A lot of literature has been published during the past two decades highlighting the role played by some diasporas in the conflicts raging in their home countries, and on the links between diasporas and ‘international terrorism’. Diasporas, especially those originating from conflict areas, are often depicted in policy circles as potential security threats, raising indiscriminate suspicion towards diasporas in general. Contemporary literature similarly treats the links between diasporas and conflicts in a rather simplistic way. Little time is for instance dedicated to understanding how diasporas might emerge and coalesce around conflicts long after the migration has occurred. The article, based on a critical examination of how diasporas originating from conflict areas have been described and defined in the academic literature, proposes an alternative understanding of the nexus between diasporas and conflicts. It notably highlights the limitations and pitfalls of an approach based on single-issue labels, which entails the essentialization of concerned groups, and which perpetuates methodological nationalism. The article instead proposes to understand the mechanisms by which diasporas become involved in conflicts by looking at a series of configurations, which can happen at specific temporalities (critical junctures, crises, etc.), in specific spaces, by specific actors, and through specific discursive articulations (how identities are assigned, which discourses on diaspora are produced, etc.). At the practical level, this entails the study, for instance, of contentious spaces where diasporas are created, or which diasporas create, but also of contentious events or time junctures at which the articulation between conflicts and diaspora groups is effected.

过去 20 年出版了大量文献，强调了一些侨民在其本国肆虐的冲突中所起的作用，以及侨民与“国际恐怖主义”之间的联系。侨民，尤其是来自冲突地区的侨民，经常在政策圈中被描述为潜在的安全威胁，从而普遍引起对侨民的不分青红皂白的怀疑。当代文学同样以相当简单的方式处理侨民和冲突之间的联系。例如，很少有时间专门用于了解侨民如何在移民发生很久之后出现并围绕冲突团结起来。这篇文章基于对学术文献中如何描述和定义来自冲突地区的侨民的批判性研究，提出了对侨民和冲突之间关系的另一种理解。它特别强调了基于单一问题标签的方法的局限性和陷阱，这需要相关群体的本质化，并使方法论的民族主义永久化。相反，本文建议通过观察一系列配置来了解侨民卷入冲突的机制，这些配置可能发生在特定时间（关键时刻、危机等）、特定空间、特定行为者以及通过特定话语表达（身份如何分配，关于散居的话语是如何产生的，等等）。在实践层面，这需要研究，例如，有争议的散居者被创造的空间，或散居者创造的空间，