Multiple citizenship was once thought to signify disloyalty to the nation-state and threaten the sovereign international system, hence considered an aberration that should be limited. However, International Relations is in the process of reconceptualising its approaches and moving away from state-centrism so that it may better address the challenges of a transnationalising world. Examining the concept of multiple citizenship provides an opportunity to expand IR research agendas and transnationalise IR theory. Employing a multidisciplinary literature review, this article identifies the possible ways through which investigating multiple citizenship can contribute in advancing the discipline’s theorisations. Firstly, it contends that an analytical focus on multiple citizenship enriches IR theory by re-examining concepts which have not been adequately questioned in traditional IR and enabling deterritorialisation of the sovereign nation-state, de-conflation of the nation from the state, and reconsideration of the relationship between citizens and nation-states. Secondly, multiple citizenship can serve a base for considerations about globalisation and the future of the nation-state; it can also be used to obtain glimpses into issues, which may affect larger portions of the global population in the future. This article concludes by arguing for more serious probe to the concept of multiple citizenship in IR.

The 2014 Gaza War is the third largest armed conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. After Hamas fired rockets and mortars into strategic areas of Israel, the latter launched Operation Protective Edge as a counterattack. The use of military force by both sides led to enormous collateral damage, especially in the Gaza Strip. Operation Protective Edge is considered by many to have violated International Humanitarian Law; its conduct is seen as inconsistent with the principles in Just War. In explaining why the violations of International Humanitarian Law in Operation Protective Edge can be justified by Israel, this study grounds its analysis on thorough examination of the principle of Just War. The paper argues that the following factors bolster Israel’s justification: 1. The strength of the the right to self-defense argument; 2. Depiction of Operation Protective Edge as a proportional military operation; 3. Predication of the war between Israel-Hamas as an asymmetric conflict; 4. U.S. support, which finds basis on UN Security Council resolutions.

Despite persecution of refugees being in the spotlight around the world, academics and practitioners continue to debate how to address the issue. Using a feminist lens in International Relations, this paper attempts to unpack the seemingly neutral character of forced migration governance. Supported by examples from the Asia Pacific region, this paper finds that the nature offorced migration governance is highly gendered. This can be seen from how states portray andtake actions towards refugees within ASEAN and the Bali Process, as these are the two maininstitutions governing forced migration in the region. This governance is gendered through: (1) the feminization of refugee portrayal by states’ security-focused approach, and (2) the reinforcement of states’ perceptions as the masculinist protectors translated into the securitization of migration. While this understanding seems to add more complexity to the issue, it further suggests that this state- and security-centric paradigm can be reconstructed by a rapprochement between feminist and International Relations scholars.

Kenneth Waltz is a celebrated scholar of International Relations whose works become the foundation of the neorealism camp in International Relations. One of his most prominent thesis is the existence of international anarchy, in which he calls the third image, makes a perpetual state if war in the inter-state relations. This essay does not examine whether his thesis is valid, instead it tries to problematize the use of Jean--Jacques Rousseau’s texts as the foundation in creating the third image perspective. I argue that Waltz misinterpretation on some of Rousseau’s texts makes his thesis on international anarchy and constant state of war do not align with Rousseau’s philosophical thoughts, despite the utilization of Rousseau’s text as the foundation of the thesis. I use the Hermeneutics methods to provide an alternative interpretation of Rousseau’s works and criticize Waltz’s interpretation of them.

This paper will discuss about the problem surrounding human trafficking eradication in Indonesia. In general, the effort to eradicate human trafficking in Indonesia has been focusing too much on enforcing criminal law and restricting immigration instead of protecting and preventing the victim of trafficking. In order to explain why it happened, this paper will use Amitav Acharya’s theory on norm localization which provides a framework to assume that the norm of human trafficking eradication in Indonesia has been appropriated by certain contradicting value. By using the theory, this paper finds that the norm of human trafficking eradication promoted by Palermo Protocol is directly against patriarchal culture, thus the culture has an interest to localize the norm. This paper concludes that the localization of human trafficking eradication norm by patriarchal culture in Indonesia has removed the value of human security in favor of state security.