Search results

The increasing role of social science in environmental policy & knowledge generation has resulted in an environmental discourse that is epistemologically realist, postivistic, disembedded, technological, & cognitivist. Such a discourse tends to mask important cultural, social, & existential dimensions of environmental crises & has become part of the modern environmental problem rather contributing to its solution. A constructivist, hermeneutic, poetic, & situated approach to environmental phenomena is needed. Examples of such accounts in three broad domains are highlighted: (1) environment, knowledge, & indeterminancy; (2) subjectivity & individuation; & (3) problems with current ways of incorporation of environmental considerations within political institutions. Ulrich Beck's contributions to illuminating the modern environmental problematic are discussed. 10 References. D. Generoli

Explores implications of the new "war on terror" for antiglobalization efforts, particularly for its human rights agenda. Following the terrorist attacks against the US on 11 Sept 2001, a tightened US security agenda & enactment of legislation like the Patriot Act have had dire effects on civil liberties & other human rights, including freedom of speech & assembly & the right to privacy. Ways that civil liberties have typically been restricted during previous periods of wartime are reviewed & the interdependence of human rights & national/international security is discussed. Ways that the human rights community can develop a new agenda acknowledging this interdependence are suggested, emphasizing the importance of considering (1) the limits of imposing human rights from the outside, (2) human rights opportunities & the political realities of the major powers, & (3) the appropriate means toward human rights ends. Directions toward the development of a new "human rights realism" in the globalized economy are outlined. K. Hyatt Stewart

States' motivations for launching humanitarian military interventions are reconsidered. After contemplating circumstances that limit states' ability to intervene in humanitarian crises, it is stressed that conventional realist thought discourages states from dispatching military forces to deal with widespread human rights violations. Although most Western leaders, particularly the US president, possess considerable flexibility in ascertaining whether armed forces should be mobilized to confront humanitarian crises, it is asserted that national & international interests strongly influence states' willingness to become involved in ethnic conflicts & nations experiencing gross human rights violations; examples from the former Yugoslavia & the Kosovo War are cited to demonstrate the US government's culpability for allowing humanitarian crises to continue & for permitting revenge acts. Even though the international community has stressed the integration of human rights guidelines into nations' foreign policies, it is concluded that realist perspectives will continue to exert substantial influence over states' reasons for deploying military forces to address humanitarian crises. J. W. Parker

Following an overview of the realist tradition in international relations, two criteria for judging its theoretical progress -- explanatory power & internal fertility -- are offered. Competing theories -- neorealism, defensive realism, offensive realism, & neoclassical realism -- are detailed in terms of the debates surrounding their respective utility. Neorealism is seen to originate with Kenneth Waltz (eg, 1979); criticisms center on the purely structural theory's parsimonious nature. Defensive realism makes an important revision to Waltz's structural theory by looking to the "fine-grained structure of power" & how geography & technology together impact state security. Offensive realism offers the greatest challenge to defensive realism, emphasizing the inability of states to gauge each other's intentions with total confidence, leading to competition. The split between offensive & defensive is illuminated to show how the two might be reconciled. Neoclassical theory returns, to a degree, to the views of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Carr, & Morgenthau, combining elements of structural theory with an empirically grounded sensitivity to the calculus of real-world decisionmakers. It is seen as useful in building historical narratives. Key limitations include ad hoc incorporation of domestic variables & a lack of its own explanatory hypotheses. Important theoretical refinements coming from the realist tradition include work on alliance theory, international political economy, emerging topics (eg, military doctrine, coalition formation), international history, & the post-Cold War era. Incisive realist critiques of alternative traditions (eg, institutionalism, cultural approaches) are noted. Remaining areas of inquiry are addressed along with the position of the realist tradition in international relations. J. Zendejas

Examines recent Canadian analyses & discussions of peacekeeping in the context of international relations debate between idealism & realism, the latter as viewed from Hans Moregenthau's perspective to which the author subscribes. Conceptual ambiguity surrounding peacekeeping is addressed, seeking some clarification from the distinction between troop deployment under Chapter VI of the UN Charter & deployment under Chapter VII. At issue is how the government & citizenry of Canada came to support peacekeeping with such thoughtlessness that the criteria developed to guide sensible decision making could be thoroughly ignored. A long-term factor underpinning this situation is the extent to which peacekeeping has supported a persistent myth of Canadian identity that centers on a rejection of the US. The short-term factor involves changes in the Canadian armed forces resulting at least partly from foreign policy ideals that generally removed from or contrary to the realities of power & interest. Thus, the abandonment of realism for the idealism that motivates Canada's pursuit of peacekeeping is seen as contributing to the disintegration of the Canadian armed forces. J. Zendejas

One of the most fundamental concepts in international relations is the realistic theory of balance of power. David Hume saw the concept as a scientific law. Hans Morgenthau referred to it as an "iron law of politics. Henry Kissenger viewed it as an art rather than a science, which some political leaders practiced better than others. Some thought it more relevant for state strategy while others tried to understand its role in international relations. Thus, the only thing certain about the concept of balance of power is the ambiguity in its definition. This essay explores what the great powers are balanced against, under what circumstances, & with what potential outcomes in the contemporary world. J. Stanton

Even at this time when global politics is in the flux of change, the actions of the great powers remain of importance. Thus theories that might explain their behavior should remain in the spotlight of academic research. The focus of this essay is one particular balance-of-power theory, offensive realism, here viewed in conjunction with power transition theory. When power is not balanced & in a state of flux, nations must constantly be alert to the possibility of war. They must maximize their own power & always be ready to take any opportunistic advantage -- thus the term offensive realism. Erik Labs's (1997) observations of several historical wars support his claims that "the ebb & flow of wartime opportunity corresponded consistently with the expansion & contraction of war aims." John Mearsheimer's (2001) comparative analysis shows that "great powers look for opportunities to shift the balance of power in their favor & usually seize opportunities when they appear." While these findings do not suggest that balance-of-power theory be discarded, they do indicate that full consideration be given to its various manifestations. J. Stanton

Considers how game theory fits into ongoing international relations theory development, particularly that branch addressing international politics via the strategic logic of spare stylizations of the international system centered on Hobbesian state of nature. At issue are what game theory offers international relations theory, the extent to which game theory's capacities are needed, & the impacts on international relations theory of adopting a more game theoretic approach. Game theory is viewed as providing a formal method of analyzing strategic interactions; advantages in the formalization concomitant with such analysis are described. After detailing the general properties of research methods & some advantages available with game theory, debates dominating international relations theory are delineated, demonstrating that much of the dialogue is rooted in weakly or poorly specified linkages among actor preferences, the strategic setting in which the actors pursue their goals, & the outcomes. Consequences of adopting a more formal approach to international relations are scrutinized in conclusion. 2 Figures. J. Zendejas

This introduction to 12 essays on power relations & the balance of power in various nations or regions around the world notes that the findings run counter to the traditional theory that balance of power is the dominant pattern of state & interstate behavior. The forces that are changing international relations, primarily terrorism, are also changing traditional power politics. Some states are joining forces with each other against the threat of terrorism, while others are relying on international institutions to control the situation & to constrain the US war on terror policy. In the face of US global hegemony, each state seeks opportunistic strategies that will best ensure its own national security. While realism may explain much state behavior, it does not really capture contemporary international politics. J. Stanton

This essay addresses the question of whether the war on terrorism has changed understanding of the balance of power as the best tool of realist theory for analysis of international relations by displacing traditional forms of balancing with an era of asymmetric warfare. After examining the key realist concepts of hegemony & balancing & then discussing whether terrorist violence is an asymmetric form of balancing, the implications for balance of power theories of the war on terror & the US hegemonic grand strategy are explored. While acknowledging current US hegemony, it is argued that the US' economic strength & military power may lure it into a situation of "imperial overstretch" & a consequent decline in its relative power, thus allowing other great powers to engage in counter-hegemonic balancing. J. Stanton

Neither realist nor neoliberal perspectives can adequately address the position & function of concepts such as identities, norms, & values in international relations. The realist camp falls short because innovation is absent, & norms are only agreed with when it is convenient. On the other hand, the neoliberal camp fails to acknowledge that ideas may change a political actor's goals &/or identity. Even the constructivist camp exaggerates the importance of ideas & norms while failing to reconcile how ideas & norms change with time. The only viable solution, therefore, is to adopt an analysis of normative evolution. This theory supports the discovery of new ideas, allowing new ideas to compete with existing ideas. Those ideas that survive are then adopted through the processes of socialization & institutionalization. Sooner or later, these ideas will be challenged by even newer ideas. Because international relations theory is not yet equipped to deal with normative life cycles, a new emphasis on normative evolution is needed. 2 Tables, 4 Figures, 142 References. K. Larsen

In an attempt to build bridges between evolutionary international relations theory & alternative theoretical perspectives, it is proposed that international relations (IR) theory has already laid the necessary groundwork to link traditional IR thinking with evolutionary theorizing. This idea is supported by the argument that rational choice does not dictate theoretical IR hypotheses. Rather, the idea of evolutionary adaptation is a central principle, though liberal & realist viewpoints differ on how adaptation actually occurs. Liberals emphasize structural discontinuity & adaptations that result from technological change while realists focus on structural continuity & the influences of competitive survival. It is proposed that these divergent viewpoints might be reconciled if the evolutionary component were granted a central position in the argument. Because the most appropriate viewpoint is located between the liberal & realist perspectives, an evolutionary assessment must be considered. 90 References. K. Larsen