Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSalt, J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-08T10:08:53Z
dc.date.available2016-02-08T10:08:53Z
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.identifier.issn0143-6597
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/23097
dc.description.abstractSince 2001 (designated as the UN Year of Dialogue Among Civilisations) several initiatives have been developed as a means of resolving problems whose causes have been ascribed, primarily by Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis, to civilisational difference. This article questions responses to the 'clash of civilisations' thesis which seem to accept the postulates on which it is based. It suggests that while dialogue is an indispensable tool of social cohesion, the source of many of the problems that pose a continuing threat to regional and global order is not 'civilisational difference' but the failure of governments to comply with international laws and conventions they have sworn to uphold. The explanation that 'civilisational difference' is the root cause of global disorder allows them to sidestep responsibility for the consequences of their own policies. Manipulation of the United Nations at the level of the Security Council is further evidence that the answer to global problems lies in redressing the failings of an entrenched world system that is based far more on power and state perceptions of self-interest than justice. The clearest evidence of structural weakness in the international system is to be found in the Middle East, where the UN Secretary-General's former special representative to the 'peace process', Alvaro de Soto, has drawn attention to the disjunction between public declarations of good intentions and high-level manipulation of this 'process' by powerful actors from behind the scenes. The article concludes that where dialogue is not the problem, it cannot be the solution.en_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.source.titleThird World Quarterlyen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436590802052599en_US
dc.subjectCivilizationen_US
dc.subjectInternational lawen_US
dc.subjectInternational relationsen_US
dc.subjectPeace processen_US
dc.subjectPerceptionen_US
dc.subjectPolitical systemen_US
dc.subjectUnited Nationsen_US
dc.subjectAsiaen_US
dc.subjectEurasiaen_US
dc.subjectMiddle Easten_US
dc.titleGlobal disorder and the limits of 'dialogue'en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of Political Science
dc.citation.spage691en_US
dc.citation.epage710en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber29en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber4en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/01436590802052599en_US
dc.publisherRoutledgeen_US
dc.identifier.eissn1360-2241


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record