Author: Nassef Manabilang Adiong

Nassef is the founder of Co-IRIS (International Relations and Islamic Studies Research Cohort), PHISO (Philippine International Studies Organization), DSRN (Decolonial Studies Research Network), and BRLN (Bangsamoro Research and Legal Network). He works on interdisciplinary research between Islam and International Relations and explores the Bangsamoro society as he heads the Policy Research and Legal Services (PRLS) of the Bangsamoro Parliament. Visit https://nassef.info/ for more details.

International Studies Graduate Makes Academic Waves Abroad

After being an excellent International Studies scholar, UE College of Arts and Sciences-Manila graduate Nassef Manabilang Adiong is making waves internationally as a postgraduate student enjoying multiple scholarships and as an author of several published academic papers.
He is currently a Doctor of Philosophy candidate in International Relations at the Middle East Technical University in Turkey, and is a recipient of both the European Union’s Erasmus Mundus Mobility with Asia Scholarship and the Turkish Government’s TÜBITAK Fellowship for foreign Ph.D. students. (TÜBITAK refers to the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey.)
Hereceived an “Outstanding Academic Performance Award” from the Dean of the Graduate School of Social Sciences and the President of the University. He received the award after fulfilling all the required courses in only two semesters with a high cumulative grade point average of 3.86 out of 4.00, and passing the comprehensive examinations. In addition, he was also awarded the 2011 Korean Government Scholarship Program as Ph.D. student in International Politics, Major in Middle Eastern studies (his second Ph.D. program) at the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in the Republic of Korea, but he declined it. He is now considering a PhD fellowship from Berlin Graduate School of Muslim Cultures and Societies in 2012.
Mr. Adiong graduated from the UE CAS Manila with the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Major in International Studies, Magna Cum Laude, in November 2006. He completed the entire degree program in three and one half years.
As a UE student, he was a grantee of the Quezon City Local Government Scholarship Program and was a two-time Academic Excellence Awardee. He also served as Vice President of the CAS Manila Student Council in school year 2005-2006, and participated in many contests and conferences in UE and off-campus. He was a University President Scholar (2nd Semester, SY ’04-05), a University Scholar (SY ’05-06 and in the 1st Semester of SY ’06-07) and a College Scholar (1st Semester, SY ’04-05).
Mr. Adiong went on to receive his Master in International Studies at the University of the Philippines-Diliman in 2009, studying through both a UP Presidential Scholarship and a Willy Keng Fellowship. UP also awarded him with a ‘merit certificate’: twice as a distinguished College Scholar and once as a distinguished University Scholar.
 
                Moreover, he won full bursary (i.e., financial support, endowment) to learn Muslim and Jewish relations at Woolf Institute, an affiliated research institute of Cambridge University, from January to May 2011. He presented his research papers and served as invited discussant and panel chair in different world congresses and conferences in Manila, Barcelona, Prague, Athens, Istanbul, Ankara, Qazvin and Tehran. He contributed articles to the forthcoming 2012 Encyclopedia of Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa to be published by SAGE Publishing, and has written peer-reviewed journal articles for “Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations,” “Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Law eJournal,” “Political Methods: Qualitative & Multiple Methods eJournal,” and “Law and Society: International and Comparative Law eJournal.”
His work on “Islam and International Relations: Mutual Perceptions” will be published by the Cambridge Scholars Publishing (Newcastle, UK) in late 2012. I.B. Tauris Publishers (London, UK), for its part, is interested in publishing his dissertation entitled “The Concept of Nation-State in Contemporary IR and Islamic Studies.” He also contributed one chapter on “Ideology which Spawns Islamist Militancy” in a forthcoming book entitled Counterterrorism: From the Cold War to the War on Terror edited by Prof. Dr. Frank Shanty to be published by ABC-CLIO (California, US).
Mr. Adiong is presently a member of the following academic organizations: International Resource Network (City University of New York, USA), British International Studies Association (Aberystwyth, UK), Middle East Studies Association of North America, Inc. (Arizona, USA), International Political Science Association (Montreal, Canada), The International Studies Association (Arizona, USA), The International Society for Islamic Legal Studies (Massachusetts, USA), Turkish International Studies Association (Istanbul, Turkey), and the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) standing groups in ‘Religion and Politics’ and ‘Extremism and Democracy.
In providing his post-UE information to Silangan, Mr. Adiong expressed that “I am humbly [sharing] this piece regarding my academia journey…to the whole UE community and hopefully may serve as an example and inspiration for students who are striving for excellence.”
He also said that “[I]t is in UE where [I] learned to strive for excellence while staying humble. Thus, [I am] infinitely indebted and thankful to [my] Alma Mater—truly, the University of Excellence!”
                Mr. Adiong’s writings can be viewed and downloaded online via his author webpage at Social Science Research Network (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1556958), blog (nassef-adiong.blogspot.com), academia page (independent.academia.edu/NassefAdiong), or by running a Google search (scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nassef+adiong).

United Kingdom’s Challenges in the European Monetary and Economic Union (EMU)

This monograph faces the question why the United Kingdom ‘opted out’ of the European Monetary and Economic Union (EMU). Then, an analysis will be drawn in accordance to the advantages and the disadvantages of the EMU for UK’s economic and business environment.
From Bordo’s and Jonung’s book (2000), it was stated that since the European Monetary System (EMS) was introduced in 1979, which aims to minimize the risk of changes of exchange rates that hampered trade between the European countries. In this mechanism as ascribed in the research of Cohen and Wyplosz (1989), the currencies in Europe were tied together in narrow fluctuation bands of ± 2.25 % towards each other. Since 1993 this bands have been “temporary expanded” to ±15 %. This system existed 1999 as the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) succeeded the EMS with its task to introduce the Euro as single currency.
The UK left the EMS after two years membership in 1992 on the so-called ′Black Wednesday′ on September 16th. Due to a “loss of trust in the EMS, where several EMS currencies got under devaluation pressure,” after there have been heavy differences between high interest rates in Germany and low interest rates in the USA, what made “finance flow towards the EMS and out of US dollars and sterling.” The British government “took drastic measures to attempt to maintain a rigid position but neither was sufficient to prevent sales of sterling from reducing its rate against its currency well below the EMS ′floor′ DM 2.78. This was withdrawn from the EMS system and allowed to ′float′.” 
Another big topic circulated in Bordo’s and Jonung’s working paper (1999) is the public opinion in the UK. A big number of people do not want to give up the Pound for the Euro, which is regarded as inferior. The government still emphasizes the economic side of effects of joining the EMU, but it does not take much influence on the public opinion. The opposition uses the fear of the citizens to gain votes and tried to win the elections on 7 June 2001 on that topic.
Click here to download the full paper for free.

The Probabilty of Humanitarian Intervention as Framework for Human Security

Abstract
            The paper aims to present a probable humanitarian intervention as framework of human security. It objectifies humanitarian intervention as an element that will make human security autonomous but not separate nor fully independent from non-traditional security. Several literatures confuses the two terms as synonymous with each other, where others differentiated them explicitly. Thus the essay will address the ambiguity of both conceptions and discuss humanitarian intervention not as a different concept from human security but argues that it may be part and parcel of it, and in fact a possible framework to explain the paradigm of human security autonomous to non-traditional security. This contribution aspires for a sound, simple yet clear and unambiguous interpretation of human security to the evolving field of security especially as a sub-discipline of International Relations. In addition, it will also contend that there is a considerable middle way for both human security and non-traditional security in meeting a tangency point, and that is, a re-conceptualized version of human rights.  
            Why there’s a need to separate human security from non-traditional security? In this line of inquiry, we need to consider the aim of this paper as mentioned above, thus question should also fit to the construction of essay. The proponent wants to emphasize that he is not separating human security from non-traditional security because in his second hypothesis he is also interested in looking for a middle way for both conceived ideas. This is not to separate them but to make the conception of human security autonomous from the conception of non-traditional security. Related literatures have confused both conceptions and increased its ambiguity which directed some scholars and practitioners to formulate their own interpretations of human security and non-traditional security. The proponent is confused when he read studies stating both conceptions identical in nature and hence, equal footing status, when in fact it exacerbated further confusions and tensions.
            Consequently, the primal objective of this study is to remove the confusion that these two terms are facing. To exclude their identical character we need explanatory power to claim and defend our main idea, and what the author is thinking is to present human security with its own explanatory power to make a (standing) paradigm coherent and clear. Further, the purpose is not a matter of challenging what the other scholars have said but to add another view or element to the diverse interpretations of human security vis-à-vis non-traditional security. And his objective is to simply interpret human security as clear as possible and without attached ambiguousness. The proponent’s essay will first look into the evolution and development of the conception of the term ‘security’ then will discuss the ambiguity between the two conceptions and provide humanitarian intervention as the explanatory framework to establish its autonomy.

Click here to download the full paper for free. 

Law and Society: International and Comparative Law eJournal, Vol. 6, No. 130 (October 26, 2011)

Book Review: Kaldor, Mary (2007): Human Security: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.


This stimulating book stipulates the evolution of humanitarian intervention and heridea on human security as a paradigm. It also includes essays that explained the impact of globalization on the emerging shift of traditional to human security. She regarded human security as an encompassing notion that includes both securitization and development. Further, this new paradigm involves interrelated types of security from health, economic, political to environment. She doesn’t want to use the term humanitarian intervention because according to him it’s a narrow way of looking human security by calculating threats and often not successful for crisis management and human development.

     She defined human security as the security of individuals and communities rather than security of states, and it combines both human rights and human development. In one of the chapter of the book, she presented the origin or history of how the term ‘human security’ emerged and evolved. In relation with the aforementioned statement, Kaldor argued that human security have developed into two directions. (1) The approach taken by the Canadian government, which in her own words was “adopted and established a network of like-minded states who subscribed to the concept,” i.e. responsibility to protect, and was published in the 2005 Human Security Report. (2) The UNDP approach which was also reflected in the work of the United Nations High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. This approach according to Kaldor emphasized the interrelatedness of different types of security and the importance of development as a security strategy.

     In her view it is imperative to combine these two approaches to put emphasis on the security of the individual and the interrelated character of security. In short, the concept is both ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’. In setting out on how to implement her version of human security into practice, she made five principles that are relevant to both security and development. This was done to further her explanatory claim and elaborate her case on human security as a paradigm. The first one was the primacy of human rights which distinguished human security approach from the traditional state security. In this principle, she meant for the avoidance of killing unless it is necessary and legal.

To continue reading, download it from here.

Finding Basic Comparison(s) between Islamism and Zionism

This essay simply presents limited findings of understanding whether there are elements of comparison between Islamism and Zionism. It will first introduce their history very briefly, then, survey some of selected thinkers and their contributions to the literature, and lastly, finding elements of tangency or mutual comparisons from their extracted histories and thinkers’ contributions between them. Further, the representation of findings are delimited due to the author’s ‘still’ lack of extensive knowledge regarding the field of Zionism and readers may find it having unequal treatment between the two concepts – mea culpa. 

A Brief Historical Introduction and Evolution

One climatic historical event that caused discords and decline of a 6-century Islamic scholarship that later paved the way for the triumphant of legalistic interpretation of Islam, which later gave birth to a political ideology, i.e, Islamism, was the Mongolian invasion to Muslim lands in early 13th century. Although at the latter part, Mongols eventually converted to Islam. Islamic philosophy and mysticism became dormant while Islamic jurisprudence gradually dominated the debates and earned recognition and millions of followers particularly from major groups and sectors of Sunni and Shi’a.
            The intensification of legalistic interpretation intermittently increased and materialized as result of exogenous events such as the colonial regimes of Western powers to Muslim lands, post-Nasserism era (the failure of Pan-Arabism), 9/11 event, the US-led ‘War on Terror’ against non-state terrorists groups and its networks and state-sponsored terrorism across the Broader Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) regions to Southeast Asia, which all had led to the ramifications and evolution of a new radical understanding often referred to as Political Islam movement and/or Islamism.
            As for the Zionist movement, this transgressed over the canonical Jewish laws to political movements as a result of the increasing anti-Semitism experienced by Jews in European countries in the late 18thto early 19th centuries. It is a religious and spiritual struggle for more than 2,000 years of living in Diaspora and belief of a Messiah who will lead them to salvation from their current unpleasant state and conditions of having an oppressed and marginalized life. Zionism has many faces and forms, be they be religious, labor, revisionist, green or political, all conform to the same denominator of claiming a return to the Zion (Jerusalem) and taking what they have before, i.e., the Eretz Israel (land of Israel) as promised to them by God.
            However, the political Zionist movement had dominated the debates and discourse in the Zionist literature and public life. Jews who long for emancipation and can no longer accept oppressions and humiliations they receiving from the Europeans have traveled from West to East and seek refuge to the former Ottoman controlled ‘Palestine’. The movement was also influenced by the idea of nation-state system referring to the Peace of Westphalia. They decided to take their destinies into their own hands and did not wait for divine intervention. Secular Zionist scholars like Theodor Herzl have led the movement and formed the first Zionist organization in 1890s. The primal aim of the organization is to seek a national homeland for Jews so as to transpire and materialize their aspiration for self-determination and security against the threats of anti-Semitism.  They were also some small scale Zionist organizations formed in Muslim lands particularly in Morocco and some Jews from Spain and North Africa have contributed to the establishment of the city of Tel Aviv. Herzl further calls that without a national land and home for the Jews, they will always and never be secured.

To continue reading, download it from here.