Dr. Andreas Klinke

Andreas Klinke

Professor and Director

Office: FC 2016

Email: aklinke@grenfell.mun.ca

Phone: 709-639-4307

Dr. Andreas Klinke is a Professor in Environmental Policy at the Environmental Policy Institute at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Grenfell Campus, since September 2011 and is currently the Director of the Environmental Policy Institute. He was previously the head of a social science research group on governance at the Aquatic Research Institute of the ETH-domain in Switzerland from 2006 to 2011 and lecturer for risk management at King’s College in London 2004-2006. Prior to this he was a research associate at the Center of Technology Assessment in Stuttgart, Germany, and at the German Scientific Advisory Council on Global Change. Andreas Klinke has a master degree in political science and sociology from the University of Stuttgart. He received his doctoral degree in political science at the Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany. His doctoral thesis analyzes the public deliberation and participation on the Great Lakes regime between Canada and the USA, which has been published as a monograph under the title “Demokratisches Regieren jenseits des Staates. Deliberative Politik im nordamerikanischen Große Seen-Regime” in 2006.

Education

  • MA, University of Stuttgart
  • Doctoral Degree, Darmstadt University of Technology

Research Interests

  • Governance research
  • Public policy analysis
  • International environmental politics
  • International relations and global governance
  • Social science risk research
  • Risk governance
  • Political theory and philosophy of risk and uncertainty
  • Democracy theories
  • Transformation research
  • Empirical fields:  fresh water resources, climate change and energy, biodiversity, oceans, global environmental change, technological risks

His publications and projects reflect the general thrust of his past, current and future research interests and activities. As they show, environmental policy, international environmental politics, risk governance, global governance and other public policies are his areas of expertise, and the transformation and institutional dynamics as well as discourse, deliberation and participation is his main focus. He deals with both essential and currently challenging questions and issues in the governance and policy-making of environmental and risk issues. His aim is to examine:

  • the performance of governance modes, processes, and structures in terms of legitimacy, effectiveness and efficiency
  • the internationalization toward more international, transnational and global institutions and actors
  • the mechanisms and dynamics of international environmental politics and risk governance in terms of regulation, deregulation, transnationalization, and deliberation and participation of experts, stakeholders and the public
  • the transformation of statehood with respect to environmental, technical, political and ideational change

The scope of application for his research activities is dedicated to fresh water resources, energy, chemical pollution, biodiversity, climate change, biotechnology and other natural resources as well as environmentally related technologies. The comparison of different scopes of application and public policy fields allows drawing more generalizing conclusions and implications, which have significance and explanatory power for the policy and governance research on environmental and risk issues as well as relating transformations and dynamics. He also pursues inter- and trans-disciplinary research, by bringing together viewpoints and methodological approaches of other social sciences as well as natural and technical sciences, and involving affected actors in the research process.  He teaches in the new Environmental Policy Master Program and in the Environmental Studies Program. His areas of specialization include issues in world politics, risk governance, environmental policy, the European Union, theories of international relations and contemporary democratic theories.

Projects

Methodological Cosmopolitanism: Exploring Cosmopolitan Governance of Global Oceans

Funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada

Oceans are vitally important for human existence and civilization because they provide food and raw materials, produce oxygen, absorb greenhouse gases and serve as important transportation routes for worldwide trade. Oceans are intimately connected with the global climate system, global biodiversity, global food supply, global economy, and global security. Paradoxically, oceans provide opportunities and chances, but they are also at risk and in danger and they pose risks and threats for human beings. Hence, oceans raise a series of questions and issues about the balance between conservation and use, the ownership of ocean resources, possible developments towards the sustainable use of the resources, national claims, jurisdiction beyond nation-state territory, and international mechanisms of distribution.

In this light, the research project will provide two major contributions. First, the project will contribute to the advancement of knowledge by exploring and validating the theoretical, methodical and empirical conditions, factors and mechanisms for a turn towards cosmopolitan ocean governance. Second, the project will also be beneficial for policy makers, non-governmental organizations, economy and the broader public because it contributes to the improvement of ocean governance and its public understanding and acceptance.

Given their importance, oceans induce an inevitable inclusiveness and prompt the cosmopolitization of the action and manner of governing the oceans. The idea of this research project is based on the premise that research questions as well as political and social questions in the context of any governing related to oceans cannot satisfactorily be answered by methodological nationalism. Methodological nationalism is a social science paradigm assuming that the territorial state and its national society is the natural social and political form and the primary entity for the analysis of political, social, economic and cultural processes. The research project asserts the necessity of making the ocean governance more attentive and adaptive to a cosmopolitan approach and less dependent on the intergovernmental model and the domination of nation-states. The project raises the question: what accounts for cosmopolitan ocean governance.

The project opens up a global perspective to capture the forces and factors transcending the borders and entities of persisting national spaces and jurisdictions. Cosmopolitan governance addresses the interests of human individuals directly as world citizens and not indirectly as state citizens. To this end, the project aims to achieve three major objectives:
1. To analyze transnational institutions in terms of cosmopolitan types and patterns of behavior, action, subject matters, expectations and modalities;
2. To analyze transnational/global public spheres of communication and discourse in terms of actors, cosmopolitized issues and questions (e.g. uncertainty/insecurity, risks, opportunities/chances), and formation of public opinion and political will; and
3. To advance theory development in terms of cosmopolitan governance by transcending methodological nationalism and intergovernmental thinking.

To address the three objectives, the project will work iteratively between theoretical reflection and the empirical investigation of three case studies. It will conduct a cross-regional and trans-sectoral comparative analysis: fisheries in North America, loss of marine biodiversity in Europe and freight transport by sea in East Asia. The challenge is to find and define new research units beyond methodological nationalism that allow us to understand and compare tendencies and processes of cosmopolitization around the globe.

 

Philosophy and Sociology of Uncertainty

We live in a world that is much more uncertain than is generally assumed. We cannot see or predict the conditions and effects of all the forces that have an impact on being and eventuation. Our everyday life and academic generalizations have varying degrees of uncertainty and certainty, depending on the meaning contexts and the reference systems of knowledge. The journey of humankind has always been an odyssey of uncertainty and perils, marked by our efforts to understand and master uncertainty. It has been humans’ volition and conation over centuries to develop intellectual and practical means to cultivate and domesticate the fickleness and imponderability of uncertainty. Philosophy and social sciences are imbedded in the uncertainty of the world and a world of uncertainty in which ideation, conceptualization and discursive formation have become essential for explanation, that is, philosophy and social sciences must account for uncertainty in human existence, human relations, social being and the world to satisfy the human quest for certainty about uncertainty.

Since the Enlightenment, humankind has continued to hold to the hypothesis that progress and rationality are capable of taming and domesticating uncertainty, that science and research advance technological progress and rationality and thus empower humans to master uncertainty. However, scientific revolutions of relativity and quantum theory, the loss of faith in lasting political truths and ideas of liberal democracy, the failure of philosophical programs, and the dawn of great transformations have led to the loss of old certainties. In their wake, new uncertainties in the late 20th and early 21st centuries have been birthed: global warming and climate change, loss of biological diversity, global environmental change, freshwater crisis, war and terrorism, financial crises, globalization, digitalization, social inequality, global migration, pandemics, human trafficking, corruption, artificial intelligence, failure of democratic projects as well as the rise of new populism, extremism, radicalism and fascism. They spark novel uneasiness, anxiety, insecurity, disorder, and confusion which are the primary symptoms of the advent of an uncertain age shaping a world in uncertainty.

The goal of this book project is to provide a general review or summary of subjects that are significant to propound a social theory of uncertainty. Special attention will be given to complex and imponderable socio-material systems such as global climate system, global system of biological diversity, ecosystems, world economy, world politics, internet, or digitalization. The attempt of a social theory of uncertainty claims genuine accounts of and differentiations between sorts and philosophical realms of uncertainty, namely ontological, epistemological, communicative-linguistic and teleological. These distinct accounts of uncertainty are interpreted in a particular way, elaborated on what they are and the implications of their existence, and a logical relationship construed among these entities.

 

Post-Normal Risk Governance

Proposed as an advanced conceptualization of how to handle risk, risk governance begins with the critique and expansion of the traditional idea and standard practices of risk analysis. In developments over the last two decades, proponents of a more integrative approach on governing risks have moved further away from distinct conceptions of risk assessment, risk management and risk communication and towards the processes and institutions that guide, restrain and integrate collective activities of handling risk. In early formulations of what risk governance entails, the superiority of the interplay between risk evaluation and risk management over linear and simple deductions from risk assessment to risk management was established precisely by developing a distinctive rationality of how to proceed. This distinctive rationality embodies the interplay of the assessment of risks and related concerns, their socio-political appraisal and the logical inference for risk management. This approach has been refined and augmented towards an integrative and adaptive concept of risk governance and towards a post-normal conception of risk governance. Main characteristics are a new concept of differentiated responsibility and deliberation in which expertise, experience and tacit knowledge are integrated forming the core of legitimate political risk decision-making.

Teaching

Examples of Recent Courses Taught:

• ENVP 6000 Foundations of Environmental Policy and Administration
• ENVP 6003 Environmental Political Thought
• ENVP 6056 Risk Assessment and Analysis
• ENSU 4200 Contemporary Issues in Environment and Sustainability
• SRM 4010 Research Seminar
• POSC 1020 Issues in World Politics

Selected Publications

Klinke, A. 2020. Public Understanding of Risk and Risk Governance. Journal of Risk Research. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1750464

Li, Y., A. Taeihagh, M. de Jong, and A. Klinke. 2020. Towards a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analysing Risk Coping Strategies. Risk Analysis. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13505.

Klinke, A. 2020. Cosmopolitan Governance for Sustainable Global Energy Transformation: Democratic, Participatory-Deliberative, Multilayered. In O. Renn, F. Ulmer, and A. Deckert, eds. The Role of Public Participation in Energy Transitions. London: Elsevier, 105-19.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 2019. The Coming of Age of Risk Governance. Risk Analysis. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13383.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 2018. Distributed Responsibility in Risk Governance. In P.A. Wilderer, O. Renn, M. Grambow, M. Molls, and K. Mainzer, eds. Sustainable Risk Management. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 19-31.

Klinke, A. 2017. Dynamic Multilevel Governance for Sustainable Transformation as Postnational Configuration. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 30 (3), 323-43.

Mercer, N., G. Sabau, and A. Klinke. 2017. “Wind Energy is not an Issue for Government”: Barriers to Wind Energy Development in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Energy Policy, 108, 673-83.

Klinke, A. 2016. Democratic Theory. In C. Ansell and J. Torfing, eds. Handbook on Theories of Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 86-100.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2016. Risk. In C. Ansell and J. Torfing, eds. Handbook on Theories of Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 245-58.

Jager, N.W., …, A. Klinke, … (27 authors). 2016. Transforming European Water Governance? Participation and River Basin Management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 Members States. Water, 8 (156), 1-22.

Renn, O. and Klinke, A. 2016. Risk Perception and Its Impacts on Risk Governance. Environmental Science: Oxford Research Encyclopedia. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.2.

Klinke, A. 2015. The Great Lakes Water Governance in North America. Lessons for Expert Deliberation and Public Participation. In L.C. Ruelas-Monjardin and A.C. Travieso-Bello, eds. Bases Para La Construccion De Un Modelo Gobernanza. La Cuenca Del Rio Nautla. Veracruz, Mexico: Editorial Plaza y Valdes y El Colegio de Veracruz, 119-42.

Klinke, A. 2014. Postnational Discourse, Deliberation and Participation toward Global Risk Governance. Review of International Studies, 40 (2), 247-75.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 2014. Expertise and Experience: A Deliberative System of a Functional Division of Labor for Post-Normal Risk Governance. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27 (4), 442-65.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2014. Risk Governance: Application to Urban Planning. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture “Cities at Risk”, 11 (1), 5-19.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2014. Risk Governance and Resilience: New Approaches to Cope with Uncertainty and Ambiguity. In Fra Paleo, ed. Risk Governance. The Articulation of Hazard, Politics and Ecology. Dordrecht et al.: Springer, 19-42.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2013. A Framework of Adaptive Risk Governance for Urban Planning. Sustainability, 5 (5), 2036-59.

Klinke, A. 2012. Democratizing Regional Environmental Governance: Public Deliberation and Participation in Transboundary Eco-Regions. Global Environmental Politics, 12 (3), 79-99.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 2012. Adaptive and Integrative Governance on Risk and Uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 15 (3), 273-92.

Lieberherr, E., A. Klinke, and M. Finger. 2012. Toward Legitimate Water Governance? The Partially Privatized Berlin Waterworks. Public Management Review, 14 (7), 923-46.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2012. Space Matters! Impacts for Risk Governance. In D. Müller-Mahn, ed. The Spatial Dimension of Risk. How Geography Shapes the Emergence of Riskscapes. London: Routledge/Earthscan, 1-22.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2012. Risk Governance: Concept and Application to Institutional Risk Governance. In Alemanno, A.; den Butter, F.; Nijsen, A.; and Torriti, J., eds. Better Business Regulation in a Risk Society. New York: Springer, 17-36.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2012. Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Inclusive Risk Governance. In T.G. Measham and S. Lockie, eds. Risk and Social Theory in Environmental Management. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing, 59-76.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 2011. Nachhaltiger Umgang mit natürlichen Risiken: Antizipativ, integrativ und interdisziplinär. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwirtschaft, 162 (12), 442-53.

Renn, O., A. Klinke, and M. van Asselt. 2011. Risk Governance: Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity – A Synopsis. AMBIO – Journal of Human Environment, 40 (2), 231-46.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 2010. Risk Governance: Contemporary and Future Challenges. In J. Eriksson, M. Gilek, and C. Ruden, eds. Regulating Chemical Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on European and Global Challenges. Cambridge University Press, 9-27.

Klinke, A. 2009. Deliberative Politik in transnationalen Räumen – demokratische Legitimation und Effektivität der grenzüberschreitenden Wasser- und Umweltpolitik zwischen Kanada und USA. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 50 (4), 774-803.

Klinke, A. 2009. Deliberative Transnationalism – Transnational Governance, Public Participation and Expert Deliberation. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 348-56.

Klinke, A. 2009. Inclusive Risk Governance through Discourse, Deliberation and Participation. In M. Everson and E. Vos, eds. Uncertain Risks Regulated: National, EU and International Models Compared. Abingdon: Routledge, 399-413.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 2009. Prometheus Unbound: A New Approach to Risk Evaluation. In O. Renn, P-J. Schweizer, U. Müller-Herold, and A. Stirling, eds. Precautionary Risk Appraisal and Management. An Orientation for Meeting the Precautionary Principle in the European Union. Bremen: Europäischer Hochschulverlag, 118-81.

Renn, O.; M. Dreyer, A. Klinke, C. Losert, A. Stirling, P. van Zwanenberg, U. Müller-Herold, M. Morosini, and E. Fisher. 2009. The Application of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union. A Recommendation for the EU Commission. In O. Renn, P-J. Schweizer, U. Müller-Herold, and A. Stirling, eds. Precautionary Risk Appraisal and Management. An Orientation for Meeting the Precautionary Principle in the European Union. Bremen: Europäischer Hochschulverlag, 5-117.

Störmer, E., B. Truffer, D. Dominguez, W. Gujer, A. Herlyn, H. Hiessl, H. Kastenholz, A. Klinke, J. Markard, M. Maurer, and A. Ruef. 2009. The Exploratory Analysis of Trade-Offs in Strategic Planning. Lessons from Regional Infrastructure Foresight. Technical Forecast & Social Change, 76, 1150-62.

Renn, O., P.J. Schweizer, M. Dreyer, and A. Klinke. 2007. Risiko: Über den gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit Unsicherheit. Munich: Ökom Publisher.

Renn, O.; M. Dreyer, A. Klinke, and P-J. Schweizer. 2007. Systemische Risiken: Charakterisierung, Management und Integration in eine aktive Nachhaltigkeitspolitik. In Jahrbuch Ökologische Ökonomik 2007 “Soziale Nachhaltigkeit“. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag, 157-88.

Klinke, A.; M. Dreyer, O. Renn, A. Stirling, and P. van Zwanenberg. 2006. Precautionary Risk Regulation in European Governance. Journal of Risk Research, 9 (4), 373-92.

Klinke, A. 2006. Demokratisches Regieren jenseits des Staates. Deliberative Politik im nordamerikanischen Große Seen-Regime. Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publisher.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 2006. Systemic Risks as Challenge for Policy Making in Risk Governance. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7 (1) (http:www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-06/06-1-33-e.htm).

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2006. Die Bedeutung anthropogener Eingriffe in natürliche Prozesse: die Wechselwirkungen zwischen Naturgefahren und Risiken. In E. Kulke, H. Monheim, and P. Wittmann, eds. GrenzWerte. Leipzig et al.: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geographie, 443-52.

Renn, O., C. Benighaus, and A. Klinke. 2006. Bewertung und Management von Naturgefahren. Ein integratives, transdisziplinäres Verfahren. Wissenschaft & Umwelt Interdisziplinär, 10, 135-56.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2004. Systemic Risks: A New Challenge for Risk Management. EMBO Reports. Science and Society, 5, 1-6.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke 2004. Der gesellschaftliche Umgang mit Naturrisiken. In Pfister, C. and Summermatter, S., eds. Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung. Perspektiven und Positionen. Bern et al.: Berner Universitätsschriften, 185-204.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2003. Globale Umweltrisiken: Ein integratives Konzept zum Umgang mit Komplexität, Unsicherheit und Ambiguität. In N. Gottschalk-Mazouz and N. Mazouz, eds. Nachhaltigkeit und globaler Wandel. Integrative Forschung zwischen Normativität und Unsicherheit. Frankfurt/M.: Campus, 87-120.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2003. Risiko im Spannungsfeld von wissenschaftlicher Expertise und gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung. In G. Matschonat and A. Gerber, eds. Wissenschafts-theoretische Perspektiven für die Umweltwissenschaften. Weikersheim: Margraf Verlag, 95- 126.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2003. Risikoabschätzung und –bewertung. Ein neues Konzept zum Umgang mit Komplexität, Unsicherheit und Ambiguität. In J. Beaufort, E. Gumpert, and M. Vogt, eds. Fortschritt und Risiko. Zur Dialektik der Verantwortung in (post-)modernen Gesellschaften. Dettelbach: J.H. Röll, 21-51.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 2002. A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based and Discourse-Based Strategies. Risk Analysis, 22 (6), 1071-94.

Renn, O. and A.Klinke. 2002. Wer schließt die Büchse der Pandora? Bild der Wissenschaft, 8/2002, 81-86.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2002. Damokles-Schwerter und Kassandra-Rufe. Empfehlungen für die Kommunikation von Risiken. Ethik-Magazin, 3 (2), 30-39.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2002. Katastrophen und Risiken. Versuch einer Typologie. Gegenworte. Zeitschrift für den Disput über Wissen, 10, 43-47.

Hampel, J., A. Klinke, and O. Renn. 2002. Zwischen „roter“ Hoffnung und „grüner“ Ablehnung. Die öffentliche Wahrnehmung der Gentechnik in Deutschland. In G. Stein, ed. Umwelt und Technik im Gleichklang. Technikfolgenforschung Systemanalyse in Deutschland. Berlin et al.: Springer, 163-80.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 2001. Precautionary Principle and Discursive Strategies: Classifying and Managing Risks. Journal of Risk Research, 4 (2), 159-73.

Hampel, J., A. Klinke, and O. Renn. 2001. Beyond “Red” Hope and ”Green” Distrust. Public Perceptions of Genetic Engineering in Germany. Politeia, 16 (60), 68-82.

Beese, F., G. Busch, A. Klinke, G. Lammel, and O. Renn. 2001. A New Tool for Characterizing and Managing Risks. In E.D. Schulze, S.P. Harrison, M. Heimann, E.A.H. Holland, J. Lloyd, I.C. Prentice, and D.S.S. Schimel, eds. Global Biogeochemical Cycles in the Climate System. San Diego: Academic Press, 303-16.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2001. Public Participation Across Borders. In J. Linneroth-Bayer, R. Löfstedt, and G. Sjöstedt, eds. Transboundary Risk Management. London: Earthscan, 245-78.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke. 2001. Environmental Risks – Perception, Evaluation and Management: Epilogue. In G. Böhm, J. Nerb, T. McDaniels, and H. Spada, eds. Environmental Risks: Perception, Evaluation and Management. Amsterdam et al.: JAI, 275-99.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 1999. Risikokommunikation als integraler Bestandteil von Umweltrisikopolitik. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Umweltforschung. Special Issue No. 10 „Umweltrisikopolitik“ edited by B. Hansjürgens, 138-53.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 1999. Von Damokles bis Medusa – rationale Sicht auf Risiken. Vorschlag für ein verbessertes Risikomanagement. Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Sonderbeilage Sicherheit 99, No. 273 (23rd November).

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 1999. Prometheus Unbound. Challenges of Risk Evaluation, Risk Classification, and Risk Management. Working Paper No. 153 of the Center of Technology Assessment. Stuttgart: Center of Technology Assessment.

Renn, O.; A. Klinke, and H.J. Schellnhuber. 1999. Zentrale Handlungsempfehlungen des WBGU zur Umweltrisikopolitik. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Umweltforschung, 12 (3), 297-303.

Fraedrich, K.; A. Klinke, O. Renn, and H.J. Schellnhuber. 1999. Das Risikokonzept des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU). Eine Entgegnung auf mögliche Missverständnisse. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Umweltforschung, 13 (1/2), 210-17.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 1998. Risikoevaluierung von Katastrophen. WZB-Paper P 1998-304. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.

Klinke, A., J.-P. Lehners, and O. Renn, eds. 1997. Ethnic Conflicts and Civil Society. Proposals for a New Era in Eastern Europe. Aldershot et al.: Ashgate.

Klinke, A.; J.-P. Lehners, and O. Renn. 1997. Ethnic Conflicts and Cooperation Among and Within States. In A. Klinke, A., O. Renn, and J.-P. Lehners, eds. Ethnic Conflicts and Civil Society. Proposals for a New Era in Eastern Europe. Aldershot et al.: Ashgate, 3-32.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn. 1997. Ethnic Cooperation and Coexistence: International Mediation, International Governance, and Civil Society for Ethnically Plural States. In A. Klinke, A., O. Renn, and J.-P. Lehners, eds. Ethnic Conflicts and Civil Society. Proposals for a New Era in Eastern Europe. Aldershot et al.: Ashgate, 251-83.