Antje Wiener, European University Institute and University of Hannover
Incoming Program Chair
email: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
General Theme for the 1999 ISA Convention, Washington D.C., February 16-21:
One Field, Many Perspectives: Building the Foundations for Dialogue
DRAFT - Guideline for ENMISA sessions:
The general theme for next year’s ISA meeting invites dialogue among various areas of international relations and across a whole variety of borders. For the ENMISA section the issue of border crossing and different perspectives on borders has always be en an inherent theme. In Washington we would like to address this topic again with an interest in two specific topics.
One is the exchange among policy makers and academics in the most pressing issues of migration, ethnicity and nationalism such as for example: changing national citizenship legislation, migration regimes, naturalization processes, as well as theoretica l approaches including among others policy networks, regimes and epistemic communities. Taking advantate of the convenient location of the convention in Washington D.C. one major focus of ENMISA panels and papers will therefore be dedicated to the past e xperience and future prospective of building bridges among the policy and academic communities. The intention is encourage discussion and exchange among the involved policy makers and academics with a view to sharing experiences, discussing approaches, de veloping ideas and visions. We therefore strongly encourage panels with presenters from both policy and academic backgrounds and which differ according to approach and experience.
The second focus for panel proposals seeks to bring the sky-rocketing development in new communication technologies and their impact on dialogue across borders to the fore. Topics under this heading include both the technical development provided by th e internet as well as the technologically enhanced methods to screen migrants as the perceived intruders of ever more penetrated nation-state territories. The focus is thus on the ambiguous opportunities created by new technologies. What are the consequen ces of increasing possibilities of communication across borders and across different levels, or units of political organization? What are the societal and political consequences? What do migratory processes and changed border politics imply for political organization across borders? What is the impact on changing patterns of security, sovereignty, foreign policy? Guiding panel schemes are political organization of non-citizen residents, border politics in non-state polities, and the securitization of migration policy.
By Fred W. Riggs
A theme that fits this prospectus which we have discussed among ourselves several times, but only tangentially, involves DIASPORAS, seen not only as migrant minorities in the various contexts identified by Antje, but also as actors with intersts and organizational capabilities on their own. Quite a few of them now have LISTS on the INTERNET, and their own Web Pages. They provide a useful opportunity for taking an inside look at how members of these communities identify and relate to each other, to the folks back home in their country or zone of origin, and what role they play in the ethnonational movements of their homelands. This could be historical and retrospective (without the INTERNET!) some case studies of the past might shed light on possibilities and new features of diaspora movements in the present. I'm particularly interested in two questions: how and how much do diasporans affect the foreign policy of their host states on matters or policies affeting their home lands? Secondly, what roles to diaspora returnees play in their homeland? Some of our members living in countries like Israel where they are numerous could give us insight on this point -- do the residents welcome returning outsiders or resist them? Can one generalize about how their experiences abroad have shaped their attitudes and behavior when they return home.
I think members of diasporas are often seen as refugees, immigrants, and as the subject of action by agencies of the host society -- but rarely as actors with their own interests and capacities which make them significant actors in world politics. Please reflect on this theme and we can discuss it when we meet in Minneapolis -- perhaps after the panel, like at breakfast on Saturday the 21st. If we could launch a proposal very shortly after the conference, we would have better prospects for making it a useful follow-up to our Toronto and Minneapolis panels.
See linked pages:  Discourse Links for 1998 Minneapolis Conference || Papers for 1987 Toronto Conference || The ETHNIC-L context