Iraq

Getting to a Power-Sharing Agreement: Insights for International Mediators on Adoptability from Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq

   

Abstract

Power-sharing systems are complex, both in their design and daily operation. While the multifaceted nature of power-sharing is generally accepted by scholars and policymakers alike, understandings of the conditions under which these systems come into being, and how these conditions affect the implementation and the functioning of the power-sharing system, remain underdeveloped. Providing evidence from Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, this contribution sheds new light on what it takes to get to a power-sharing agreement. We argue that power-sharing as a solution to violent conflict is only adopted when there is convergence on this approach within three distinct arenas: among domestic actors; among international actors; and between invested international actors and their domestic clients. Whereas Lebanon represents a case where alignment existed across all three arenas and Iraq showcases a lack of convergence at the domestic level, Syria provides an important case in which these three arenas do not converge – thereby explaining why no agreement on power-sharing has been reached so far.

Continue reading →

Posted by Soeren Keil; Allison McCulloch; Eduardo Aboultaif; Clara Pergola; Sahar Ammar in Federalism and Conflict, 0 comments
Pouring Oil on Iraq’s Fragile Power Sharing Arrangement:  Kurdistan’s Autonomy and the Kurdish Oil Judgment of 2022

Pouring Oil on Iraq’s Fragile Power Sharing Arrangement: Kurdistan’s Autonomy and the Kurdish Oil Judgment of 2022

Abstract

Iraq’s constitution of 2005 was a promising one: it had been accepted in a popular referendum and implemented a federal agenda for the central government and the Kurdistan region. However, a closer look reveals that the constitution-making process was severely flawed. Indeed, some essential features of the federal system are either missing or remain largely undefined. In this short contribution, we expound on the extent to which the constitution essentially provides for a federal structure, and whether it has been properly implemented. Further examination reveals that the absence of federal regions (besides the Kurdistan region), the unclear distribution of rules, as well as the missing bicameral parliament and the law on the Federal Supreme Court, all contribute to the lack of federal practice in Iraq – leading to important anti-federal consequences, such as the 2022 Iraqi Oil Judgment.

 

Continue reading →

Posted by Daan Smeekens, Simon Mazidi and Eva Maria Belser in Case Studies, 0 comments

Federalism and the Arab Spring

Abstract

This research proposes to analyze the background and prerequisites of the federalist experiments of the Arab Spring, describe their evolution and current state, as well as assess the prospects for the future. Political upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa led to an active rethinking of the former unitary model. At the same time in recent years decentralization has been a major topic of socio-political debate in Libya, Syria and Yemen. In each case, the reference case is the experience of the Iraqi federation, which is one of the youngest in the Arab world.

 

Continue reading →

Posted by Leonid Issaev and Andrey Zakharov in Case Studies, 0 comments

Federalism in Iraq: A Liberal Idea in an Illiberal Place

Abstract

The introduction of federalism in Iraq was meant to address the lingering ethnic conflict between Kurds and Arabs and prevent an imminent breakup of the country.  Federalism was supposed to offer the Kurds a form of local self-determination by setting up a bulwark against the Arab policy of assimilation and other forms of discrimination.  The paper presents the Iraqi brand of federalism and attempts to explain its several shortcomings by testing the argument stemming from the paper’s title.

We provide enough evidence to prove that Iraqi federalism rests mainly on imposed institutions with no supportive local political traditions and culture. Acute nationalist feelings among the Kurds, a result of historically unrealized statehood, constitute an important part of the problem, too.

 

Continue reading →

Posted by Alex Danilovich in Case Studies, 0 comments
Guaranteeing Federalism in Post-Conflict Societies

Guaranteeing Federalism in Post-Conflict Societies

Abstract

Federalism is at the heart of many current and proposed conflict resolution settlements. It provides territorially concentrated groups, usually those that are minorities within the wider state, with autonomy over a range of matters. Yet such arrangements are often unhappy compromises, with identity groups pursuing higher levels of autonomy, up to and including secession or unification with a neighbouring kin-state, and central government seeking to limit the level of autonomy to retain power and protect against state break-up. The compromise nature of such measures and the post-conflict context in which they operate makes them inherently unstable. This paper assesses the potential of guarantee mechanisms to overcome the innate instability of federlaism as a conflict resolution mechanism by examining two cases, Bosnia, and Iraq, where federalism was a key element of a political agreement aimed at ameliorating intra-state group based conflict.

 

Continue reading →

Posted by Dawn Walsh in Federalism and Conflict, 0 comments
Federalism: A Tool for Conflict Resolution?

Federalism: A Tool for Conflict Resolution?

Abstract

Federalism has become increasingly used as a tool of conflict resolution in the post-Cold War era. This contribution discusses the rationale in using federalism as a tool of peace-building, conflict resolution and democratisation in deeply divided, ethnically heterogeneous and post-conflict societies. In doing so, it is highlighted how federalism can serve as an acceptable and viable solution for different ethnic groups because of its emphasis on autonomy and territorial integrity. The contribution also demonstrates that federalism is not able to solve all problems in ethnically heterogeneous societies and that further research is needed in order to understand the conditions in which federalism can be used to end conflict and bring peace and democracy to divided countries.

Continue reading →

Posted by Paul Anderson and Soeren Keil in Federalism and Conflict, 0 comments