Suchergebnisse

Is the world more or less ordered than during the cold war? Are we on the way to a neo-liberal era of free markets and global governance, or in danger of collapsing into a new Middle Ages? This book seeks to offer a general interpretation and critique of both methodolgical and substantive aspects of International theory

"Covenant of the League of Nations with amendments in force to June 1, 1939": p. 17-33 at end. ; Includes index. ; Bibliography at end of each chapter. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; 2

Organized around several major theoretical traditions in international relations, this essay suggests which literature in psychology should be of greatest interest to different kinds of international relations scholars. New work in cognitive social psychology and behavioral decision theory simultaneously expands on and qualifies earlier error-and-bias portraits of the foreign policy maker, thereby enriching our understanding of internal divisions within the realist camp. Work on bounded rationality in competitive markets and mixed-motive games, as well as the literature on the power of human emotions to shape judgments of what represents an equitable allocation of scarce resources or a just resolution of conflicts of interest, can inform neo-institutionalist and constructivist theories. Developments in cross-cultural social psychology shed light on constructivist arguments about the creation and maintenance of international social order that typically rest on assumptions about decision making that are qualitatively different from realist and institutionalist approaches to world politics.

Six articles from the Cambodian Agony, edited by David A. Ablin and Marlowe Hood, to be published at the end of 1986 by M. E. Sharpe (Editors' note, p. 2.). David Hawk, "International human rights law and Democratic Kampuchea", pp.3-38; D. W. P. Elliot, "Deadlock diplomacy: Thai and Vietnamese interests in Kampuchea", pp. 39-76; Anthony Barnett, "Cambodian possibilities", pp. 77-109; Serge Thion, "The pattern of Cambodian politics", pp. 110-130; David P. Chandler, "A revolution in full spate: Communist Party policy in democratic Kampuchea, December 1976", pp. 131-149; Timothy Carney, "Heng Samrin's armed forces and the military balance in Cambodia", pp. 150-185. (IPSA/DÜI)

Sociologists have traditionally paid scant attention to International Relations (IR) as a social-scientific discipline. Conversely, sociology plays a very limited role in IR, particularly in the large, mostly US-based mainstream. Even when IR scholars take ideas and theories from sociology, they are neither particularly interested in this fact nor capable of recognizing the significance of sociology for the history of the discipline as a whole, being as they are generally uninterested in intellectual history, as discussed in the first section. Despite the difficulty that the scarcity of relevant literature represents, in section two we identify some occasionally important traces of social theory on the IR mainstream, which encompasses both a neorealist and a neoliberal paradigm. By contrast, sociology is intrinsic to most IR scholarship outside the mainstream, which is considered here to be part of a third " reflectivist " paradigm, examined in the third section. Here the focus is set on the sociological elements identifiable in IR constructivism, Marxism, and critical theory, as well as in some European national traditions of inquiry. The conclusion buttresses these arguments with some empirical evidence and makes suggestions for further research. Sociologists have traditionally paid scant attention to International Relations (IR) as a social-scientific discipline 1. A small, but telling piece of evidence on sociologists' lack of interest in IR is the absence of an article on this subject in the fifteen-volume International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (Sills 1968). The successor edition, extended to twenty-six volumes, included only two entries on IR and a few more on area studies (Smelser and Balter 2001); the most recent edition ignored IR altogether, containing not a single entry on the discipline, but included area studies (Wright 2015). This evidence suggests not only that sociologists' ignorance of IR is widespread but also that it has remained fairly constant across time. At least some IR scholars ...

This text provides an introduction to key aspects of contemporary international relations, examining such important issues as the nature of international relations since 1945, war, security and intervention, and problems of sovereignty.

Can International Relations (IR) be studied without reproducing its violence? This is the central question of this article. To investigate this, the first step is to expose the violence that we argue remains at the heart of our discipline. The article thus begins by exploring the disciplinary practices firmly grounded in relations of coloniality that plague disciplines more broadly and IR in particular. An analysis of IR's epistemic violence is followed by an autoethnographic exploration of IR's violent practices, specifically the violent practices in which one of the article's authors knowingly and unknowingly engaged in as part of an impact-related trip to the international compound of Mogadishu International Airport in Somalia. Here the article lays bare how increasing demands on IR scholars to become 'international experts' having impact on the policy world is pushing them more and more into spaces governed by colonial violence they are unable to escape. The final section of this article puts forward a tentative path toward a less violent IR that advocates almost insignificant acts of subversion in our disciplinary approach and practices aimed at exposing and challenging this epistemic and structural violence. The article concludes that IR does not need to be abandoned, but rather, by taking on a position of discomfort, needs to acknowledge its violence and attempt to mitigate it – one almost insignificant step at a time.

"Identity in International Relations" published on by Oxford University Press.

Islam and Western civilization, faith and conflict, theology, and multiculturalism and pluralism; theoretical, religious, and political approaches; 12 articles.

Kinship in international relations: introduction and framework / Iver B. Neumann, Kristin Haugevik and Jon Harald Sande Lie -- Kinship as an international ordering principle in the nineteenth century / Morten Skumsrud Andersen and Benjamin de Carvalho -- Kith, kin and inter-state relations: international politics as family life / Kristin Haugevik -- Kinship diplomacy, or diplomats of a kin / Halvard Leira -- "Brothers in arms": kinship, gender and military organisations / Nina Græger -- Colonized children: Chechnya in Russia / Julie Wilhelmsen -- Brother, where art thou? kinship in Turkish region-building / Einar Wigen -- Kinship in Indian politics: dynasties, nepotism and imagined families / Francesca R. Jensenius -- A command-chain of brothers: kinship in Chinese foreign policy / Bjørnar Sverdrup-Thygeson -- Like grandfather, like grandson: kinship as a legitimating force in Japan's international relations / Wrenn Yennie Lindgren -- Conclusion: the heterogeneity of kinship systems and world politics / Andreas Aagaard Nøhr.

The imagination is at the heart of what it means to be human. For this reason, it has been the subject of close examination across time and locale. Yet, while international relations (IR) researchers often mobilize the term rhetorically, its character and operations remain underconceptualized in the discipline and disconnected from the rich literatures that explore this vital faculty. This article identifies a commonsense account of the imagination in IR's most pervasive discourse on order and anarchy. Taking its cues from the Hobbesian tradition, here a distinctly monological imagination is fearful and pessimistic, rooted in the overriding dread of a sudden and violent death. We draw out its underlying assumptions by foregrounding the deliberate, systematic, and sustained construction of the imagination in Hobbes' Leviathan, where it acts as a crucial and animating impetus for the Hobbesian subject, including in the oft-analogized "state of nature" scenario. We argue that this Hobbesian imagination has been superseded by a multidisciplinary contemporary scholarship that presents a markedly different view. Anyone thinking seriously about the imagination today should disagree with the Hobbesian account, reconsider theories of international relations predicated on it, and explore the political possibilities entailed in other approaches.