Foreword

Abstract

It is a common view, held by scholars as well as many others in the public debate globally, that there is in many networks and regions globally a tendency towards polarization and sweeping generalizations in the exchange of views. This may very well be a true observation, and many argue that the debate as social interaction is losing ground.

From a scholarly perspective, cleaning up a debate is nothing new: it is a classic and critical task to keep an eye on the use of vague or generalizing concepts in the trade. This is so both for the risk of imprecise findings and the risk of debates where the parties talk past one another. Nevertheless, academic work, including theories, are full of vague concepts, sometimes inspiring in their openness, but normally in need of draconic operationalizations to be useful for a more precise conversation and analysis. Examples are probably not needed.

This journal deals with autonomy and security studies.  Both the autonomy and security concepts are in themselves challenging a static and uniform concept of, for instance, the state. But exceptions from the idea that states are uniform constitutional constructs are rather the rule than something strange. For anyone believing otherwise, a good reminder is A.P. Blaustein’s inventory of Constitutions of Dependencies and Special Sovereignties.

This issue of JASS covers areas of security and autonomy among groups and individuals with very different but constitutionally regulated relations to their respective societies. It is a palette of issues that demand to be addressed, that come to the reader from within very different material situations, but with clearly comparable theoretical and practical implications.

Through the articles in this issue of JASS the editors hope that spaces for insightful debate and open discussion – without conversations at cross-purposes – can be held at a time of a trend towards another direction in the wider public sphere.