risk of managing multi-ethnicity through one-size-fits-all approaches is that statebuilding in plural societies will always struggle to desecuritise minority rights and develop ‘normal’ politics of diversity.

Populist Radical Right Parties and the Securitisation of Asylum Policy

This article examines the indirect impact of populist radical right parties on the securitisation of asylum policy. The theoretical foundation of the paper draws on classic theories of securitisation, expanding them to the field of (forced) migration and combining them with theories on indirect policy impact. In a two-step analysis, this article firstly investigates changes to asylum law in Austria and Germany from 2015 to 2016, using a policy analysis. The case studies include populist radical right parties with and without parliamentary representation. Thus, the resulting stage model also accounts for gradation of the influencing factor. In the first step of the analysis a securitisation of the policy field is revealed in both cases; however, it appears to a stronger degree in Austria. The results are then related to the strength of the populist radical right parties, operationalised as poll ratings, and to election dates to capture the behaviour of government parties under growing electoral competition. In Austria, the securitisation of asylum law could be attributed to the increasing strength of FPÖ, while the results for Germany are ambiguous. Accordingly, the results suggest that securitisation of asylum policy is more likely when populist radical right parties experience strong support from the electorate.

Theorising ‘Good Personhood’ in Rural Kosovo: Inconspicuous Coexistence and Local Serb Responses to Security and Identity Dilemmas

This paper explores the everyday experiences, perceptions, and practices of Kosovo Serbs residing in the rural fabric of Southeast Kosovo with regard to security-related issues. Building on previous qualitative social research conducted in Central Kosovo, it particularly investigates how local responses of ordinary Serbs reflect a certain pragmatic performativity in the face of Kosovo Albanians. In-depth interviews and focus groups were held with locals, while field observation was conducted to construct locally nuanced knowledge about the relations between ordinary Serbs, their identity, and the surrounding landscape. Similar to the Central Kosovo study’s findings, the results confirm that in Southeast Kosovo, local Serbs neither displayed nor unfolded forms of vernacularism or disloyalty toward Kosovo Albanians. Conversely, they were found reflecting on potential creative solutions for tackling poverty and underdevelopment in the hope of avoiding replications of post-1999 Kosovo War ideologies emanated by respective national media coverages and political rhetoric. Moreover, it is argued that security experts have de facto overlooked untapped processes of present-day interethnic coexistence and resilience between Serbs and Albanians in the rural fabric by largely giving salience to the tense atmosphere in the Serb-majority urban clusters of North Kosovo. In fact, results also show that Kosovo Serbs pragmatically perform an account of quotidian practices for restoring a sense and self-image of ‘personhood’ in the eyes of the ‘ethnic other’. Employing a research approach that aimed at avoiding unnecessary ethnicisation, this paper sheds light on a peace potential and true civic responsibility that emerged spontaneously from Kosovo Serb voices. Overall, the paper lays the ground for debating the notion of ‘personhood’ as a lens through which to unravel inconspicuous yet present interethnic coexistence in post-conflict Kosovo.

Fear of Others: Processes of (De)Securitisation in Northern Ireland

Situated at the junction between the field of ethnic politics, security studies, and migration, this paper analyses processes of (de)securitisation in Northern Ireland. The country is characterised by its violent past, consociational power-sharing institutions, experience with periods of political instability, and the recent arrival of several thousand people from other EU and non-EU countries. As a case study, Northern Ireland epitomises the problems of divided societies and the challenges posed by the presence of competing nationalisms in multinational and ever more diversifying countries. This paper applies the concept of (de)securitisation to analyse the extent to which past conflicts and tensions have been overcome; uncovering who or what is perceived as a threat, according to which terms, and how this affects majority-minority relations. To conduct the analysis, I adopt the Copenhagen School understanding of securitisation as a speech act. I use a qualitative methodology, examining (de)securitising discourses that emerged in the party programmes of the main political forces which won seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2017 and in previous elections since 1998. I look at the evolution and transformation of such discourses since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 to today, bringing to light the different security narratives that characterise Northern Ireland concerning the divisions and relationship among its communities and the broader issue of diversity.

On Security, Minorities, and Opportunistic Narcissism

At a global level, the last two decades have consistently witnessed the encroachment of right-wing rhetoric and anti-minority logos, with several states clearly promoting a discourse of fear of minorities. Seeing minorities either as the ‘enemy within’ or a political necessity that must be endured, states are sceptical in how they recognise or incorporate minority identities that threaten ideologies of national homogeneity. Adopting an anthropological perspective and having engaged in long-term research on minorities in Greece and Italy, I argue that the state selectively recognises minority traits that are deemed ‘secure’ enough to be incorporated into the national body of policies and governance in what I term opportunistic narcissism; the process of highlighting minority differences, territorialising them, and finally claiming them for the national corpus.

Facing Post-Communist Religiosity: Questioning And Shifting Religious Identity Among Yezidi Women From Armenia and Georgia

This paper aims to understand the post-Communist religious transformations that determine the process of questioning and shifting religious identity among Yezidi women from Armenia and Georgia. We discuss gender and religiosity in relation to the internal and external social and political context as influenced by Soviet atheism. The status of women among Yezidis is constructed by traditional religious norms and societal structures, which are influenced by the ideological politics (Communism, post-Communism) of the state of residence. Our findings show that Yezidis, like other religious communities in post-Soviet Armenia and Georgia, are actively involved in the institutionalization of religious norms. The institutionalization of religion within transitive society seems to have the potential to lead to a decline in trust, resulting in the establishment of new institutions, the separation of personal attribution and religious normative practices, and serves as a catalyst for questioning and changing religious identity. In particular, the article aims to understand how post-Communist religious transformations have re/shaped the identity of Yezidi women from Georgia and Armenia, as well as how the internal and external social contexts impact this course of action. We argue that changing political ideologies (Communism, which granted rights to Yezidi women), the pluralization of religiosity, and the systematization of religious norms pushed Yezidi women to question their religious identity, which was permitted after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and circulates the social norms (caste system, religious restrictions, the status of women) of Yezidism.