Sovereignty as It Should Be: Theoretical Gaps and Negotiations for Peace in Israel/Palestine

Roee Kibrik*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

This study suggests that one of the basic elements motivating political actors is their desire to minimize the tension caused by the theoretical gap between their theoretical knowledge and their perception of reality. In order to demonstrate this, the present study compares three different arenas of negotiations which reveal and represent the social construction of the concept of sovereignty: the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt (1979), the peace agreement between Israel and Jordan (1994), and the Oslo agreements between Israel and the plo (1993-1995). The comparison herein demonstrates how the need to deal with the theoretical gap can explain the sides' behavior in reaching an agreement. Likewise, the comparison reveals that the concept of sovereignty has destabilized over the course of time. It also shows how political actors in these arenas chose to cope with the theoretical gap-mainly by changing reality-although the destabilization of the concept of sovereignty allowed them to be more creative, theoretically speaking, in the context of globalization processes.

Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)440-472
Number of pages33
JournalInternational Negotiation
Volume21
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Keywords

  • Egypt
  • Jordan
  • Middle East peace process
  • conflict in Israel/Palestine
  • globalization
  • negotiation
  • sovereignty
  • theoretical gap

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Sovereignty as It Should Be: Theoretical Gaps and Negotiations for Peace in Israel/Palestine'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this