“合作伙伴”的代理机构

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW
Marina Peeters Goloviznina
{"title":"“合作伙伴”的代理机构","authors":"Marina Peeters Goloviznina","doi":"10.1163/15718115-bja10076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The article untangles the relationship between Indigenous Peoples organisations (ipo s) and the Russian government in domestic and international political forums over the 1990s-2020s. It links two debates on co-optation and Indigenous peoples’ rights norms contestation, offering a more nuanced view of them as complex, incremental, and dynamic processes in the Russian authoritarian regime. By proceeding from the bifurcation of the contemporary ipo sector, the analysis identifies and examines two groups of ipo s – ‘operational’ and ‘advocacy.’ The article argues that each group of ipo s still preserves some limited capacity to contest the state normative behaviour in the given political environment, yet differently. While ‘operational’ ipo s opt for discursive contestation through appropriation, the ‘advocacy’ ipo s express their dissent by acting as nomads. Both tactics enable each group to create opportunities to effect some progressive, albeit modest, policy and legislative changes.","PeriodicalId":44103,"journal":{"name":"International Journal on Minority and Group Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Agencies of the ‘Co-Opted’\",\"authors\":\"Marina Peeters Goloviznina\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718115-bja10076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The article untangles the relationship between Indigenous Peoples organisations (ipo s) and the Russian government in domestic and international political forums over the 1990s-2020s. It links two debates on co-optation and Indigenous peoples’ rights norms contestation, offering a more nuanced view of them as complex, incremental, and dynamic processes in the Russian authoritarian regime. By proceeding from the bifurcation of the contemporary ipo sector, the analysis identifies and examines two groups of ipo s – ‘operational’ and ‘advocacy.’ The article argues that each group of ipo s still preserves some limited capacity to contest the state normative behaviour in the given political environment, yet differently. While ‘operational’ ipo s opt for discursive contestation through appropriation, the ‘advocacy’ ipo s express their dissent by acting as nomads. Both tactics enable each group to create opportunities to effect some progressive, albeit modest, policy and legislative changes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44103,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal on Minority and Group Rights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal on Minority and Group Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-bja10076\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal on Minority and Group Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-bja10076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章揭示了20世纪90年代至20世纪20年代,土著人民组织与俄罗斯政府在国内和国际政治论坛上的关系。它将关于增选和土著人民权利规范争论的两场辩论联系在一起,提供了一种更微妙的观点,将其视为俄罗斯独裁政权中复杂、渐进和动态的过程。从当代ipo行业的分叉入手,分析确定并考察了两类ipo——“运营型”和“倡导型”文章认为,在特定的政治环境下,每组ipo仍然保留着一些有限的能力来质疑国家的规范行为,但有所不同。虽然“运营型”ipo选择通过挪用来进行讨论,但“倡导型”ipo则通过充当游牧民族来表达他们的异议。这两种策略都使每个群体都能创造机会,实现一些渐进的、尽管适度的政策和立法变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Agencies of the ‘Co-Opted’
The article untangles the relationship between Indigenous Peoples organisations (ipo s) and the Russian government in domestic and international political forums over the 1990s-2020s. It links two debates on co-optation and Indigenous peoples’ rights norms contestation, offering a more nuanced view of them as complex, incremental, and dynamic processes in the Russian authoritarian regime. By proceeding from the bifurcation of the contemporary ipo sector, the analysis identifies and examines two groups of ipo s – ‘operational’ and ‘advocacy.’ The article argues that each group of ipo s still preserves some limited capacity to contest the state normative behaviour in the given political environment, yet differently. While ‘operational’ ipo s opt for discursive contestation through appropriation, the ‘advocacy’ ipo s express their dissent by acting as nomads. Both tactics enable each group to create opportunities to effect some progressive, albeit modest, policy and legislative changes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信