Search results

Although influential in philosophy and relevant to international political theory's (IPT) key concerns, Donald Davidson has not received commensurate attention in IPT. I aim here to commence filling this gap. I explore Davidson's insights which fruitfully challenge established disciplinary views. The notions of rationality, objectivity and truth, and, on the other hand, those of intersubjectivity, language and interpretation are often needlessly separated and constricted by seemingly alternative approaches. Davidson firmly reconnects these notions. He helps rethink the realist, strong post-positivist, but also liberal, 'thin' constructivist and critical (not thoroughly contextualist) approaches. He bridges the normative cosmopolitan–communitarian distinction. Eventually, Davidson laid foundations for a perspective foregrounding possibilities for rational communication and agreement between very different contexts and also for the non-dogmatic, pluralist and dynamic nature of communication itself.

In the twentieth century the social science of international relations has gone from strength to strength. At first, policy-makers showed little interest in academic international relations, but in the last thirty years they have both encouraged and to a degree intervened in this burgeoning field. For their part, academics have been drawn more and more into commentary on governments' actions, to the point where, for some, the policy debate represents the main focus of their research.

Thailand, a long-standing defence partner of the United States and ASEAN's second largest economy, occupies a geostrategically important position as a land bridge between China and maritime Southeast Asia. This book, based on extensive original research, explores the current state of US-Thai relations, paying particular attention to how the United States is perceived by a wide range of people in the Thai defence establishment andhighlighting the importance of historical memory. The book outlines how the US-Thai relationship has been complicated and at times turbulent, discusses how Thailand is deeply embedded in multi-faceted relationships with many Asian states, not just China, and examines how far the United States is blind to the complexities of Asian international relations by focusing too much on China. The book concludes by assessing how US-Thai relations are likely to develop going forward. Additionally, the work contributes to alliance theory by showing how domestic politics shapes memory, which in turn affects perceptions of other states.

Until now there has been relatively little systematic analysis of the foreign relations of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). Based on interviews with senior officials of the KRG, this article places this activity within the conceptual framework of paradiplomacy. It argues that, in the framework of regional geopolitics and economic benefits for the Kurdistan Region from its place in Iraq, the practice of this paradiplomacy does not indicate an intention to secede from Iraq.

Pt. 1: Hearing, February 22, 1996. - 56 S. - graph. Darst., Tab. - ISBN 0-16-055762-3; Pt. 2: Hearing, March 12, 1996. - 36 S. - ISBN 0-16-055743-7

THIS ARTICLE IS AN EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A COMPARATIVE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF CIVILMILITARY RELATIONS IN COMMUNIST POLITICAL SYSTEMS. ALTHOUGH THE LITERATURE ON CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS IN POLYARCHIC AND PRAETORIAN POLITIES IS THEORETICALLY AS WELL AS EMPIRICALLY RICH, THEORIES OF CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS IN THE FIELD OF COMPARATIVE COMMUNISM ARE STILL AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ARGUED THAT CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS, LIKE ALL THE FUNDAMENTAL DYNAMICS OF COMMUNIST POLITICAL SYSTEMS, DERIVE FROM THE STRUCTURAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A HAGEMONIC LENINIST PARTY AND THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF THE POLITY. ALTHOUGH THE PARTY DIRECTS AND SUPERVISES ALL OTHER INSTITUTIONS, ITS POLITICAL SUPERMACY IS NECESSARILY LIMITED BY THE DIVISION OF LABOR AMONG VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS. THE RELATIVE AUTONOMY OF THE MILITARY AND ITS RELATIONS WITH THE PARTY VARY FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER AND CAN BE DESCRIBED AS COALITIONAL, SYMBIOTIC, OR FUSED. THESE RELATIONS ARE DYNAMIC, CHANGING OVER TIME IN EACH COUNTRY IN RESPONSE TO CONTEXTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY IN POLITICS IS COMPLEX AND VARIEGATED: ON IDEOLOGICAL ISSUES, THERE IS USUALLY LITTLE CONFLICT BETWEEN PARTY AND ARMY; ON ISSUES OF "NORMAL POLITICS," THE MILITARY ACTS AS A FUNCTIONALLY SPECIFIC ELITE ENGAGED IN BARGANING TO DEFEND ITS PERCEIVED INSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS; AND IN CRISIS POLITICS, THE MILITARY IS A POLITICAL RESOURCE THAT VARIOUS PARTY FACTIONS SEEK TO ENLIST AGAINST THEIR OPPONENTS.

India is perceived as the land that gave the concept of non-violence ( ahimsa) to the world through M.K. Gandhi. In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly voted to institute 2 October as the International Day of Non-violence. But what does non-violence entail? In its true essence, non-violence was never to be used as an excuse for non-action. For Gandhi, in a choice between cowardice and violence, violence was advisable. Interestingly and somewhat counter intuitively, the Mahabharata recognizes the virtues and importance of peace but it does not see absolute non-violence as an achievable goal, even if it may be desirable. What it then professes is the concept of ānŗśamsya or non-cruelty, a golden mean between violence and non-violence. The supreme duty in the Mahabharata was not ahimsa but ānŗśamsya. Hence, fighting was not necessarily considered good or desirable, but for a greater good and justice, fighting a war was expected and furthermore, to ensure victory in it was absolutely essential. However, what had to be ensured was adherence to non-cruelty. The aim of this article is to understand and discuss the implications of the concept of aānŗśamsya as given in the Mahabharata.