Ilyas Saliba – författare

This book provides empirically grounded insights into the causes, trajectories, and effects of a severe decline in university autonomy and the relationship to other dimensions of academic freedom by comparing in-depth country studies and evidence from a new global timeseries dataset. Drawing attention to ongoing discussions on standards for monitoring and assessment of academic freedom at regional and international organizations, this book identifies a need for clearer standards on academic freedom and a human rights-based definition of university autonomy. Further, the book calls for accompanying international oversight and the inclusion of criteria related to academic freedom in international university rankings. Five expert-authored case studies on academic freedom from diverse nations (Bangladesh, Mozambique, India, Poland, and Turkey) are included in the volume.Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative evidence, the book offers a unique and timely contribution to the field and will be of great interest to scholars, researchers, and students in the fields of higher education, human rights, political science and public policy.This Open Access book is available at www.taylorfrancis.com, and has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.

This book provides empirically grounded insights into the causes, trajectories, and effects of a severe decline in university autonomy and the relationship to other dimensions of academic freedom by comparing in-depth country studies and evidence from a new global timeseries dataset. Drawing attention to ongoing discussions on standards for monitoring and assessment of academic freedom at regional and international organizations, this book identifies a need for clearer standards on academic freedom and a human rights-based definition of university autonomy. Further, the book calls for accompanying international oversight and the inclusion of criteria related to academic freedom in international university rankings. Five expert-authored case studies on academic freedom from diverse nations (Bangladesh, Mozambique, India, Poland, and Turkey) are included in the volume.Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative evidence, the book offers a unique and timely contribution to the field and will be of great interest to scholars, researchers, and students in the fields of higher education, human rights, political science and public policy.This Open Access book is available at www.taylorfrancis.com, and has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.

Exploring the challenges and risks of social science fieldwork, this book shares best practice for conducting research in hostile environments and pragmatic advice to help you make good decisions.

Drawing on the authors’ experiences in regions of conflict and grounded in real-world examples, the book:

·        Provides practical guidance on important considerations like choosing a research question in sensitive contexts

·        Gives advice on data and digital security to help you minimize fieldwork risk in a contemporary research environment

·        Offers tools and templates you can use to develop a tailored security framework

Building your understanding of the challenges of on-the-ground research, this book empowers you to meet the challenges of your research landscape head on.

Exploring the challenges and risks of social science fieldwork, this book shares best practice for conducting research in hostile environments and pragmatic advice to help you make good decisions.

Drawing on the authors’ experiences in regions of conflict and grounded in real-world examples, the book:

·        Provides practical guidance on important considerations like choosing a research question in sensitive contexts

·        Gives advice on data and digital security to help you minimize fieldwork risk in a contemporary research environment

·        Offers tools and templates you can use to develop a tailored security framework

Building your understanding of the challenges of on-the-ground research, this book empowers you to meet the challenges of your research landscape head on.

Exploring the challenges and risks of social science fieldwork, this book shares best practice for conducting research in hostile environments and pragmatic advice to help you make good decisions.

Drawing on the authors’ experiences in regions of conflict and grounded in real-world examples, the book:

·        Provides practical guidance on important considerations like choosing a research question in sensitive contexts

·        Gives advice on data and digital security to help you minimize fieldwork risk in a contemporary research environment

·        Offers tools and templates you can use to develop a tailored security framework

Building your understanding of the challenges of on-the-ground research, this book empowers you to meet the challenges of your research landscape head on.

Seminar paper from the year 2009 in the subject Politics - Region: Africa, grade: 1,3, University of Hamburg (Institut für Politikwissenschaft), course: „The European Neighbourhood Policy - Mere Window Dressing or Real Stimulus for Democratic Reform?“ , language: English, abstract: The ENP includes all neighboring states of the European Union except the Russian Federation - No not all are included - there is one state that is neither a member of the ENP nor of any other formal or legal multilateral framework agreement with the EU - this is the Great Socialist People`s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Why is Libya the only neighbor state of the European Union that is not part of any legalized continuous process of interaction with the Union and what are the reasons? In order to find an answer to this question, in the following we will on the one hand draw the attention to the existing instruments for legal partnership agreements of the Unions external governance like the ENP or the Barcelona Process. Especially the policy instruments and the underlying theoretical assumptions of the ENP will be questioned in this part. On the other hand our emphasis will be to highlight the two-way interdependency between the EU and Libya as a reason for the non-participation of Libya in any of the existing institutionalized frameworks. With the Puzzle described above as a starting point the argument, that the relation between the EU and Libya is different to that of the EU and any other of its neighboring states, will be enfolded. Thinking the Unions external governance as a „rationalist bargaining model“ (Schimmelfennig/ Sedelmeier 2004, p. 663) we will show that the bargaining position of Libya towards the EU is stronger than that of all ENP member states. The missing power-asymmetry between the Union and its neighbor in the case of Libya will then be pointed out as the main reason for the non- participation of Libya in the ENP or any other legal framework. This leads to the hypothesis, that Libya does not participate in any formal or legal foreign policy program by the EU, because the power relations in the bargaining process are not asymmetrical enough as to enable the Union to imposeinstruments of conditionality on Libya. Bound to the former is the argument, that the ENP as a foreign policy is insufficient to formalize the relations between the Union and Libya and therefore is even more insufficient as a stimulus for political reform.

Seminar paper from the year 2009 in the subject Politics - Region: Russia, grade: 1,3, Göteborg University (School of Global Studdies), course: Special Course in Conflict Resolution, language: English, abstract: In the opening part of this paper I will firstly discuss the concepts of peace and justice and the tension between them, theoretically through referring to the relevant literature. Secondly I will reflect on the role of interests from actors and their different definitions of peace. Thirdly I will explain what kind of implications this inherits for long-term peacebuilding. In the fourth part I will enrich the discussion through highlighting one example on the basis of my case study of the Chechen conflict. The concepts of peace and justice are inseparably connected with each other in modern long-term peacebuilding. But why is this so? I will try to explain this through referring to the development of the concept of peace within the field of conflict resolution. Everything started with a very simple, though obvious and evident definition of peace. Fernando labels this the „traditional view which argued that peace is the absence of war.“ (Fernando 2000: 1). One terminological criticism is that the word „war“ as a extreme and specific type of violence does not take other forms of violence, like for example structural violence, into account. Although, as research shows, the victims of structural violence at least quantitatively are a lot higher, than those who suffer from direct violence as for example war. Therefore Galtung already in the late 1960s introduced the concept of a broader understanding of peace as the absence not only of war but „the terms ''peace'' and ''violence'' be linked to each other such that ''peace'' can be regarded as ''absence of violence''“ (Galtung 1969: 168).

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - Political Theory and the History of Ideas Journal, grade: 1,0, University of Hamburg (Institute of Political Science), course: European Integration Theories, language: English, abstract: Neofunctionalism and Liberal Intergovernmentalism (from now on I will use the abbreviations: NF and LIG in this paper) have been predominant approaches to theorizing Integration processes, especially in the first phase of theorizing European Integration. In the following essay I will begin by briefly lay out the main assumptions of the two approaches, drawing especially on their differences and similarities. In a second part I will discuss what these theories set out to do and raise questions about the actual accomplishments. Thirdly, I will turn to a critique of LIG and NF identifying their weaknesses, refering to Thomas Risse`s argument that Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Neofunctionalism are both lacking `...some categories necessary to capture distinctive features of the EU`2. This will lead me to the fourth part of my analysis in which I will demonstrate what and how other approaches can fill in the theoretical gaps and wholes that I have pointed out in my critique. In My conclusion I argue that European Integration Theory does not need overarching, universal theories, but rather is a useful conglomerate of different theories3, that might be combined in eclectically, and offer various toolkits for different suitable areas and levels of analysing and explaining Integration.