Suchergebnisse

This article analyses the scholarly debate on the Brexit phenomenon and its possible causes. By contextualizing Brexit in the International Relations Theory debate about the levels of analysis, the article focuses on some of the most recent contributions of the Brexit literature. Firstly, it analyses the contributions that explain Brexit as a problem of international and European politics, related to the adaptation of the United Kingdom to the process of European integration. Secondly, it analyses the contributions that explain Brexit as the result of causes located at the domestic level, such as the decisions and perceptions of national leaders, the decision-making process, and the impact of populist and Eurosceptic political discourse. The article identifies the advantages of an approach capable of considering both international and domestic variables. This allows a deeper understanding of the phenomenon and a potentially fruitful collaboration between political scientists from different disciplines, such as International Relations Theory and Comparative Politics. ; El presente artículo analiza el debate académico sobre el Brexit y sus posibles causas. A través de una contextualización del Brexit en el debate sobre los niveles de análisis en la Teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales, el artículo examina algunas de las aportaciones más recientes sobre el tema. En primer lugar, se enfoca en las contribuciones que explican el Brexit como un problema de política internacional y europea, relacionado con el complejo encaje del Reino Unido en el proceso de integración comunitaria. En segundo lugar, toma en cuenta las aportaciones que explican el Brexit como el resultado de causas ubicadas en el nivel doméstico, en las que destacan las decisiones y percepciones de los líderes nacionales, los procesos de toma de decisión, y el impacto de los discursos políticos populistas y euroescépticos. El artículo evidencia las ventajas de un enfoque capaz de tener en cuenta tanto las variables internacionales como las variables domésticas. Esto permite, por un lado, una comprensión más profunda del fenómeno y, por el otro, una fructuosa colaboración entre politólogos procedentes de diferentes disciplinas, como la Teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales y la Política Comparada.

AbstractTwenty years after the NATO intervention in Kosovo, domestic Western societies seem to have become more distrustful of the possibility of invoking and implementing humanitarian intervention (HI). This paper focuses on the 2011–2015 British domestic debate on the possibility of using force against the Syrian Government of Bashar al-Assad and against the Islamic State in Syrian territory. The goal is to understand how relevant domestic actors, namely the Government and the political parties, debated the concept of HI and engaged in several discursive strategies with the goal of influencing the decision on whether or not to intervene. The perception of the Members of Parliament about the failure of previous British governments of different ideological affiliations to carry out successful and useful interventions, especially in Iraq and Libya, favoured the development of an 'intersubjective understanding' that reflects a more precarious consensus on HI. The paper explains how the historical analogies of operationsIraqi Freedomagainst Saddam Hussein andUnified Protectoragainst Muammar Gaddafi shaped the perceptions of political parties by pushing them to claim a larger say in disputes related to the legitimacy and feasibility of these operations.