The project aims to analyze the secession of South Kasai, a pivotal yet still under-explored episode within the broader Congolese crisis of the early 1960s. In doing so, the research will strive to consider both neo-colonial dynamics and distinctly local factors specific to the Kasai region.
On one hand, by examining the substantial support offered to the secession by Belgian authorities, major diamond companies active in the area, and the proponents of the other Congolese secession—that of Katanga—the project seeks to contribute to the debate concerning the neo-colonial elements of the crisis. On the other hand, in light of the crucial role played by local actors, the project also aims to advance the important discussion regarding African agency. Indeed, two of the most significant underlying reasons for the secession can be traced to interethnic tensions and high-level power struggles related to access to political power and resources.
Overall, the research activity seeks to shed light on a still little-known yet central episode of the tumultuous post-colonial Congolese period, thereby improving the understanding of one of the most significant political crises of the 1960s—a crisis whose far-reaching consequences were felt not only within Congolese borders but also on a regional and international scale.

The project examines the evolution of U.S. foreign policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by comparing two paradigms of American mediation, the multilateral two-state framework of the Oslo Accords and the minilateral regional normalisation approach embodied in the Abraham Accords. Drawing on debates within Foreign Policy Analysis and realist theory, the research explores how systemic pressures, domestic political dynamics, and strategic priorities have reshaped U.S. engagement in the conflict. Using qualitative methods including process tracing and discourse analysis, the study analyses the changes in U.S. policy instruments, diplomatic formats, and official narratives, focusing on the transition from a resolution-oriented mediation strategy aimed at negotiated peace to a management-oriented approach prioritising regional stability. Treating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a privileged case study, the project interprets U.S. foreign policy transformation as an expression of changing hegemonic mediation practices in contexts of protracted conflicts.

The project examines the evolution of U.S. foreign policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by comparing two paradigms of American mediation: the multilateral framework based on the two-state solution of the Oslo Accords, and the minilateral approach characterised by regional normalisation in the Abraham Accords. Referencing debates within foreign policy analysis and realist theory, the research explores how systemic pressures, internal political dynamics, and strategic priorities have reshaped U.S. engagement in the conflict. Using qualitative methods, including process tracing and discourse analysis, the study analyses the changes in U.S. policy instruments, diplomatic formats, and official narratives, focusing on the transition from a conflict-resolution-oriented mediation strategy to an approach oriented towards management and regional stability. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is treated as a privileged case study to interpret the transformation of U.S. foreign policy as an expression of changing practices of hegemonic mediation in the context of protracted conflicts.