Search results

Het klimaatprobleem is met het van kracht worden van het Kyoto-verdrag nog lang niet opgelost. Hoe kunnen Nederland en de EU een effectief klimaatbeleid voeren? Daarbij moet rekening worden gehouden met een mondiale omgeving waarin door economische groei de emissies eerder groeien dan dalen en waarin internationale afspraken moeizaam tot stand komen. Het rapport Klimaatstrategie besteedt aandacht aan de drie componenten waaruit het klimaatprobleem bestaat. Hoe kan Nederland zich aanpassen aan klimaatverandering die onherroepelijk komen gaat? Welke technologieën zijn kansrijk om voor emissiered

Political science; Public administration; Sociology - Het klimaatprobleem is met het van kracht worden van het Kyoto-verdrag nog lang niet opgelost. Hoe kunnen Nederland en de EU een effectief klimaatbeleid voeren? Daarbij moet rekening worden gehouden met een mondiale omgeving waarin door economische groei de emissies eerder groeien dan dalen en waarin internationale afspraken moeizaam tot stand komen. Het rapport Klimaatstrategie besteedt aandacht aan de drie componenten waaruit het klimaatprobleem bestaat. Hoe kan Nederland zich aanpassen aan klimaatverandering die onherroepelijk komen gaat? Welke technologieën zijn kansrijk om voor emissiereductie te worden ingezet indien rekening wordt gehouden met de mondiale situatie qua belangen, grondstoffen enzovoort? Hoe kan bereikt worden dat die technologieën ook worden toegepast op de plaatsen waar ze het meeste effect sorteren?

This article is an intervention into a recent OZP debate on the future of political science as a discipline. Its main goal is to mediate between the respective positions of Ulrich Brand's and Helmut Kramer's conception of a critical project and Thomas Konig's presentation of organisational preliminaries of an academic project of political science. To this end, I firstly reformulate the essentials of a project of critique, referring on a thick notion of critique. Consequently, the relationship of the disciplinary and critical side of political science is rearranged on the basis of an appropriation of certain deliberations on discipline formation and philosophy of science, which centrally draw on the philosophy of Critical Realism. Adapted from the source document.

This article first disputes the traditional view of Realist School of international relations as inherently positivistic, & second presents a reaction to the polemic taking its course in pages of this journal between Marek Louzek & Petr Drulak. In the first part, those aspects of the work of E. H. Carr & Hans Morgenthau that challenge their placing in the positivist camp are presented. In the second part, these remarks are used as a critique of Marek Louzek's schematic division of theories of international relations as between normativist idealism & positivist realism. Adapted from the source document.

This article summarizes the main contemporary theoretical approaches to international institutions as well as significant theories of institutions, which build upon those approaches. In line with the existing overviews, I focus on realism, neoliberalism & constructivism. All three approaches differ in regard to both the origin & impact of institutions. Whereas, the basic realist perspective regards state interests & power to be the main source of the institution's origin; the basic perspective of neoliberalism emphasizes the structure of state interests & collective action problems, which result from it. Many constructivists presume that so-called general institutions determine the origin of specific institutions. According to realists, the impact of institutions is dependent on state interests & power; institutions only regulate state behavior in a limited way. The neoliberal conception of institutions infers that: institutions significantly regulate state behavior since they help states resolve collective action problems. According to constructivists: institutions even constitute state identities & interests. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents a critical commentary on the debate between M. Louzek & P. Drulak. First, in direct contradiction to Louzek's position, the article argues that "objectivity" in social science is not based on a dogmatic belief in the ability of a particular theory to seize the "truth" of the world-out-there. Instead, the only way to approach the ideal of objectivity in our varied & complex world is to facilitate an open debate between different theoretical positions. The article then discusses the dichotomy between positivism & normativism introduced by Louzek. This dichotomy is artificial; realism is no less "normatively-oriented" than alternative paradigms in international relations theory. However, there is a relevant distinction between analytically-oriented & normatively-oriented theories that is overlooked by Louzek, who wrongly believes that all nonrealist theories of international relations belong to the group of normative theories. Adapted from the source document.

This study argues that due to a lack of attention paid to the national interest of actors in international politics the mainstream international conflict resolution studies fail in their prescriptive & descriptive aspects; particularly when conflicts are complicated by geopolitics. The case study of the long-standing conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is used to highlight the strengths of geopolitical analysis, aimed at a proper understanding of a conflict's causes & the identities & interests of the actors directly & indirectly involved. This understanding is a prerequisite for coordinated international action directed towards the creation of the structural conditions for peace which would lead the prime actors of the conflict to choose peaceful resolution as a means to escape the hurting stalemate situation. In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh -- a conflict whose resolution has been impeded mainly by Azerbaijani & Armenian ethnic nationalism, coupled with fierce competition between the major powers in Central Eurasia -- a geopolitical analysis leads to the conclusion that the key to the resolution of the conflict lies in the hands of Russia. Such a resolution therefore presupposes a redefinition of Russia's interests, which would be based on the rational calculation that a deliberate destabilization of the South Caucasus will, in long term, hurt her interests. Adapted from the source document.

This essay starts from the argument that the first question preceding any meaningful scientific inquiry is one of a purpose & mission of scientific enterprise as such. Taking a historizing approach, it indicates that the nineteenth century positivist philosophy was built precisely around these questions, while it was precisely these questions again that were abandoned after the general acceptance of positivism in the USA during & after World War II. The essay then argues that IR realism, when aligned with the person & legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau, is a priori incompatible with both the original positivist philosophy & the positivism that eventually appeared in the USA with regard to questions of the "mission of science." Following this, the essay shows the consequences of the spread of positivism for IR. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents the idea that the social sciences are by nature normative & so simply cannot exist without normativeness at all. Their purpose is to understand & help solve social problems. The choices of issues, problems & questions are neither random nor objective, but are the results of normative consensus of their specific social-scientific discipline, as well as the greater social environment in which social scientists make them. This argument is applied to the polemics between Marek Louzek & Petr Drulak. I show that contrary to Louzek's assertions, the realism of E. H. Carr & Hans Morgenthau is strongly & explicitly normatively oriented. It is therefore unjustified to distinguish between normative idealists & scientific realists. The final section deals with the question what this conclusion means for the study of international relations. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents a comparison of three approaches to international justice. The first part of the article focuses on the realist paradigm, the second section analyzes various liberal approaches, and the third part presents the basic ideas of neomarxism. The largest part of the article is devoted to a critical discussion of existing liberal approaches -- liberal institutionalism (R. Keohane), political liberalism (J. Rawls), democratic liberalism (J. Habermas), globalist utilitarianism (P. Singer), globalist egalitarianism (Ch. Beitz, T. Pogge), and liberal impartialism (B. Barry). The article concludes by synthesizing the insights of the three broad normative positions into a realist, yet at the same time critical, liberalism. Adapted from the source document.