Books by Marina Calculli
Questo libro esplora la competizione per il potere e l’autorità tra Stati e gruppi armati irregol... more Questo libro esplora la competizione per il potere e l’autorità tra Stati e gruppi armati irregolari nel sistema internazionale contemporaneo. Le politiche di sicurezza degli Stati sono generalmente tarate sull’imperativo di combattere e smantellare i gruppi armati irregolari. Tuttavia, mentre alcuni di essi si indeboliscono, o addirittura scompaiono, altri si rafforzano. Quest’ultimo è un fenomeno particolarmente interessante, data l’asimmetria tra le due parti in competizione. Il caso del gruppo armato e partito politico libanese Hizbullah illustra in modo significativo questa dinamica. Il ‘Partito di Dio’, infatti, si è eccezionalmente consolidato dalla sua nascita fino a oggi, nonostante i suoi rivali libanesi e internazionali, a partire da Stati Uniti e Israele, abbiano sistematicamente cercato di smantellare la muqaˉwama (‘resistenza’), la sua ala militare. Che cosa spiega la resilienza di Hizbullah? Marina Calculli cerca di rispondere a questa domanda teorizzando l’azione di Hizbullah in termini di ‘mimesi strategica’, mostrando cioè come il ‘Partito di Dio’ sia stato in grado non solo di evitare l’estinzione, ma addirittura di rafforzarsi, mimetizzandosi con il suo rivale per eccellenza: lo Stato. Agendo come uno Stato, Hizbullah ha intavolato all’occorrenza una competizione con lo Stato del Libano e/o con gli Stati rivali sul terreno delle responsabilità della sovranità, aggirando così il suo limite supremo, ovvero la possibilità di reclamare i diritti della sovranità, nella forma in cui questi sono codificati nel sistema internazionale contemporaneo. Spingendo la competizione nella sfera pubblica, Hizbullah ha costruito una legittimità morale per il suo uso della violenza, impedendo ai suoi rivali interni e internazionali di eliminare la ‘resistenza’. Focalizzandosi su tre congiunture critiche – la fine della guerra civile libanese nel 1990, la ‘guerra al terrore’ dopo l’11 settembre 2001 e l’inizio della guerra in Siria nel 2011 – il libro dimostra come Hizbullah non solo abbia sistematicamente aggirato le misure normative volte a sciogliere la sua ala militare, ma ne abbia addirittura tratto beneficio, rafforzandosi come attore militare e politico, sia all’interno sia all’esterno dello Stato libanese.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Papers by Marina Calculli
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
ASERI: Relazioni Internazionali e Scienza Politica, Oct 15, 2021
“Self-determination was invented by liberal democrats” – Daniel Phil-pott claimed, adding that “i... more “Self-determination was invented by liberal democrats” – Daniel Phil-pott claimed, adding that “its intellectual history is a discussion among them”. There is no better way to capture the mainstream understanding of self-determination, and what is fundamentally wrong about it. For not only is such a reading ahistorical; it silences the origins of the principle, the politics behind it, the radically different forms it has taken and the diverse ways in which it has been received. This chapter reconstructs the history of the principle in order to re-cover the parts of the ideological struggle from which it emerged and took its current shape, in particular the Marxist-Leninist contribution. The socialist conception of self-determination is what renders it a rad-ical, anti-colonial principle, which is something that has been wrongly attributed to US President Woodrow Wilson, when in fact he co-opted the principle and emasculated its potential and implications. This revi-sionist history is necessary to understand not only the emergence but also the trajectory and uses of the principle of self-determination, in particular its selective use which continues to spark controversies to the present day.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Routledge Handbook of Middle East Politics, 2020
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
“Self-determination was invented by liberal democrats” – Daniel Phil-pott claimed, adding that “i... more “Self-determination was invented by liberal democrats” – Daniel Phil-pott claimed, adding that “its intellectual history is a discussion among them”. There is no better way to capture the mainstream understanding of self-determination, and what is fundamentally wrong about it. For not only is such a reading ahistorical; it silences the origins of the principle, the politics behind it, the radically different forms it has taken and the diverse ways in which it has been received. This chapter reconstructs the history of the principle in order to re-cover the parts of the ideological struggle from which it emerged and took its current shape, in particular the Marxist-Leninist contribution. The socialist conception of self-determination is what renders it a rad-ical, anti-colonial principle, which is something that has been wrongly attributed to US President Woodrow Wilson, when in fact he co-opted the principle and emasculated its potential and implications. This revi-sionist history is necessary to understand not only the emergence but also the trajectory and uses of the principle of self-determination, in particular its selective use which continues to spark controversies to the present day.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The International Spectator
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The alliance between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah is central to Middle East security yet we know sur... more The alliance between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah is central to Middle East security yet we know surprisingly little about what makes it possible. Existing accounts concentrate on material or ideational incentives to explain this alliance, without however offering a systematic explanation for its rise and endurance. Most strikingly , these accounts fail to acknowledge how different these actors are from one another, and how unlikely it is for them to form an alliance-let alone a stable one. This article traces the genealogy of this curious form of cooperation in order to shed light on the sources of converge that are strong enough to overcome their manifold divergences. It finds that shared memory of humiliation and betrayal at the hands of the US and the West more generally is the main reason for the rise and endurance of this alliance. It is an alliance that defends an absolutist conception of self-determination in order to resist US hegemony in the region, even it violates the individual self-determination of the people under their authority. Overall, the article shows that neither materialist nor ideational approaches get to the bottom of why states cooperate amongst themselves and with nonstate actors to form counter -hegemonic alliances, such as the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis-a form of counter-hegemonic non-hegemonic cooperation.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
From its inception, Hezbollah has faced increasing pressure by its Lebanese and international riv... more From its inception, Hezbollah has faced increasing pressure by its Lebanese and international rivals to dissolve its armed militia. Internal rivals, often backed by external powers, not least the US, have systematically tried to strengthen Lebanon’s security institutions as a way of dismantling Hezbollah. Yet, all these efforts have been in vain. Hezbollah has grown stronger, not weaker, as a result. What explains Hezbollah’s prowess vis-à-via the Lebanese Army and other Security Institutions? Whereas traditional scholarship focuses mainly on the sophistication of Hezbollah as a military organization, this lecture argues that it is instead Hezbollah’s political acumen, not military strength, that explains its resilience. This paper shows how Hezbollah has managed to reshape the behavior of key Security Institutions within the Lebanese sectarian political order, thus turning the Lebanese State from its archenemy into its accomplice.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Why do rebels enter formal politics whilst at the same time seeking to preserve their informal mi... more Why do rebels enter formal politics whilst at the same time seeking to preserve their informal military force? Scholars tend to see armed political parties as either a transient phenomenon when states transition from war to peace or, conversely, as a failure of the peace process. Whilst some view armed political parties as signalling a move towards democratisation, others consider them as examples of the failure of the post-war democratisation. Based on rebels’ political participation in the Middle East, this chapter puts forward an alternative explanation. It argues that rebel groups enter formal politics when the threat to their informal role increases. They enter politics to secure their autonomy from it.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The main aim of this chapter is to conceptualise the conflict between states and non-state armed ... more The main aim of this chapter is to conceptualise the conflict between states and non-state armed groups in the Middle East. It begins by tracing the colonial origin of the distinction between state and non-state violence, the emergence of counterinsurgency and its reincarnation in liberal interventions. It then considers the politics of demarcation of legitimate and illegitimate violence and its centrality in the scramble among local and international state and non-state actors to control the Middle East. The chapter analyses the effects of both physical violence and ideological confrontation in the origins and consequences of political violence in the Middle East. It finally illustrates these dynamics by analysing the concerted international and Lebanese campaign to destroy Hezbollah and the resilience of Hezbollah to withstand such enormous pressure and become stronger as a result.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This chapter offers a critical perspective on contemporary security in the Middle East, by explor... more This chapter offers a critical perspective on contemporary security in the Middle East, by exploring the ways in which state and non-state armed groups have sought to reorder the regional balance of power, especially after the 2003 American-led in- vasion of Iraq. It reveals the strategic processes of politicization and depoliticization of violence that key regional and foreign actors employ in order to delegitimize or legitimize the use of violence in pursuit of rival political agendas. These dynamics are central in understanding the conflict and the scramble for control over resources and political developments in key countries across the Middle East.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Cahiers de la Méditerranée
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This chapter seeks to explain the underlying factors for the security of some countries and the i... more This chapter seeks to explain the underlying factors for the security of some countries and the insecurity of others in the Arab Middle East. The chapter argues that there is a link between the security of some Arab countries and the insecurity of others. In fact, the security of some depends on the insecurity of others. The chapter introduces the concept of “hierarchical interdependence” in order to explicate the dynamic and capacity of some countries to produce and fuel insecurity within rival countries – especially those intent on changing the regional security status quo – whilst containing the consequences of this insecurity for their own security. Furthermore, the chapter sheds light on the indirect and non-traditional means that these countries employ in order to achieve their goals without engaging in direct confrontation. The empirical evidence for this phenomenon is particularly solid in GCC-Levant relations. By looking at security issues at the sub-regional level, the chapter seeks to highlight the balance of threat and the securitization of specific issues that have led to the creation of institutional sub-regions (the GCC) or “imagined sub-regions” (i.e. the ‘Shi’a crescent’ or what I define as the Arab ‘inter-monarchical axis’) giving shape to either defence alliances or power projects. I show how the GCC states have succeeded in undermining the military and the infrastructural power of the Levant states, thus neutralizing their ability to threaten them, thus securing their position in the regional hierarchy.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This chapter analyses US policy toward the Syrian conflict under the Obama administration. It cri... more This chapter analyses US policy toward the Syrian conflict under the Obama administration. It critically engages with perceptions of disengagement and waning influence of the US in the Syrian conflict and more broadly in the Middle East. What is usually perceived as retrenchment and disengagement of the US is viewed in the chapter as ambiguity resulting from the strategy of the Obama administration to pursue US objectives through indirect and undercover operations. The chapter analyses continuity and change from Bush to Obama in US policies towards the Middle East, as well as the strategies through which the US has pursued its imperial ambitions in the Syrian conflict. In doing so, the chapter highlights that Obama's policy of leading from behind was actually not a sign of US decline in the Middle East, but of resilience and leadership by stealth.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books by Marina Calculli
Papers by Marina Calculli