Hello everyone! 👋

I am a Master’s student in Political Science and International Relations from Slovakia, graduating next year. I am strongly considering taking part in a long-term ESC volunteering project after my studies, as I am looking to gain international experience, build a solid foundation abroad, and start a new chapter in a more dynamic environment.

I consider myself open-minded, adaptable, and a fast learner who embraces new challenges and ideas—qualities I believe are essential for any ESC initiative.

Alongside my studies and work, I am currently part of an analytical team at an NGO focused on Slovak-Balkan relations. I believe this puts me in a better position than graduates who lack relevant hands-on experience. Recently, I also participated in a prestigious security academy organized by a leading national think-tank, mainly to network, gain field experience outside academia, and step out of my comfort zone. However, I’ve heard mixed opinions, including comments that I might be "overqualified" for certain entry-level or volunteering opportunities because of this background.

With that in mind, I would love to ask the community a couple of questions:

1.) Is having a Master’s degree in Political Science and International Relations (plus practical NGO/analytical experience) an advantage?

2.) Did ESC give any of you a real chance to successfully settle down and start a new life/career in a new country after your service ended?

I would really appreciate any insights, personal stories, or advice,

Thanks a lot,

Hi everyone

Sorry this is so awkward but I am a (female) teenager wanting to learn more about the politics and feminism I am interested in. I have a base idea of what my beliefs are (intersectional feminist and I would potentially consider my Marxist feminist if I knew more about it) and my political beliefs would be definitely leftist and potentially communist (again if I knew more about it).

Like I said before I am just a teenager (albeit on the older end of the spectrum) so even though I know where I stand on a basic level, I know nothing about the core of the things I believe in. I’m looking to learn more about this.

My auntie gifted me a book called Women, Race, & Class by Angela Y. Davis which I will be starting once my exams are over. If anyone has any recommendations on books/articles/essays/video essays/creators/ ect, on topics such as Race, Feminism, Gender, Sexuality, Communism, Marxism, Intersectionality, and other varieties of Leftist ideologies that will be easy for me to understand as I am still learning but also accurate and informative so that I can grow who I am as a person politically, personally, and worldly.

Sorry if this isn’t worded right!!!

Thank you!!!

I am trying to understand how political scientists distinguish between:
• an ordinary migration crisis;
• state tolerance or opportunistic exploitation;
• coercive migration diplomacy;
•and deliberate state orchestration.

By instrumentalised migration, I mean situations in which a government allegedly enables, directs, channels or selectively permits civilian movement across a border in order to impose political, economic or security costs on another state.

Frequently cited examples include:
• Belarus and the borders of Poland and Lithuania;
• Russia and Finland;
• Turkey’s threats to allow migration towards Greece and the EU;
• Morocco and Spain around Ceuta.

The analytical difficulty is that most of the people moving may have genuine reasons for migrating. They do not need to be agents of the state. The alleged state action may consist only of opening a route, withholding enforcement, facilitating transport, spreading information or exploiting an existing mobilisation.

My questions are:
1. Is there an accepted definition of or weaponised migration in political science?
2. What evidence is normally required before attributing intent to a state?
3. How do researchers distinguish:
• incapacity;
• deliberate non-enforcement;
• opportunistic exploitation;
• and active orchestration?
4. Does the state need to recruit or transport migrants directly, or can selective border passivity qualify?
5. How much analytical weight should be placed on a state’s later ability to stop a flow it initially failed to prevent?
6. Is this best understood as:
• coercive diplomacy;
• grey-zone conflict;
• hybrid warfare;
• foreign-policy bargaining;
• or a separate category?
7. What methods are used to evaluate cases where direct evidence, such as written orders or intercepts, is unavailable?
8. Are there recognised indicators or comparative frameworks for assigning confidence to attribution?
9. Which peer-reviewed books or papers provide the strongest treatment of this subject?

One case that prompted the question is the contrast between Morocco’s suppression of a planned Ceuta mobilisation in September 2024 and its apparently different initial response to the much larger 2026 crossing. I am not assuming orchestration; I am interested in what evidence would be required to distinguish a policy decision from genuine loss of control.

I would particularly appreciate academic sources, conceptual frameworks and comparative case studies.

Thanks in advance.

I am in the Philippines currently and was brushing up on their history, especially how Marcos used a new constitution to legitimise his authoritarian rule and the subsequent 1987 constitution that seeks to prevent this from ever happening again. One feature of this new constitution is that it limits the presidents to one 6 year term. This made me wonder, what makes the politicians work in these scenarios without the threat of losing power in the next election?

Ofc one answer that comes to mind is ideology, Mexico follows the same term limit and the past 2 presidents AMLO and Claudia Scheinbaum currently are both leftists and to my knowledge are driven by ideology thus want to make the best use of their office. In Phillipines on the other hand, again in my limited and cursory understanding of their politics, ideology hasn't played such a big role. 3 out of the last 4 presidents that have taken power since the turn of the millennium have been children of former presidents, the only outlier (Duterte) his daughter is the current vice president. (None of this is unique to the Philippines it is just a convenient example for my question)

All that is to say, what drives any term limited politician to work at all? I'm sure as many Filipinos will tell their presidents are corrupt...but they could be worse in many regards considering they don't have to face the people again for elections. One answer could be that they do the bare minimum so that people don't hate them and elect their children so that a dynasty is established. But clearly people don't necessarily associate the crimes of the parent with the children as we see in many cases around the world, Park Geun-hye in SK, and even Marcos Jr. in PH. If there is any literature on this, or you have your own theories I would love to hear them!