Excerpt: The term postcolonialism has a long and contested history. Indeed, there was at one time an active debate within the field of postcolonial studies on the insertion of a hyphen between the “post” and the “colonialism” of the term. Some argued that the absence of a hyphen mistakenly suggested the end of colonialism, thus making it more palatable in the West. Others suggested that that same absence foregrounded the continuity into the present of the relations and practices of classical colonialism, despite the latter’s formal demise. Thus, there is a sense in which hyphenating the two terms honors the contextual specificity of contemporary states trying to carve out a post-independence national identity after the formal dissolution of European empires, while removing the hyphen may erase the ways that formal independence can mask the colonial continuities that continue to shape the present. Implicit in this debate is the question of how much and what kind of rupture the formal departure of colonial rulers provides in the liberation of the colonized. But also implicit are two much less scrutinized assumptions: First, that the post of colonialism can only occur after the departure of the colonizers, which, second, is also the point at which anticolonialism, whose aim is to evict the colonizer, ceases. Rejecting both these assumptions, Somdeep Sen’s Decolonizing Palestine takes up as its subject of study the complicated relationship between the “post” and the “anti” of colonialism in the context of ongoing settler colonialism. What if postcolonialism and anticolonialism remain deeply imbricated, before and after the departure of the colonizers? How does that relationship manifest itself in the conditions of ongoing settler colonialism? What, in such conditions, does real liberation from colonialism look like? 




Abstract: This paper aims to critically examine the interplay between environmental degradation, settler-colonialism, and the neo-imperialist biases embedded within our international law institutions due to their Eurocentric origins and interest centers. It seeks to demonstrate how these biases contribute to a system that disproportionately empowers certain nations, particularly the United States and other great powers, at the expense of widespread injustices unto humans and their environments globally. This paper will use theory, frameworks, and scholarship rooted in environmental analysis and justice, intersectional analytics, Indigenous, and post-colonial theories. Ultimately, it will argue that we must examine and correct international institutions and rulings that work against the well-being of innocent civilians and close these loopholes left to naturalize and legally enforce Western hegemony. This paper will focus on the loopholes in international law allowing the highly problematic, indiscriminate, and deadly use of WP munitions in conflicts due to its “dual” use. In short, the dual-use clause provides for a hazardous and sometimes fatal weapon to be wielded by the world’s most powerful military forces, no matter the embedded humanitarian and ecological harm involved in dispersing any amount of WP into the environment. This interconnected system around the legal right to wield power and violence is entrenched with other systems of power, including colonialism, imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, and heteropatriarchy, which will be explored in this paper through the case study of WP use by the Israeli military in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.








top posts today

Archives

stats for wordpress