Suchergebnisse

"Authority in World Politics" published on by Oxford University Press.

Neoliberal Kurumsalcılık, uluslararası ilişkiler teorisinde İkinci Dünya Savaşı'ndan sonra liberal-idealist politik paradigma fikirlerini geliştiren bir okuldur, uluslararası siyasi kurumların, devletlerin uluslararası ilişkilerde başarılı bir şekilde işbirliği yapmalarına izin verebileceğini savunmaktadır. Neoliberal Kurumsalcılık yaklaşımı özellikle Batı Avrupa ülkeleri arasında gerçekleşen işbirliğini ve bütünleşme sürecini açıklayıcı bir niteliğe sahiptir. Fakat bölgesel kurumsallaşma dinamiklerinin zayıf olduğu bir bölge olan Orta Asya'nın istikrarsız bölgelere yakınlığı ve bölge içinde süregiden çatışmalar hem Orta Asya devletleri için hem de bölgeye komşu devletler için bir tehdit oluşturmaktadır. Bu bakımdan, tezin temel amacı, Neoliberal Kurumsalcılık yaklaşımını kullanarak iki farklı örgütün ŞİÖ ve BRICS'in örneklerinde önemini açıklamaya çalışmaktır. ; Neoliberal institutionalism is a school in international relations theory that develops liberal-idealist political paradigm ideas after the Second World War, arguing that international political institutions can allow states to cooperate successfully in international relations. The approach of Neoliberal institutionalism is particularly descriptive of the cooperation and integration process between Western European countries. However, as a region where regional institutionalization dynamics are weak, the proximity of Central Asia to unstable regions and ongoing conflicts within the region pose a threat to both Central Asian states and neighboring states. In this respect, the main purpose of thesis is to explain the importance of two different organizations in the examples of SCO and BRICS by using Neoliberal Institutionalism approach.

Regime theory is an approach within international relations theory, a sub-discipline of political science, which seeks to explain the occurrence of co-operation among States by focusing on the role that regimes play in mitigating international anarchy and overcoming various collective action problems among States (International Relations, Principal Theories; State; see also Co-operation, International Law of). Different schools of thought within international relations have emerged, and various analytical approaches exist within the regime theory itself (see Sec. F.3 below). However, typically regime theory is associated with neoliberal institutionalism that builds on a premise that regimes are central in facilitating international co-operation and constraining the behaviour of States. Thus, in international relations literature, regime theory is often used interchangeably with the terms 'institutionalism' or 'neoliberal institutionalism'.

"International Political Economy: Overview and Conceptualization" published on by Oxford University Press.

The problem of absolute and relative gains divides neoliberal institutionalism and structural realism. The former assumes states focus primarily on their absolute gains and emphasizes the prospects for cooperation. The latter supposes states are largely concerned with relative gains and emphasizes the prospects for conflict. Existing work in international relations theory generally traces the differences between these two theories to different assumptions about states' preferences. Using a simple game-theoretic model, this essay offers a reformulation of the problem of absolute and relative gains that links changes in the states' behavior, the feasibility of cooperation, and especially the states' concern for relative versus absolute gains explicitly to changes in the constraints facing the states. Many of the differences between neoliberal institutionalism and structural realism appear as special cases of the model.

The essays in this book trace the development of the author's thinking about international institutions between 1980 and 1988. The introduction, written especially for this volume, summarizes and defends the "neoliberal institutionalism" that he advocates as a framework for understanding world politics.

"Nuclear Proliferation and Non-Proliferation" published on by Oxford University Press.

This book examines three bipolar relationships that have emerged as a result of the Eurasian energy triangle Russia-Former Soviet Union region, Russia-EU, and Russia-China and the ways in which they, along with Putin's foreign energy policy, relate to the debate between neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism

This book examines three bipolar relationships that have emerged as a result of the Eurasian energy triangle-Russia-Former Soviet Union region, Russia-EU, and Russia-China-and the ways in which they, along with Putin's foreign energy policy, relate to the debate between neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism.

This study focuses on international institutions and their impact in world politics. It presents an analysis of the EU-UN cooperation in Security and crisis management. Applying a neoliberal view of institutionalized cooperation between the two international organizations I am trying to understand how they work together. Many years after its creation the United Nations has been leading many interventions in different zones of the world; enhance peace, and foster local development. Facing many difficulties concerning crisis management the United Nations finds another way to make its operations more effective by working with regional agencies that are also very active and important concerning crisis management into their zones. The European Union as an intergovernmental organization is emerging actor in peacekeeping and peace-building and has been an active partner of the United Nations. The partnership has been differentiated and further developed in different zones. This study tries to understand how the EU and UN cooperate. What have been their participations in the field of peacekeeping, peace-building and human rights? Keywords: European Union, United Nations, Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding, Neoliberal Institutionalism, Human Rights. ; ÖZ: Bu çalışmanin odak noktasi uluslararasi kurumlar ve onlarin dünya politikasina etkileridir. AB-BM işbirliği icerisinde Guvenlik ve kriz yönetimi ile ilgili analizini sunmaktadir. İki uluslararasi organizasyon arasindaki kurumlasmisis birliğini ve nasil birlikte calistiklarini yenilikçi liberal bir bakis acisi uygulayarak anlamaya çalışıyorum. Kurulusundan yillar sonra Birlesmis Milletler, dunyanin bircok farkli yerindeki barışı saglamak ve yerel gelişimiarttirmak gibi faaliyetlerde önderlik etmistir. Kriz yonetimi gibi bircok farkli sorunla yuzlesen Birlesmis Milletler, kendi bolgelerinde de yerel olarak aktif ve önemli faaliyetlerde bulunan kurumlarla birlikte çalışarak yaptigi faaliyetleri daha efektif kilmistir. Devletler arasi bir organizasyon olan Avrupa Birliği, dunyada barisi saglamada ve baris ortami olusturmada çok büyük rol oynamistir veuzun yillardir Birlesmis Milletlerin aktif bir partneri olmustur. Dunyanin farkli bolgelerinde bu partnerlik farklilasmakda ve daha ileriye tasinmaktadir Bu arastirma AB ve BM nin nasil is birligi icerisinde olsugunu anlamaya calismaktadir. Bu iki organizasyonun barış saglamada, baris ortami olusturmada ve insan haklariyla ilgili calismalarda katılımları neler olmustur? Anahtar kelimeler: Avrupa Birligi, Birleşmiş Milletler, Barış sağlama, Barış ortami oluşturma, yenilikçi liberal kurumlasma, insan haklari. ; Master of Arts in International Relations. Thesis (M.A.)--Eastern Mediterranean University, Faculty of Business and Economics, Dept. of International Relations, 2020. Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wojciech Forysinski.

When explaining the ubiquity of rankings, researchers tend to emphasize macro or contextual phenomena, such as the power of or the trust in numbers, neoliberal forces, or a general spirit of competition. Meanwhile, the properties of rankers are rarely, if at all, taken into account. In contrast to the received wisdom, we argue that the institutionalization of rankings in different fields is also contingent upon another, often-neglected factor: Over time, rankers have become increasingly more organized. To investigate the role of ranking organizations, we look into the distinct properties of present-day rankings and highlight three dimensions along which rankings have evolved over the course of the twentieth century, namely, publication frequency, handling complex tasks, and audience engagement. On this basis, we argue that these dimensions have to a large extent been affected by formal organization and we show how ranking organizations have over time developed capacities to: (a) publish rankings on a continual basis; (b) handle the often complex production process by means of division of labor; and (c) generate considerable degrees of attention by addressing large and diverse audiences. On a more general note, we argue that accounting for the role of organization in the instutionalization of rankings requires a combination of insights from both "old" and "new" strands of thinking in institutional theory.

When explaining the ubiquity of rankings, researchers tend to emphasize macro or contextual phenomena, such as the power of or the trust in numbers, neoliberal forces, or a general spirit of competition. Meanwhile, the properties of rankers are rarely, if at all, taken into account. In contrast to the received wisdom, we argue that the institutionalization of rankings in different fields is also contingent upon another, often-neglected factor: Over time, rankers have become increasingly more organized. To investigate the role of ranking organizations, we look into the distinct properties of present-day rankings and highlight three dimensions along which rankings have evolved over the course of the twentieth century, namely, publication frequency, handling complex tasks, and audience engagement. On this basis, we argue that these dimensions have to a large extent been affected by formal organization and we show how ranking organizations have over time developed capacities to: (a) publish rankings on a continual basis; (b) handle the often complex production process by means of division of labor; and (c) generate considerable degrees of attention by addressing large and diverse audiences. On a more general note, we argue that accounting for the role of organization in the instutionalization of rankings requires a combination of insights from both "old" and "new" strands of thinking in institutional theory.

AbstractThis article looks at the issue of the dramatic rise of street homelessness in London among Polish migrants from the perspective of social anthropology looking at the relationship between structural constraints faced by Polish migrants and their own perception of the social world, their meaning‐making practices, norms and values, behavioral patterns. As I will show, focusing just on structural and economic determinants not only offers a simplistic and one‐dimensional picture but it also fails to give an explanation and predict what happens if these constraints and exclusionary policies are removed and homeless migrants gain the same set of social rights as the rest of British and EU citizens (which in theory will happen in May 2011). An anthropological approach to the functions, roles and cultural meanings of homelessness, group bonds, masculinities, alcohol consumption, perception of the state and dominant society as voiced by homeless migrants I 'hanged around' with, reveals that structurally rejected people with particular backgrounds reconstruct communities and form strong ties despite (or because of) a hostile, exclusionary and hegemonic social environment of the neoliberal order. Two conclusions are drawn from this analysis, empirical and theoretical: first, taking both structural and cultural factors into account, the levels of homeless among that group is going to rise, at least in London; second, the set of cultural forms of behavior and social practices described in academic literature as the homo sovieticus syndrome (Wedel 1986, Sztompka 2000, Morawska 1998) proves not only valuable and resourceful in highly individualized, neoliberal and capitalistic society but may in fact be reinforced in new conditions being a productive – socially and culturally ‐ counter‐reaction to the neoliberal order of social life in the global city.

International relations theorists and global health politics scholars largely fail to communicate with one another. We argue that drawing on insights from classic and contemporary international theory more explicitly will positively augment the study of global health politics. This paper highlights four major theoretical orientations in the international relations literature (realism, neoliberal institutionalism, constructivism, and feminism) and discusses how an understanding of these perspectives can strengthen our understanding of global health policy.