the need for geographically balanced appraisals of peace deals. To be fair, this is one area in which Caspersen does well, analysing relatively obscure cases, such as Nagorno Karabakh, South Sudan and Bougainville alongside better-known examples such as Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Israel-Palestine. Caspersen’s conclusions are arresting: the much-touted ‘liberal peace’ finds little practical expression in post-Cold War peace deals—particularly in separatist conflicts, which often opt for decidedly illiberal measures in the content of the agreement. Regional autonomy, not liberal cosmopolitanism or complex powersharing, is the key trend—with autonomy sometimes even being prescribed in non-territorial conflicts. Federalism, by contrast, has ‘become delegitimized by the Soviet and Yugoslav collapse’ (p. 115). On the rare occasions when rights are discussed in peace deals, they are usually for ethnic groups rather than individuals. And ambiguity is a consistently useful device, particularly in interim agreements—again in contrast to the more prescriptive recommendations of the scholarly literature. This book represents not just an admirable comparative analysis of an important topic, but a useful corrective to some off-target academic enthusiasms. It deserves wide circulation in both the scholarly and policy worlds.

中文翻译：

---

书评：Kalpan Jha。2017. 尼泊尔 KalpanJha 的 Madhesi 热潮和有争议的想法。2017. 尼泊尔的马德西热潮和有争议的想法。新加坡：Springer，111 页。 ISBN：978-981-10-2926-4

需要对和平交易进行地域平衡评估。公平地说，这是 Caspersen 擅长的一个领域，它分析了相对不为人知的案例，例如纳戈尔诺卡拉巴赫、南苏丹和布干维尔，以及波斯尼亚、北爱尔兰或以色列-巴勒斯坦等知名案例。卡斯佩森的结论引人注目：在冷战后的和平协议中，广受吹捧的“自由和平”几乎没有实际表达——尤其是在分离主义冲突中，这些冲突往往在协议内容中选择明显的不自由措施。区域自治，而不是自由世界主义或复杂的权力分享，是主要趋势——有时甚至在非领土冲突中规定了自治。相比之下，联邦制“因苏联和南斯拉夫的崩溃而变得非法化”（第 115 页）。在和平协议中讨论权利的极少数情况下，它们通常是针对族群而不是个人。歧义是一种一贯有用的手段，尤其是在临时协议中——再次与学术文献中更具规范性的建议形成对比。这本书不仅代表了对一个重要主题的令人钦佩的比较分析，而且对一些偏离目标的学术热情进行了有益的纠正。它值得在学术界和政策界广为流传。但对一些偏离目标的学术热情有用的纠正。它值得在学术界和政策界广为流传。但对一些偏离目标的学术热情有用的纠正。它值得在学术界和政策界广为流传。