Considering a non-document: concepts, components, and contexts

Date13 May 2019
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2018-0118
Pages627-642
Published date13 May 2019
AuthorMarc Richard Hugh Kosciejew
Subject MatterLibrary & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet
Considering a non-document:
concepts, components,
and contexts
Marc Richard Hugh Kosciejew
University of Malta, Msida, Malta
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to begin a conversation about the term nondocument.It analyzes
this terms possible concepts, components and contexts.
Design/methodology/approach This conceptual paper draws u pon the work of documentation studies
scholars, including Mi chael Buckland, Bernd Frohmann and Niels Wi ndfeld Lund, to begin an exploration
of the term nondocument,framed within the context of the 201320 14 IsraeliPalestinian peace
negotiations broker ed by the USA. It is comprised of seven secti ons revolving around different questio ns
regarding non-documen t.
Findings The document at the center of the 20132014 IsraeliPalestinian peace negoti ations aimed to
establish a framework f or an eventual final-status peace a greement. There was skepticism, h owever, about
the documents proposed r eservations inscription permitt ing either party to express reservati ons with any
part of the framework. It wa s claimed that this reserva tion inscription made th e document self-negat ing
and therefore a non-doc ument. This document wa s arguably a hybrid entit y: a document-non-docu ment.
It was a document in the cont ext of the negotiation s. It became a non-docum ent in the context of the
collapse of the negotiat ions.
Research limitations/implications The 20132014 peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine,
brokered by the USA, revolved around a diplomatic document outlining provisions for a final peace
settlement. The two parties were skeptical of a proposed provision permitting reservations to be expressed
over other provisions within the document. An official involved in the negotiations stated that this provision
made the document a non-document. But what exactly is meant by this term? This paper takes the
opportunity to begin exploring such a notion. The aim, however, is not to definitively define non-document
but instead to raise questions and provoke further discussions of this term.
Originality/value The concept of non-document is underdeveloped. This paper presents questions and
conceptual tools to help develop this term whilst providing possible points of departure for further
examinations of how documents are or might be non-documents. These questions and tools also point in
directions for various other approaches to phenomena that could be regarded as documents in some respects
but not in others, or the ways in which something could is almostbut not quitea document, or even help
determine what is not document.Ultimately, this term could help expand other conventionalapproaches
to documentation.
Keywords Israel, Documents, Palestine, Information science and documentation, Documentation,
IsraeliPalestinian conflict, Non-document, Peace negotiations
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction: the non-document of peace negotiations
A curious statement was made about the main diplomatic document outlining a framework for
possible peace at the center of the most recent round of the IsraeliPalestinian peace negotiations.
Initiated by the second-term Barack Obama administration in 2013/2014, this round of peace
negotiations aimed to complete and implement, through this diplomatic document, a framework
of core principles for an eventual final-status agreement between the two parties. The USAs
then-Secretary of State, John Kerry, helped bring the Israelis and Palestinians together to jointly
create and commit to this document to begin resolving the conflict and ultimately to establish a
lasting peace deal. This document was central to these negotiations.
Although diplomatic and political hopes were invested in this document, there was also
doubt and skepticism about it. Both the Israeli and Palestinian sides expressed concerns
with the document, particularly its overall framework setting out principles of Israels
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 75 No. 3, 2019
pp. 627-642
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-07-2018-0118
Received 23 July 2018
Revised 27 October 2018
Accepted 31 October 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
627
Considering a
non-document
security and the borders of a future Palestinian state. The two sides were also skeptical of
the documents possible provision permitting so-called reservations. This provision, or what
this paper refers to as the documents reservations inscription, permitted either side to
express reservations with this any component of this framework, which, in turn, could
nullify that particular component or possibly the whole framework. This skepticism
prompted a senior Palestinian official, Hanan Ashrawi, to offer a bleak assessment of this
document and its probable success, stating that such a document would be self-negating,
thereby making it a nondocument(Landler, 2014). Ashrawi, in other words, expressed a
lack of confidence in this documents aim of establishing a foundation on which to build a
final-status peace agreement because of its inscription that could trigger reservations.
Interestingly, the use of the term non-document appears to have been used at a previous
juncture of this ongoing conflict. Aharon Klieman (2000), for instance, discusses the 1995
Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement as a diplomatic document that aimed to facilitate a future
peace treaty between the Israelis and Palestinians, specifically by establishing the outlines
for a permanent status settlement(p. 227). This document remained in draft form and never
consented or approved by either side. It was, in essence, anondocument,in Middle
East parlance(Klieman, 2000, p. 227). In this regard, the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement
shares similarities with the 20132014 peace negotiations insofar as the central document
upon which both events were based and revolved were contested and ultimately
not implemented. Both documents became. or at least. were considered non-documents.
But what exactly is meant by non-document? Marc Kosciejew asks is a nondocument a
document? Is a nondocument not a document? Is a nondocument a kind or version of
a document? Is a nondocument something that was once or originally a document? Or is a
nondocument something else entirely?(Kosciejew, 2017, p. 1). This paper takes up these
questions. Drawing upon the work of various documentation studies scholars, including
Michael Buckland, Bernd Frohmann and Niels Windfeld Lund, this paper begins an
exploration of this curious concept within the context of this recent round of peace
negotiations. In light of this interesting statement, this paper takes the opportunity to begin
exploring such a notion. The aim, however, is not to definitively determine what a
non-document is, but instead to begin a conversation about it and, in doing so, provoke ideas
and other responses for possible further considerations and analyses. In fact, more
questions are posed than answered, but questions that aim to generate further discussions.
It is important to note that, although the 20132014 IsraeliPalestinian peace
negotiations brokered by the Americans are used as a case study, this paper does not intend
to analyze either the conflict or peace process. Indeed, there is substantial international
media coverage of and reports published on these negotiations. The sources presenting
Ashrawis statement either quote or refer to her interview in the New York Times, which this
paper also uses. There is also focused scholarship that addresses these negotiations
(Mitchell and Sachar, 2016; Sher and Kurz, 2016; Teller, 2016).
Additionally, the use of non-document by a high-ranking official involved in these
sensitive peace talks shows that it was not some flippant term or careless comment.
This term was used in an official capacity to comment upon a formal process with
real-world implications. Thus, the use of non-document, as put forth by Ashrawi in the
context of these negotiations, serves as an illuminating example of how such an unclear
term can have real impact on serious real-world affairs.
The following discussion provides a conceptual journey of the term non-document within
the context of these peace negotiations. It is comprised of seven sections revolving around
different questions regarding this term. These seven sections are arranged to build upon
each other and weave together various considerations of this term. The first section
examines the peace talks themselves and the pivotal role of this (non)document in this
diplomatic process. The second section analyses what a non-document is or could be by
628
JD
75,3

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT