Suchergebnisse

There is a great demand for theories in international relations. The term "theory" has become so honorific that hypotheses, statements of fact, and intuitive guesses are often dressed up as theories. In part this longing for theory can be ascribed to a desire for the status of a "hard science" like physics, since the "hard sciences" are often viewed by laymen as the theoretical sciences par excellence. They have displayed their power in revealing the secrets of nature and, when applied to the affairs of men, have achieved notable practical successes like the construction of the atomic bomb.On the whole this demand for theory is probably good. We cannot reason without generalization and, where matters are complex, the web of reasoning logically takes the form of a theory. Most historical investigations and case studies employ theories inexplicitly—often in the belief that the generalizations follow from the straightforward presentation of "purely factual" material. There is usually no recognition that interpretations of factual material can always be presented in a form isomorphic with theories from the sciences of economics, psychology, sociology, and so forth.

How might we have to imagine the Middle East if there were a political thaw between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Could Turkey leave NATO in the near future? What would happen if security-related EU databases were successfully hacked; if South Korea were to arm itself with nuclear weapons; or if an American woman were to head the United Nations? Of course, these situations, as explored in the SWP's latest Foresight research paper, are only hypothetical. Why address them? Because unexpected events have abounded in international politics in recent years. Brexit; the election of Donald Trump as US President; and Russia's annexation of Crimea are only the most striking examples. Science and politics should therefore ready themselves for likely future surprises. The Foresight research paper aims to assist with this. We cannot and do not want to predict the future. However, with the help of systematic foresight we can better prepare for unplanned situations. This means improving our view of conceivable - albeit unlikely - developments that would seriously impact on German and European foreign and security policy. It also includes reviewing previous expectations – as this research paper likewise tackles. What actually happened to the battery revolution that was supposed to secure our power supply? Did the negotiation process on the UK's withdrawal from the EU unfold as experts had anticipated? Such reviews are instructive, and can be used to gain insights for the future. (author's abstract)

Combines perspectives on aesthetics and embodiment to understand militarism in international politicsIllustrates how processes of militarisation operate in the continuum between military institutions and everyday civilian lifeCase studies cover 20th- and 21st-century conflicts on four different continents: from the Middle East and post-socialist Europe to the USA, Britain, Australia and Cuba Offers diverse methodological examples including autoethnography, visual analysis, fashion history, and digital media researchIntegrates social identities including race, sexual orientation, gender identity and disabilityThis vibrant collection of essays reveals the intimate politics of how people with a wide range of relationships to war identify with, and against, the military and its gendered and racialised norms. It synthesises three recent turns in the study of international politics: aesthetics, embodiment and the everyday, into a new conceptual framework. This helps us to understand how militarism permeates society and how far its practices can be re-appropriated or even turned against it. ContributorsCatherine Baker, University of Hull, UK.Federica Caso, University of Queensland, Australia. Dan Evans, independent researcher, support worker and activist. Sorana Jude, Newcastle University, UK. Jennifer G. Mathers, Aberystwyth University, UK.Daniel Møller Ølgaard, Lund University, Sweden.Henri Myrttinen, Mauerpark Institute, GermanyAmy Abugo Ongiri, Lawrence University, USA. Jane Tynan, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London, UK

"This full-term study of the Western European Union (WEU) brings to life the history of Europe's search for a co-operative security and defence order, from its post World War II origins to the present day. Establishing the WEU as a support organization, designed to promote the two security 'ideas' of collective defence and integration through the primary organizations of Alliance and Community, this book offers a window onto the challenges faced in the development and management of NATO and the evolving EC/EU over time. As the WEU's historical journey unfolds, the frequently competing visions of the future organization of the European security space are exposed in the fluctuating nature of its own functional evolution and devolution. A hybrid organization driven by its dual support role, the constructively ambiguous and conveniently autonomous WEU was to provide a mechanism through which divergent interests could converge and inherent tensions be relieved, preventing NATO and EC/EU stagnation. This book offers fresh insight into the means by which the gradual transformation of the institutional framework of European security was enabled, and stakes the WEU's claim as a fundamental and life-long contributor to the stability of the European security system."

Big technology companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon amass global power through classification algorithms. These algorithms use unsupervised and semi-supervised machine learning on massive databases to detect objects, such as faces, and to process texts, such as speech, to model predictions for commercial and political purposes. Such governance by algorithms—or "algorithmic governance"—has received critical scrutiny from a vast interdisciplinary scholarship that points to algorithmic harms related to mass surveillance, information pollution, behavioral herding, bias, and discrimination. Big Tech's algorithmic governance implicates core IR research in two ways: (1) it creates new private authorities as corporations control critical bottlenecks of knowledge, connection, and desire; and (2) it mediates the scope of state–corporate relations as states become dependent on Big Tech, Big Tech circumvents state overreach, and states curtail Big Tech. As such, IR scholars should become more involved in the global research on algorithmic governance.

Benutzerkommentar